On Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Colorado Politics reported that a member of a judicial discipline panel was removed from a case involving San Miguel County Court Judge Sean K. Murphy, while a separate judge, Montezuma County Court Judge Ian J. MacLaren, is challenging the protocols being used in his own disciplinary proceedings.

The removal of the panel member, Leanne Wheeler, a non-attorney, from Judge Murphy’s case came after Denver District Court Judge J. Eric Elliff, representing himself and attorney member Jeff Chostner, filed a motion with the Colorado Supreme Court on November 17. The motion alleged that Wheeler had been unresponsive to at least six emails regarding the case.

Judge Elliff stated that Wheeler’s lack of communication indicated her inability or unwillingness to serve on the panel. Subsequently, on November 19, State Court Administrator Steven Vasconcellos selected Colleen McManamon, another non-attorney from the candidate pool, to replace Wheeler. Wheeler did not respond to requests for comment from Colorado Politics.

Judge Murphy is facing allegations of misconduct, including chronic delays in issuing decisions, unusual behavior such as yelling at a clerk, making litigants wait in a blizzard, and appearing for virtual court with a partially undressed man visible in the background.

Through his attorney, Murphy has indicated that he will not contest the Supreme Court’s October 27 order suspending him from the bench. He has also requested an extension until mid-December to respond to the misconduct allegations, noting that the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline does not oppose the request and that both sides have begun discussions about a potential resolution.

Meanwhile, Judge MacLaren is challenging the protocols being used in his disciplinary case. He filed a motion in response to a development at an October 31 status conference with his adjudicative panel. The conference, which does not appear to have been publicly advertised, prompted questions about the lack of notice. Judge MacLaren’s motion stated that the panel intended to follow the “spirit” of the judicial discipline rules that were in place before the passage of Amendment H in November 2024.

MacLaren argues that Amendment H was intended to repeal those rules and that the protocols governing civil cases should apply until a new rule-making body approves specific procedures for judicial discipline. According to attorney Kevin M. McGreevy, applying the “spirit” of the old rules could lead to inconsistent application of justice in judicial discipline cases, as different adjudicative boards might interpret the rules differently.

In response, Jeffrey M. Walsh, special counsel for the discipline commission, clarified that Judge Vincente G. Vigil, the judge member of MacLaren’s panel, acknowledged that the timeline for holding a disciplinary hearing under the old rules was impractical. Vigil suggested following the “spirit” of the rules when establishing the framework for evidence discovery. Walsh also pointed out that civil rules allow judges to deviate from them when necessary, arguing that Judge MacLaren’s demand for uniformity is explicitly rejected by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Separately, the Judicial Discipline Rule-Making Committee approved five new or revised discipline rules on November 19, following a hearing last month.

 

 

Source: Colorado Politics