Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS)

Q: Should my Request for Evaluation of Judicial Conduct (RFE) be typewritten?

A: Typewritten or word-processed RFEs are preferred, but legible handwritten RFEs are acceptable.

Q: Who can submit the RFE?

A: Anyone who is familiar with the facts of the alleged judicial misconduct may file the RFE. While the person filing the RFE is usually a litigant, RFEs may be filed by family members, spectators, lawyers, jurors, or others who have knowledge of the alleged misconduct.

Q: May I fax or email the RFE?

A: The Commission prefers original, signed documents but will accept faxed and emailed RFEs. Please understand that while the Commission will accept RFEs through email, responses from the Commission will generally be sent through regular mail.

Q:Should I meet personally with the Executive Director to explain my RFE?

A: Normally this is not necessary. The Executive Director will contact you if a personal interview is necessary.

Q: Should I explain my RFE to the Executive Director by phone?

A: It is helpful to have a conversation with the Executive Director or the Commission’s administrative assistant before filing, so that you understand what is required. You may contact the Commission at any time to provide additional information.

Q: Should I submit copies of court orders, exhibits, or other documentation that was part of the trial?

A: Court orders and exhibits that document the alleged misconduct are useful to the Commission. Use your best judgment in submitting written materials that may be relevant. Do not submit anything that does not bear on the alleged misconduct.

Q: Is it necessary to obtain statements of other persons who witnessed the acts that I believe involved judicial conduct?

A: It is helpful to provide statements from other parties who have firsthand knowledge of what occurred, but each complaint is unique. The Commission does not require or prohibit the submission of such statements.

Q: Do I have to submit transcripts or recordings of the proceedings?

A: If transcripts or CD recordings of the proceedings are available, they should be submitted. However, partial transcripts or audio excerpts that focus directly on the alleged misconduct are more useful than the full record of the proceedings.

Q: Will the judge be notified that I filed the RFE?

A: The filing of the RFE will not automatically result in the judge being notified. The Executive Director will examine each RFE to determine if the allegations focus on a violation of the Canons or other misconduct. If it survives this process, then the Commission is required to notify the judge of the grounds that have been alleged, and request that the judge respond to the allegations. The Commission may conduct an independent investigation or make such further inquiries as it deems necessary in order to evaluate the allegations. However, the Constitution requires that the papers and proceedings of the Commission remain confidential.

Q: When will I be notified regarding the status of my RFE?

A: Normally, each RFE is reviewed within 10 business days of receipt. If the RFE passes the initial review, it will be considered by the Commission at its next meeting. The Commission generally meets bi-monthly, so the timing of a decision depends on the date of the next meeting. If the Commission decides to pursue the alleged misconduct further, the Executive Director will notify both you and the judge and will request the judge's response. We will update you or contact you for further information, as needed. Notice of a decision by the Commission will be provided to you and the judge as soon as it is practical to do so.

Most judicial discipline is handled by private letters of admonition, reprimand, or censure, which are directed at correcting or improving the judge's conduct, but may also include requirements for training, counseling, rehabilitation, or periodic reports on docket management. However, the Rules also provide for formal proceedings which may become public, if the Commission determines that privately-administered disciplinary measures would be inadequate to address the alleged misconduct.

Q. I think the judge may have been biased against me. Is bias or prejudice a basis for a complaint?

A. Yes, but keep in mind that a judge's decisions are required to be based on the evidence and applicable law. Judges are called on to make hard choices in resolving conflicts in the evidence, assessing the credibility and relevance of testimony, and considering different views of the litigants.

Given the intense nature of litigation, it is understandable for a litigant to wonder if the judge can remain impartial and objective. Judges have hundreds of cases on their dockets at any given time; they are human and occasionally make mistakes, but mistakes in analyzing the facts or in misreading the law aren't necessarily signs of bias. If there is evidence in the record that supports the judge's decision – even though the evidence presented by one of the litigants contradicts that evidence – or if the law allows some flexibility in its application, then the judge's ruling is generally not the result of bias.

The Commission will carefully consider a request that alleges bias, but it needs information focusing specifically on a judge's conduct, rather than alleged errors in the court's findings of fact, rulings on the law, or final judgment.

Q: Why can't the Commission overrule a judge's decision?

A: The Commission was established by the Colorado Constitution, just as the courts were established under the Constitution. The Commission reviews conduct, while the appellate courts review the facts and applicable law. The Commission is not authorized to rule on factual and legal disputes involved in motions and trials since the courts are given exclusive jurisdiction over trials and appeals under the Constitution and also by Colorado Revised Statutes. If the Commission attempted to revise or reverse a judge's decision, then it would be displacing the function that is reserved for the courts. It simply does not have the jurisdiction to modify or reverse decisions of a trial or appellate court or to intervene in a trial or an appeal.

Rule 5(e) of the Rules of Judicial Discipline expressly provides that the Commission is to take no action against a judge for making an erroneous decision that is subject to appellate review, unless the judge’s conduct – as distinct from the judge’s view of evidence, procedural rules, and appellate law – provides grounds for disciplinary action. Rule 13 requires that we close the file without further action if the allegations in the RFE involve matters within the jurisdiction of the appellate courts or are otherwise outside the jurisdiction of the Commission.

