On Thursday, April 9, 2026, Colorado Politics reported that the Colorado Supreme Court made a ruling regarding the state’s private judges, who are typically retired jurists appointed to oversee civil cases that do not often face public scrutiny. The court decided to overrule a decades-long prohibition, now allowing these judges to make political contributions freely and without reserve.

This decision follows a Denver Gazette investigation a year prior, which shed light on the state’s lesser-known system of justice. This system involves appointed judges who exclusively handle divorces for Colorado’s wealthiest residents. In addition, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline is considering a rule to bring these judges under its jurisdiction, an oversight that had gone unnoticed until recent reports by The Denver Gazette in March 2025. Currently, the commission has jurisdiction over all sitting judges, whether retired or not, except for these appointed ones.

For nearly two decades, Colorado has maintained a two-tiered process for civil cases: one for the general public and another, more secretive one, for the wealthy and well-known. Cases involving private judges often occur outside of public view, ensuring a level of secrecy not accessible to those of average means. Litigants who have hired private judges in Colorado range from the founder and frontman of the heavy metal rock group Metallica, to the former U.S. ambassador to Austria, the former co-CEO of Chipotle Mexican Grill, and locally-known figures like former Colorado Avalanche Mark Rycroft.

Former 10th Judicial District Chief Judge Dennis Maes commented on the change, noting the difference between a retired judge handling occasional cases and those handling many cases at once. The Denver Gazette also revealed that at least a half-dozen appointed judges made political campaign contributions, sometimes dozens of times, totaling thousands of dollars, which was prohibited by the Judicial Code of Conduct they agreed to uphold.

The change came about following a suggestion from the discipline commission, which found little difference between the exemption appointed judges had for buying tickets to political fundraisers. Commission executive director Anne Mangiardi stated that the commission suggested the change to the Court after considering the public policy reasons behind the prohibition. The commission reasoned that both campaign donations, which are publicly disclosed and available to the parties in the case, and campaign events should be treated the same.

Mangiardi wrote to the Supreme Court that litigants who hire a private judge can seek information about contributions themselves, as their appointment must come from the chief justice of the court. She added that parties in these proceedings choose the appointed judge and may review public records of campaign donations before seeking that appointment. Judicial Department spokeswoman Suzanne Karrer stated that the court agreed with the Commission’s recommendations and rationale in making the exemption.

According to The Denver Gazette, none of the dozens of private judges identified, except for one, had filed a personal financial disclosure statement revealing potential conflicts of interest since leaving the bench, despite the requirement for all other types of jurists.

Ordinarily, the discipline commission would consider such matters, especially after a handful of people whose cases were handled by a private judge filed a complaint, but the body determined it had no jurisdiction because its rules didn’t explicitly say so.

The proposed rule change is scheduled for a public hearing on April 23, after which the commission will vote on whether to adopt it.

In 2023, The Denver Gazette revealed that one in six sitting judges in Colorado had not filed the required disclosures, some for several years, which is a misdemeanor. The commission initiated discipline proceedings against 48 active judges for not filing their disclosures, issuing private discipline against 11, censuring one, dismissing 15 cases “with concern,” and dismissing the remainder outright. The commission determined that “no evidence exists that any judge was dishonest or improperly secretive in disclosing their financial interests.”

The state’s private judge system is essentially a cottage industry, where the same retired judges are regularly appointed and work for the same company. Their average hourly cost is approximately $450, roughly five times what they were paid while on the bench and pricier than some of the costliest divorce lawyers.

One litigant described the system as a “money grab,” with expenses running into tens of thousands of dollars more than initially estimated. The Denver Gazette found that none of the cases contained a financial accounting of what the private judge was ultimately paid, despite requirements.

Also unchanged is the lack of any prohibition on a retired judge with a history of discipline from serving as an appointed judge, despite such a bar from serving as a senior judge, which has occurred at least once in Colorado.

 

 

Source: Colorado Politics