On Thursday, October 2, 2025, Colorado Politics reported that Montezuma County Judge Ian J. MacLaren is challenging allegations of misconduct that threaten his position on the bench. In his formal response, MacLaren asserts that any errors he made in judgment do not justify the severity of disciplinary action being sought against him, and he denies intentionally misleading disciplinary authorities.

The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline leveled accusations against MacLaren in early September. These accusations include claims that he conducted an unauthorized hearing in a criminal matter, misrepresented his actions related to that hearing, and inappropriately leveraged his judicial status to gain preferential treatment regarding a civil infraction. MacLaren, in his September 29 response, suggests that any misinterpretations of criminal procedure stemmed from his relative inexperience as a judge and his lack of a background in criminal law.

Kevin M. McGreevy, MacLaren’s legal representative, argues that the commission is attempting to remove MacLaren before voters have had a chance to decide whether to retain him, based on decisions made within his first seven months on the job. McGreevy contends that these “less-than-perfect” decisions are not grounds for such a drastic measure.

Governor Jared Polis initially appointed MacLaren to the Dolores County Court as a part-time judge in May 2024. Several months later, he was appointed to the Montezuma County Court as a full-time judge. Before becoming a judge, MacLaren served as the Montezuma County attorney.

A three-member panel will formally consider the allegations against MacLaren. The panel consists of Weld County District Court Judge Vincente G. Vigil, former Pueblo County District Attorney Jeff Chostner, and Jeannie Valliere, who is not an attorney. This process is mandated by a constitutional amendment that Colorado voters approved last November.

Jeffrey M. Walsh, the Special Counsel in the case, stated in the September 8 complaint that the numerous misrepresentations MacLaren allegedly made to the commission indicate more than simple mistakes.

The allegations originate from MacLaren’s handling of the case involving Montezuma-Cortez School District Superintendent Tom Burris, who faced a misdemeanor charge for allegedly failing to report a suspected sexual relationship between a teacher and a student. In February, a diversion agreement was proposed, requiring Burris to undergo training on mandatory reporting obligations and to avoid criminal activity. In return, the case would be dismissed.

Despite the legal requirement to halt proceedings given the diversion agreement, MacLaren scheduled a hearing and contacted a reporter, suggesting she attend. During the hearing, MacLaren questioned the diversion agreement’s suitability, even after Deputy District Attorney Justin H. Pierce cited relevant law and precedent, arguing that MacLaren was “not in compliance” by holding the hearing.

MacLaren acknowledged that he was not able to act on the diversion agreement but proceeded to comment extensively on the allegations against Burris, describing the agreement as a lenient “slap on the wrist.” Cameryn Cass, a reporter for The Cortez Journal, published an article about the hearing, including an unauthorized photograph taken in the courtroom. MacLaren later sent a text message stating that he “like(d) that picture!”

Anne Mangiardi, the director of the discipline commission, invited MacLaren to respond to a misconduct complaint on April 24. MacLaren responded on May 20, claiming that the hearing was intended to ensure transparency. However, the commission asserts that several of MacLaren’s statements were demonstrably false, including his claim that holding a hearing for diversion agreements was standard practice.

Furthermore, MacLaren denied suggesting that Cass attend or cover the hearing, attempting to generate press coverage, or providing her with “news tips,” claims that are contradicted by his text exchanges with the reporter.

In a separate incident, Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials contacted MacLaren on two consecutive days in June while he was boating on McPhee Reservoir. According to reports, MacLaren admitted on the first encounter that he knew he needed to register his boat but had not done so. The following day, he claimed to have experienced technical difficulties while attempting to register online and stated he lacked the time to register in person due to his position as a judge.

Walsh’s complaint notes that the wildlife officers hesitated to issue a ticket to MacLaren due to concerns about how it might affect future cases involving CPW officers in his courtroom.

In his response, MacLaren contends that the commission’s account is an exaggeration and makes inaccurate assumptions in an attempt to remove him from his position. He argues that his handling of the diversion agreement was appropriate and claims that he was not obligated to halt the case because Burris’ attorney had not properly signed the agreement. This contradicts his earlier statement during the hearing.

MacLaren also denies that his text message to Cass constituted an invitation to the hearing. McGreevy stated that MacLaren merely provided Cass with the hearing’s date and time and did not lie to the commission about their communications.

MacLaren admitted that he had not handled other diversion agreement cases identically to the Burris case but claimed his response to Mangiardi was based on his recollection before reviewing relevant cases. He also suggested that it is more common for diversion agreements to be announced in court, which led him to believe the Burris agreement needed to be addressed in court as well.

Finally, MacLaren acknowledged that mentioning his position as a judge to the wildlife officers was a mistake. McGreevy explained that MacLaren was only trying to explain why it was difficult to obtain a permit during the week, but should not have mentioned his judicial status. However, the response did not address why MacLaren continued boating without a permit on Sunday after being contacted on Saturday.

McGreevy concludes that while MacLaren acknowledges making errors, they do not warrant his removal from office.

 

 

Source: Colorado Politics