Judge Ian MacLaren Misconduct Case Exposes Challenges in Colorado’s Judicial Reform Implementation

On Monday, December 1, 2025, The Journal published an article highlighting a significant gap in Colorado’s judicial reform efforts, specifically concerning the case of Montezuma County Judge Ian MacLaren.

The article, titled “Montezuma Judge MacLaren’s misconduct case shows gap in Colorado’s judicial reform,” delves into the challenges arising from the delayed implementation of Amendment H, a measure designed to enhance transparency and accountability in judicial discipline proceedings.

Amendment H, overwhelmingly approved by 73% of Colorado voters in November 2024, aimed to overhaul the judicial discipline process by establishing a three-person Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board and removing the Colorado Supreme Court from directly overseeing such cases. The board comprises a judge, a lawyer, and a citizen volunteer. However, the absence of clearly defined rules and procedures for prehearing discovery under the new amendment has created a legal quandary in MacLaren’s case.

Judge MacLaren is facing allegations of misconduct stemming from an incident in early September. The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline filed a complaint accusing him of abusing his judicial power during a hearing related to Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 Superintendent Harry (Tom) Burris, who was cited for misdemeanor failure to report an allegation of child abuse. The complaint alleges MacLaren scheduled the hearing to publicly criticize Burris, presuming his guilt and inviting media coverage to enhance his own image. Additionally, MacLaren is accused of leveraging his position to avoid a ticket for an expired boat registration. The commission further alleges that MacLaren misrepresented the truth when questioned about these matters.

The core dispute revolves around which set of rules should govern the prehearing phase, particularly concerning discovery and scheduling. MacLaren’s attorney, Kevin McGreevy, argued that applying the old rules could infringe upon the judge’s due process rights and impede the defense’s ability to adequately prepare. McGreevy proposed utilizing the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure instead, a framework typically applied in civil cases.

In response, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, represented by Special Counsel Jeffrey Walsh, agreed to the use of civil rules but maintained that a case management order could still draw upon pre-Amendment H guidelines. The commission suggested that both parties collaborate on a unique joint case management order, subject to modification by the adjudicative board.

Judge Vincente Vigil, who chairs the Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board overseeing MacLaren’s case, stated that the panel intends to “follow the spirit” of the old rules in the absence of specific Amendment H regulations. While acknowledging the difficulty of adhering to the previous standard of holding a hearing within 91 days of the at-issue date, Vigil affirmed the board’s intention to honor the old rules’ intent.

The commission emphasized the importance of a swift resolution in the public interest, asserting that the facts of the case are largely undisputed, the number of witnesses is relatively small, and the volume of documentary evidence is expected to be limited. They urged that discovery disputes not cause further delays.

The outcome of the proceedings will determine whether MacLaren retains his position as a judge. MacLaren’s counsel has acknowledged “imperfect decisions” by the judge but denies other allegations, accusing the commission of overreaching and making incorrect assumptions.