On Friday, January 10, 2025, Colorado Politics reported that Colorado’s judicial discipline commission issued a detailed report highlighting ethical violations among state judges regarding financial disclosure. The report revealed that 27 judges were admonished for failing to submit their financial disclosures on time out of a total of 48 who did not comply with the legal requirements. However, the commission opted against imposing public discipline, citing the context of ongoing national scrutiny surrounding ethical lapses at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline stated that while the judges violated disclosure laws, the specific circumstances of each case influenced their decision not to pursue public sanctions. The commission referenced the recent controversies involving Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who faced criticism for not fully reporting financial gifts from wealthy donors. The commission noted that these high-profile issues contributed to a broader perception of impropriety that affected public confidence in the judiciary.

Judicial ethics experts found the commission’s report significant. Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal judge and executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute, remarked that the commission’s willingness to address the Supreme Court’s ethical issues was unusual for state judicial bodies, which typically aim to avoid political controversy and maintain a measured approach in public statements.

The commission’s report was released ahead of scheduled judicial oversight hearings in the Colorado legislature and marked a notable increase in complaints filed against judges. In 2024, the commission received 368 requests for evaluation, more than double the amount from 2014, and an increase of 6% from 2023. Most of these requests were dismissed, as many did not pertain to actual judicial misconduct.

Among the cases discussed in the report, three trial judges faced public discipline last year, leading to their resignations. The judges involved were D. Brett Woods from the Denver Juvenile Court, John E. Scipione from the 18th Judicial District, and Robert W. Kiesnowski Jr. from the 17th Judicial District. Additionally, one unnamed judge was suspended while undergoing an ongoing disciplinary process.

The commission focused particularly on the issue of judges failing to submit their annual financial disclosures to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office. Reports indicated that numerous judges, including semi-retired senior judges, had not filed their disclosures for one or more years. In response, the Judicial Department initiated training for its members to ensure compliance with disclosure laws.

The commission noted that the failure to file disclosures coincided with heightened national media attention on the ethical conduct of U.S. Supreme Court justices. Specifically, the commission referenced the allegations against Justices Alito and Thomas regarding unreported gifts, which have sparked public concern about judicial integrity. Alito has denied any wrongdoing, while Thomas criticized the reports as misleading.

In the course of its investigation, the commission asked the judges identified in the media reports to address their alleged violations. However, they chose not to open formal disciplinary cases for judges whose appointment dates created ambiguity regarding their filing responsibilities, as well as for senior judges who were given guidance stating that they only needed to submit disclosures to the Judicial Department, not the Secretary of State.

The commission concluded that public discipline was not warranted for the judges identified in the Denver Gazette’s reporting, despite acknowledging that any judge who failed to file even one required financial disclosure had technically broken the law. The report indicated that no evidence of dishonesty was found among the judges in question, and none presided over cases with personal financial implications.

In the commission’s findings, 15 cases were dismissed with an expression of concern, while 11 judges received private reprimands, and one judge was privately censured. One member of the commission, Judge Bonnie McLean, was among those identified as not having filed disclosures. The report revealed that she recused herself from disciplinary matters on five occasions during commission meetings.

Additionally, the commission noted that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against one of its own members, though details were not disclosed, and a separate panel was formed to handle the case. Despite the circumstances, the commission maintained that it did not impose broad penalties on all judges who violated the law, emphasizing that collective punishment would be unfair to individuals whose conduct was unrelated to others’ misconduct.

The report concluded with the commission explaining its approach, stating that it preferred to apply a more nuanced method rather than imposing blanket discipline. The commission argued that punishing judges for the actions of others would violate principles of fairness and due process.

 

 

Source: Colorado Politics