The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline on Monday announced formal proceedings against Montezuma County Court Judge Ian MacLaren of the 22nd Judicial District regarding his conduct surrounding a diversion agreement for Montezuma-Cortez Superintendent Tom Burris in February.
The proceedings against MacLaren emerged after he called a diversion agreement that was reached for Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 Superintendent Harry (Tom) Burris a “slap on the wrist.”
The complaint alleges that MacLaren committed multiple forms of judicial misconduct, including scheduling a hearing intentionally to criticize Burris; presuming Burris to be guilty; intentionally inviting the press to advance his own self-image; and in a separate matter, using his position to sway Colorado Parks and Wildlife officers from giving him a ticket for an expired boat registration.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that when asked by the commission about these matters, MacLaren misrepresented the truth.
“Judges are guardians of the honesty and integrity that are the foundation for the public’s confidence in our justice system,” the complaint reads. “Put simply, Judge McLaren can’t credibly swear in witnesses to ‘tell the truth’ if he can’t do the same. Given this, the Commission on Judicial Discipline, regretfully, is compelled to seek removal.”
In August 2024, Burris was charged with a Class 2 misdemeanor for failing to report alleged sexual abuse of a student by a teacher. An investigation found that no abuse had occurred.
During the hearing on Feb. 25, MacLaren criticized the diversion agreement, which called for Burris to undergo training.
“It is alleged that a report was made to the RE-1 School Board, and it is alleged that Mr. Burris, the superintendent of the school district, failed to report those allegations to law enforcement,” he said.
“Sitting here, I’m very disturbed that those reports weren’t made,” MacLaren said. “Looking at the diversion agreement, this looks to me to be a slap on the wrist.”
After MacLaren’s comments to Burris, Assistant District Attorney Justin Pierce questioned MacLaren’s judgment and experience, while Burris’ defense attorney, David Illingworth, called the judge’s comments “totally inappropriate.”
On April 15, 22nd District Attorney Jeremy Reed filed a motion to disqualify MacLaren from the Burris case, and remove him from ruling on the case because he failed to meet standards of impartiality. By April 28, however, the court had denied the motion.
On April 24, Anne Mangiardi, executive director of Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, emailed MacLaren, asking for a response regarding MacLaren’s choice to hold a hearing for Burris after a diversion agreement was signed by both parties. Mangiardia also questions why MacLaren denied Burris’s request to waive his presence at the hearing.
The letter takes a step further, asking MacLaren whether he had invited former Journal reporter Cameryn Cass to attend the hearing or whether he permitted her to take a photograph in the courtroom. The letter also asked about the nature of MacLaren’s relationship with Cass.
Cass, now a freelance reporter for The Journal, covered the February diversion agreement hearing while she was a full-time reporter for The Journal.
In a letter dated May 20, MacLaren responded in writing to the commission’s questions, saying that he ordered a hearing for the sake of public transparency.
“There was grave risk, from my perspective, that staying proceedings absent a hearing would cast the illusion that things were being done ‘behind closed doors,“’ the letter reads.
Regarding his “slap on the wrist” comments about the diversion agreement, MacLaren wrote that he had upheld judicial integrity, respected the presumption of innocence, and held no ill will toward Burris.
“That said, I wanted to be clear that my signature on the order staying proceedings was in no way indicative of my comfort or agreement with the disposition,” MacLaren wrote.
With regards to his interaction with The Journal, MacLaren said that although he answered a question from Cass about the date and time of the hearing to save time, he did not invite her to attend.
“At no point did I suggest that she attend or cover the hearing, and at no point did I discuss any facts about the case with her,” his letter says.
“I knew that the press had been previous (sic) at previous hearings in the case, and I didn’t feel as if providing the date and time of the hearing would cause harm,” he said.
MacLaren’s relationship with Cass became a focal point for the commission.
“I would describe our relationship as more than friends but less than being an official couple,” he wrote. “We have gone on what I would describe as ‘dates,’ and we have spent time together as just friends. It is fair to say that at times we have been romantically involved.”
MacLaren said the relationship did not affect performance of his job.
“Nothing about our relationship has influenced my ability to do my job in an unbiased, impartial, and honest way,” he wrote.
Cass told The Journal that she refuted any romantic relationship between the two of them.
“He was a friend,” she said. “We were never physically or romantically involved.”
“I was always just trying to get the story and be in the know,” she said.
The commission did not present evidence from Cass other than her text messages shared with MacLaren.
Texts between MacLaren and Cass, often conveyed in a friendly tone, were presented as evidence in the complaint and complicated some details.
“Happy Monday! You might wanna take a quick glance at tomorrow's County Court docket ;)” MacLaren wrote to Cass prior to the Burris hearing.
When Cass asked about a condemnation of Burris, MacLaren responded: “No comment on any possible condemnation ;).”
In his letter to the commission, MacLaren said that after the Burris hearing, a court administrator had approached the judge, informing him that a photo had been posted to The Journal website of the courtroom and asking him if he had granted permission for it to be taken.
MacLaren said he told the administrator that he did not authorize the photo. MacLaren also said he was not entirely aware of the district’s specific policy. The administrator informed MacLaren that he would reach out to The Journal regarding the photo.
Along with a link to her article about the hearing, Cass sent MacLaren the photo she took in the courtroom, asking permission to use it.
Later, MacLaren responds: “Sorry, I just saw your texts! I like that picture! And great article! You captured things perfectly!”
On July 14, 22nd DA Jeremy Reed filed a motion to reconsider the initial motion to disqualify MacLaren.
Proceedings against MacLaren will be heard by a panel of three – a district judge, a lawyer and a citizen – making up the Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board. The panel, in turn, will decide on an “imposition of discipline,” according to a news release from the state’s Commission on Judicial Discipline on Monday.
The Commission on Judicial Discipline is an independent agency that addresses complaints of judicial misconduct.
The Adjudicative Board is tasked with handling the conduct of judges and deciding what future awaits MacLaren.
