(The Center Square) - With the general election just one day away, all 122 Colorado judges on the ballot are named in a former state official's request for judicial misconduct investigations.
Christopher Gregory, the former executive director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, on Sunday evening filed a “Request for Evaluation” with the same commission for all of the judges. Gregory alleged the judges had knowledge of judicial misconduct – whether their own or a colleague’s. Gregory also alleged the state Judicial Performance Commission intentionally misled voters in its evaluations of the judges ahead of the 2026 general election.
All of the judges in Tuesday's election are being considered for retention, a process in which Coloradans will vote on whether each judge continues at the bench.
Gregory asserted each judge knowingly concealed material information from voters.
“Not a single judge subject to retention came forward to object to the legal adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the 2026 judicial performance evaluation reports," Gregory wrote in his complaint.
Gregory referred to a 2025 Colorado law that requires the performance commission to evaluate judicial integrity. He contended that all 25 performance commissions within the state and each judicial district failed to adequately consider allegations involving missing personal financial disclosures, a controversial 2019 judicial branch contract and the private discipline of an Adams County judge accused of an inappropriate sexual relationship with court staff.
Gregory argued that the judges, in failing to publicly challenge the performance evaluation process and commission, violated judicial ethics rules that have not been adjudicated.
The Center Square reached out to the 122 judges and the judicial performance and discipline commissions. They did not respond in time for publication.
Suzanne Karrer, the chief communications officer of the Colorado Judicial Branch, told The Center Square that her branch was not aware of Gregory's Sunday evening request for evaluation filing. She also said the office could not comment on Gregory's allegations because judicial disciplinary matters are confidential unless formal proceedings start.
"Gregory’s claims are also the subject of nearly 100 civil cases and disciplinary complaints he has filed in state and federal court," Karrer told The Center Square in an email. "The department and individual judges cannot comment on pending litigation."
Judges have legal obligations to report judicial misconduct under several Colorado codes, Karrer said, adding that the obligations apply when the alleged misconduct involves people in leadership positions.
Karrer says the Judicial Department complies with its reporting obligations when it receives a misconduct complaint, but she emphasized that it has no oversight or control over the disciplinary commission or the judicial performance evaluation office.
Gregory has filed over 45 civil protection order petitions and a variety of other motions and complaints against several high-level state officials and independent commissions, including Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat who's running for governor against Republican Victor Marx. The Center Square reached out to Weiser's office, but spokesperson Lawrence Pacheco declined to comment on Gregory's filings, including Sunday evening's complaint.
Justice William Hood, who is up for retention for the Colorado Supreme Court, and four judges on the ballot for the Court of Appeals – Rebecca Freyre, Elizabeth Harris, Katharine Lum and Grant Sullivan – were named in Gregory’s July 2026 lawsuit against every judicial performance commission in the state. He filed the lawsuit in Denver County Court but named all of the commissions, alleging they failed to give voters complete and accurate information about judges standing for retention.
Another six judges – four county court and two district court judges – were also named in the July performance evaluations lawsuit.
Denver County has its own performance commission that has sole jurisdiction over the county's judges. Gregory told The Center Square he filed another request for evaluation for the seven judges facing retention there on Monday morning with the county performance commission
Gregory alleged that some of the judges had not filed their personal finance statements, which is required by Colorado law, and that others had “known [or] reasonably suspected judicial and attorney misconduct of their colleagues.”
Adams County Court Judge Leroy Kirby was among the list of judges who Gregory said had not filed his personal finance statements. Gregory said Kirby was also the unnamed judge that Gregory identified in his June 2026 response to an emergency motion to seal – a document that was sent to every member of the Colorado General Assembly (the Legislature), all statewide candidates and news outlets – as having an inappropriate sexual relationship with court staff in the courthouse.
Fewer than five legislators or candidates responded to the publicly circulated document, and no media outlets pursued coverage, according to Gregory.
Kirby had “a duty to self-report his judicial misconduct and dishonesty when he applied for the 17th Judicial District Court in 2019 and when he stood for retention in 2024," Gregory said.
Kirby has not responded to The Center Square’s inquiries for comments about the allegations.
Gregory told The Center Square that he served as the vice chair of the discipline commission in 2019 when Kirby received the private disciplinary action. And when Kirby was up for retention in 2024, he did not disclose his previous disciplinary action or his nondisclosure of personal finance statements in 2019 to the nominating commission, Gregory said. He also did not tell the discipline commission about his disciplinary history when applying for the Adams County district court judge in 2019, according to Gregory.
The misconduct by the other judges’ behalf is regarding their “material omissions by failing to object to the 2026 judicial performance evaluation reports” that were “legally inaccurate and incomplete," Gregory said.
He also said the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission is blindly leading voters yet again ahead of the 2026 election by not fulfilling its legally required duties to evaluate judicial integrity. Gregory asserted that hiding material information falls under the umbrella of “dishonesty."
“All of the judges have mandatory reporting obligations when they are aware of their own or a colleague’s substantial misconduct," Gregory told The Center Square.
“Here, everyone has remained silent about the problems with the judicial performance evaluations,” Gregory said in his filing, and noted that none of the judges inquired about judicial integrity, the issues concerning the lack of judges’ personal finance disclosures, Kirby’s inappropriate relationship and the 2019 contract controversy in which a former chief of staff for the State Judicial Administrator's Office was allegedly offered a contract in exchange for not filing a sexual discrimination lawsuit.
Bill DeLisio, the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission’s deputy director, previously told The Center Square that the commission looks at the judges’ integrity and considers any disciplinary actions in its evaluation, as required by Colorado law. However, he said the commission did not consider an already completed investigation from the 2019 contract scandal that documented Hood and Sullivan’s knowledge in their 2026 performance evaluations even though the commission may consider that information.
Gregory had brought up the fact that an anonymous letter was sent to Kent Wagner, the director the Judicial Performance Commission, on July 2, 2024, that requested an evaluation of judges facing retention who had allegedly failed to file required personal financial disclosures. Among that list of judges was Kirby, Gregory said.
The Center Square reached out to Wagner to confirm whether he received the letter and if he considered it in Kirby’s evaluation, but he did not respond before publication.
Karrer of the Judicial Branch told The Center Square that state law requires financial disclosures to be filed through the Secretary of State's Office.
The Center Square also reached out to the Secretary of State’s Office to determine whether Secretary Jena Griswold, a Democrat running for attorney general in Tuesday's election against Republican Michael Allen, was aware of these judges’ failure to file personal finance statements and whether action was taken against them, but Griswold did not respond. Judges are required to file such statements under Colorado Revised Statues § 24-6-202. That's a section of the Colorado Public Official Disclosure Law.
As part of his request Sunday, Gregory is asked to be recognized as an official complaint under Colorado law. He is also seeking that the disciplinary commission and staff “disqualify themselves, and for the Colorado Supreme Court to allow the formation of a special tribunal through a conflict-free selection process”
Gregory filed the request for a special tribunal on Oct. 13 with the Boulder County Court in Longmont. The respondent listed is Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty, who currently faces separate litigation where Gregory is seeking to challenge his prosecutorial inaction and compel criminal prosecution for his allegations surrounding judicial misconduct coverup. Dougherty lost the Democratic primary for state attorney general race to Griswold.
Commented