Delayed Amendment H rules leave judge's misconduct case in limbo, timing disputed

Colorado’s overhaul of judicial discipline procedures promised greater transparency and accountability, but the delay in adopting implementing rules has left an early, high profile case without clear procedures. The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline filed a complaint against 22nd Judicial District Judge Ian MacLaren alleging misuse of office, including scheduling a performative hearing to criticize Montezuma Cortez RE 1 Superintendent Harry Tom Burris over a misdemeanor failure to report allegation, attempting to influence Parks and Wildlife officers about an expired boat registration citation, and misrepresenting facts during the inquiry. The commission sought removal.

The parties are locked in a procedural dispute about what framework should guide prehearing discovery and scheduling while rulemaking for Amendment H is incomplete. MacLaren’s attorney Kevin McGreevy argued in a November 15 motion that applying the rules that existed before Amendment H could violate due process and urged use of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. The commission’s Special Counsel Jeffrey Walsh responded on November 21 by agreeing to use civil procedure rules but suggesting a case management order could nonetheless rely on the prior procedures and pressing for a prompt hearing.

Judge Vincente Vigil, who chairs the new Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board that will decide the case, acknowledged the gap and said his panel will "follow the spirit" of the old rules. That matters because the previous standards called for holding a hearing within 91 days of the at issue date, a timeline Vigil said his board may find difficult to meet while still intending to honor the old rules intent.

Amendment H, approved by voters in November 2024, created a three member Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board with a judge, a lawyer and a citizen and removed the Colorado Supreme Court from the discipline process. With the implementing rules still under development, how the board handles this early case will set a practical precedent for schedule expectations, discovery limits and what procedures litigants must follow going forward.

For Dolores County residents the dispute is not abstract. The outcome could influence the speed and fairness of judicial accountability across the region and determine whether a sitting judge in neighboring Montezuma County remains on the bench. Attempts to reach MacLaren and his counsel were unsuccessful at the time of reporting. Readers seeking primary documents can consult the commission’s public filings on ccjd.colorado.gov.