On Monday, September 8, 2025, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline filed a complaint against Montezuma County Court Judge Ian J. MacLaren, seeking his removal from office. The complaint, submitted to the Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board, alleges multiple instances of misconduct.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Ian J. MacLaren.”

The Commission’s action stems from two primary incidents: Judge MacLaren’s handling of a diversion agreement in a criminal case involving Montezuma-Cortez School District Superintendent Tom Burris, and a separate incident where Judge MacLaren was stopped by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) officers for operating a boat with expired registration stickers.

In the Burris case, Judge MacLaren is accused of improperly interfering with a diversion agreement reached between the prosecution and defense. According to the complaint, after a diversion agreement was filed on February 6, 2025, which should have resulted in a stay of proceedings, Judge MacLaren ordered the parties to appear in court on February 25, 2025, under the guise of a hearing. The Commission alleges that Judge MacLaren invited a reporter to the hearing and used the opportunity to publicly criticize the agreement, the district attorney, and Mr. Burris. The Commission contends that this was done to generate publicity and promote MacLaren’s image.

The complaint further alleges that Judge MacLaren made false representations to the Commission regarding his actions in the Burris case. These alleged misrepresentations include denying that he solicited media coverage of the hearing, falsely claiming that he consistently requires hearings for all diversion agreements, and dishonesty about his understanding of the term “in open court”. The Commission also accuses MacLaren of misrepresenting the types of cases in which he finds diversion acceptable and falsely stating that he did not see the reporter, Cameryn Cass, at the diversion hearing.

The second incident involves Judge MacLaren being stopped by CPW officers on two consecutive days in June 2025 for operating a boat with expired registration stickers. The Commission alleges that during the second encounter, Judge MacLaren identified himself as a judge in an apparent attempt to avoid being ticketed or being allowed to continue boating despite the expired registration. The CPW officers, aware that MacLaren was a judge, hesitated to issue a ticket due to concerns about how it might affect future cases in his courtroom. After discussing the situation, the officers decided to issue a ticket to Judge MacLaren. However, their hesitation highlights why judges should refrain from invoking their judicial status during interactions with law enforcement.

The Commission argues that Judge MacLaren’s conduct in both incidents violates several Canons of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct. These include Canon Rule 1.2 (Appearance of Impropriety), Canon Rule 1.3 (Abuse of the Prestige of Office), Canon Rule 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), Canon Rule 2.3(A) (Bias and Prejudice), Canon Rule 2.4 (External Influences on Judicial Conduct), Canon Rule 2.6(A) (Ensuring the Right to be Heard), and Canon Rule 2.16(A) (Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities).

Specifically, the Commission claims that Judge MacLaren abused the prestige of his office by scheduling the diversion hearing to promote his own self-interest and by alluding to his judicial status to gain favorable treatment from the CPW officers. They also allege that he violated Canon Rule 2.2 by failing to be objective and open-minded in the Burris case, and Canon Rule 2.6(A) by refusing to let Mr. Burris speak at the diversion hearing.

As a result of these alleged violations, the Commission is seeking Judge MacLaren’s removal from office and public censure.

The complaint said:

“It is the Commission’s position that Judge MacLaren cannot be both censured for lying to the Commission and also remain on the bench as a judge. This would profoundly undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary.”

A copy of the original filing can be found here.