The Commission encourages a party who is disappointed with the outcome of a case to consider filing an appeal. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court receive and consider appeals from the trial courts, except for certain decisions of County Courts which can be appealed to the District Courts. You should examine the appellate procedures and, if possible, seek the advice of an attorney regarding your appeal rights.

However, if a party believes there are grounds for judicial misconduct as well as grounds for an appellate court to reverse or revise a decision, both an appeal through the courts and an RFE to the Commission can be filed.

Q: If I intend to appeal, will filing the RFE with the Commission affect my appeal in any way?

A: No. Since the Commission only reviews the conduct of the judge under the Rules of Judicial Discipline and the Code of Judicial Conduct, any action it might take, including dismissal or disciplinary action, will have no impact on the appeal. Please understand that filing the RFE with the Commission will not stay or extend any time limits that may apply to a motion for new trial or an appeal.

Q: What if I have concerns about the conduct of a municipal judge, magistrate, prosecutor, public defender, my lawyer, my adversary's lawyer, an administrative law judge, or a federal judge?

A: The Commission is authorized to consider only those RFEs that allege misconduct by judges of Colorado state courts, which includes judges of the County Courts, District Courts, and Court of Appeals and justices of the Supreme Court.

Municipal judges are employed by the community in which they hold office, rather than by the State of Colorado. Concerns regarding municipal judges may be addressed to the administrative offices of the city or town which employs them. Certain of the larger cities have established procedures for addressing complaints regarding the conduct of their municipal judges; you should check with the municipality to determine what procedures may be available to handle such a complaint. As explained further below, if the judge is an attorney serving as a municipal judge, a complaint also may be filed with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.

General information regarding municipal judges is available on the web through search engines under the topic of Colorado Municipal Judges. The decisions of municipal judges generally are appealable to the state courts. One should carefully examine the applicable rules and procedures that apply to such appeals. Important time limits may apply.

County Court judges in the City and County of Denver exercise dual jurisdiction as state judges and municipal judges, and are not under the Commission's jurisdiction. Complaints regarding the conduct of Denver County Court judges should be addressed to:

Denver County Court Commission on Judicial Discipline
1437 Bannock Street, Room 108
Denver, CO 80202
(720) 865 7870

The conduct of lawyers, who serve as magistrates, municipal judges, or administrative law judges (hearing officers), are guided by the Canons but also may be subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct that apply to all lawyers. Complaints regarding the conduct of lawyers serving in such capacities as well as private attorneys, district attorneys, or public defenders may be directed to:

Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
1300 Broadway, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 457 5800

The decisions of magistrates, as distinguished from their professional conduct, generally are appealable to the district court in the judicial district where they are employed. In addition, it may be appropriate to advise the Chief Judge of the local judicial district of concerns one may have about a magistrate.

Complaints regarding the conduct of the federal judiciary may be addressed to the administrative offices of the federal court.

Q: Is the Commission currently contracting with any outside entities to assist in the performance of its Constitutional functions?

A: On August 20, 2021, the Commission appointed the law firm of Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC to serve as Special Counsel. The Special Counsel will assist the Commission in its information gathering efforts on individual request(s) for evaluation and also provide assistance in evaluating and improving the Commission’s investigative, information sharing, and enforcement processes.

This appointment has been made under Colorado Rule of Judicial Discipline 2(aa). The Commission has determined that confirmation of Special Counsel’s appointment and role is reasonably necessary to the performance of their assigned work.

By way of background, in 1966, the people of Colorado voted to amend Article VI of the Colorado Constitution to create the Commission, which is comprised of four judges, two experienced attorneys, and four non-attorney citizens of the State, all of whom serve four-year appointments without salary. Article VI, Section 23(3) grants the Commission the authority to recommend that judges and Justices in Colorado “be removed or disciplined for willful misconduct in office, willful or persistent failure to perform [their] duties, intemperance, or violation of any canon of the Colorado code of judicial conduct . . . .”

In other words, the Commission is a constitutionally-created body responsible for investigating complaints of judicial impropriety and making recommendations of discipline when necessary. By carrying out this responsibility, the Commission aims to maintain public confidence in the judiciary and create greater awareness of proper judicial conduct in Colorado. Of course, the mission of Colorado’s judiciary is to provide “a fair and impartial system of justice” (, but the judiciary cannot carry out that mission absent the Commission’s thorough investigation into allegations of judicial misconduct. The tasks assigned to the Special Counsel are in furtherance of these goals.

As a body established by the people, the Commission prioritizes transparency. In certain circumstances, the Commission may (and sometimes must) disclose components of its proceedings to the public. However, both the Colorado Constitution and the rules governing the Commission's procedures require that the Commission maintain confidentiality with respect to any and all allegations of misconduct that are pending or may become pending. Accordingly, at this time, the Commission may not disclose any specific information regarding the tasks assigned to the Special Counsel.