About the Commission

The Commission's authority and procedures derive from Article VI, Section 23(3) of the Colorado Constitution; the Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline ("Colo. RJD" or "the Rules"); and the Canons regarding judicial conduct (the “Canons”) found in the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct (the “Code”).

The Commission is comprised of ten citizens who serve without compensation other than the reimbursement of expenses incurred in their duties, such as travel expenses to attend meetings. Members include two county court judges and two district court judges who are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; two lawyers, appointed by the Governor; and four citizens who are not currently lawyers or judges, also appointed by the Governor. The Commission appoints an Executive Director who manages the Commission's Office of Judicial Discipline and oversees the Commission's operations. The Commission sets its meeting schedule as needed to consider complaints and conduct other business, but generally meets bi-monthly.

The Colorado Office of Judicial Discipline performs administrative functions on behalf of the Commission. The Office is composed of the Executive Director, Special Counsel, Office Manager, Investigator and Paralegal.

The Executive Director responds to inquiries about judicial ethics from citizens and judges; prepares the Commission's Annual Report; participates in national organizations that focus on judicial discipline; exchanges information on procedural and administrative issues with disciplinary agencies in other states; meets with judges periodically in each of the state's 22 judicial districts regarding the Canons and Rules; and makes presentations regarding judicial misconduct issues at conferences and continuing education programs for judges.

Requests for Evaluation

Concerns about a judge’s compliance with the Canons should be reported to the Commission by submitting the online Request for Evaluation of Judicial Conduct (RFE) found on this website or mailing the completed form to the Office of Judicial Discipline. The Executive Director can make arrangements to accommodate disabled persons who have difficulty filing a written RFE. The Commission is also authorized to initiate disciplinary proceedings on its own motion. 

The Executive Director, with assistance from staff, will conduct a preliminary review of the allegations to determine whether they involve the conduct of a judge and provide a reasonable basis for the Commission to process the RFE as a complaint through disciplinary proceedings.  Allegations that involve disputes about a judge’s decisions or that, based on the Executive Director’s review, do not provide sufficient evidence of misconduct to satisfy the reasonable basis standard in Colo. RJD 13(c) for establishing a violation of the Canons will not be referred to the members of the Commission for consideration. In the absence of a reasonable basis for disciplinary proceedings, the Executive Director and staff will close the file and advise the requestor by letter of the reasons for its decision. If there is a reasonable basis for a complaint, the judge is notified and asked to respond to the allegations, and the Commission will conduct a thorough investigation of the alleged misconduct.

Under Colo. RJD 5, grounds for disciplinary action include:

• Willful misconduct, including misconduct that, although not related to judicial duties, brings the judicial office into disrepute or is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
• Willful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties;
• Intemperance, including extreme or immoderate personal behavior, recurring loss of temper or control, abuse of alcohol or medications, or the use of illegal narcotic or dangerous drugs; and
• A violation of the Canons (contained in the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct).

Disciplinary Proceedings

Upon a finding of judicial misconduct, the Commission considers the disposition of the complaint at a meeting. The dispositions available (either singly or in combination) include:

• Dismissal of a complaint in which misconduct cannot be established by a preponderance of the evidence. The Commission may opt to accompany the dismissal with a statement of concern. This serves an educational function for the judge by educating them on a particular aspect of judges’ ethical obligations. 
• “Admonish[ing] the subject judge privately for an appearance of impropriety, even though the Judge’s behavior otherwise meets the minimum standards of judicial conduct.” Colo. RJD 35(d);
• Privately reprimanding the subject judge “for conduct that does not meet the minimum standards of judicial conduct.” Colo. RJD 35(e);
• Privately censuring the subject judge for misconduct that “which involves a substantial breach of the standards of judicial conduct.” Colo. RJD 35(f); 
• Requiring a diversion plan in which the judge obtains training, counseling, or medical treatment or provides periodic docket management reports to the Commission. Colo. RJD 35(c); 
• Entering a stipulated private disposition, which could include the judge’s resignation or retirement. Colo. RJD 35(h);
• Initiating disability proceedings if it appears the judge may be unable to perform judicial duties; and
• Commencing formal proceedings, at which time the matter becomes public.

Formal proceedings are now public and will now be heard by a panel of three members of the Adjudicative Board, including one District Court judge, one lawyer, and one citizen. Formal proceedings may result in any of the following: 

• Suspension without pay for a specified period;
• Removal from office or retirement;
• Public reprimand or censure;
• Private dispositions under Colo. RJD 35; and/or
• Measures reasonably necessary to curtail or eliminate the judge’s misconduct, such as a diversion plan or deferred discipline plan.

The Commission's Annual Reports summarize the types of complaints considered and acted upon by the Commission.