The Colorado Judicial Discipline Rule-Making Committee is facing criticism over its exclusion of public comments amid unresolved questions about the committee’s past handling of on-the-record comments and allegations of conflicts of interest. That includes allegations over what's been called a $2.66 million to $2.75 million "hush-money" contract.

The criticism comes from Christopher Gregory, the former chair and executive director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, who is seeking impeachment and ultimately removal of Colorado Supreme Court justices. He's accusing them of misconduct and cover-ups.

Image

The judicial rule-making committee on October 1 posted a notice of 10 proposed rules and an October 21 deadline for the public to submit written comments. Gregory said he submitted comments before that deadline.

The committee held its public hearing on October 26, during which members did not address Gregory's comments, and adopted the proposed rule changes on October 27. Gregory said the committee refused to publish his written comments or to post a recording of its October 26 hearing.

The Center Square reached out to the rule-making committee to comment on Gregory's accusations and its public comment policy. Members did not answer why Gregory’s comments went unpublished or who made that decision.

The Center Square also reached out Monday to the Judicial Branch, which declined to comment.

In years prior, and earlier this year, the committee has published most written comments and recordings of public hearings, including artificial intelligence-generated transcripts. However, during fall 2025, the committee did not publish Gregory's written comments.

Image

Gregory had continually submitted written and oral comments over the last two years. In his most recent comments, consistent with his litigation efforts, he requested for the disqualification of the rule-making committee, the discipline commission and the Colorado Supreme Court from matters related to the potential discipline of the justices.

In both his written and oral public comments, Gregory claims that committee members and various authorities who appoint them are themselves implicated in allegations of judicial misconduct, civil violations and criminal offenses. Gregory argues that the members of the various judicial oversight entities are conspiring to cover up serious judicial, attorney, and official misconduct.

Gregory’s oral comments at the October 26 public comments hearing included his reading of a proposed joint press release previously circulated to Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, all members of the Colorado General Assembly, candidates for statewide and federal offices, and to the press. The joint press release had been sent to these individuals June 27. The proposed press release was written by Gregory. His comments renewed his request for a special legislative session to consider impeachment proceedings against the Supreme Court justices. The request also includes a request for legislators to reconsider House Joint Resolution 26-1029, which involves allegations of violations of Colorado's False Claims Act.

The resolution called for a formal referral to the U.S. Department of Justice to assign an office outside Denver and Wyoming to investigate alleged public corruption and for the Legislature to appoint another state's attorney general as a special assistant attorney general to impartially represent the state and investigate the allegations of misconduct, as outlined in Gregory's lawsuit. Gregory filed a October 2025 federal lawsuit under the federal civil False Claims Act, Colorado False Claims Act, and other laws against Polis, Weiser, judges, justices, the Judicial Discipline Commission and Judicial Performance Commission.

More specifically, Gregory considers each member of the rule-making committee to be conflicted because they are individual capacity defendants in a federal civil rights and Colorado False Claims Act lawsuit that Gregory filed.

Gregory argues that Colorado Supreme Court Justice Richard Gabriel has a conflict of interest because of his involvement concerning a $2.66-$2.75 million “hush-money contract” that was collectively approved by the justices in 2019. Gregory has since consistently requested the formation of a special tribunal to replace the entire Colorado Supreme Court in judicial discipline and related proceedings. Because Gabriel is named in his October 23, 2025 federal complaint that alleges the concealment of judicial misconduct, he should not be allowed to create rules concerning the handling of judicial discipline, according to Gregory.

Gregory told The Center Square that through multiple court filings, he criticized the defendants in his federal case, who include Polis, Weiser, members of the rule-making committee, the members of the discipline commission and the justices, as “sitting in judgement of themselves."

Presiding Disciplinary Judge Bryon Large, who also serves as a member of the rule-making committee, previously recused himself from an investigation of Gregory’s attorney disciplinary case because, he acknowledged that continuing to preside over the case would create an appearance of impropriety concern and undermine the public confidence in the proceeding's impartiality.

Anne Mangiardi, the current executive director of the Commission on Judicial Discipline and member of the rule-making committee, was further challenged by Gregory because of her status as a material witness and the discipline commission's involvement in other disputes and proceedings. Other committee members, including Jeffery Walsh, Judge Vincent Vigil, Judge Michael Berger, Ingrid Barrier, Judge Kristen Mix and Nancy Cohen – who are defendants in the federal lawsuit – have yet to disqualify themselves despite Gregory’s requests.

In 2024, Colorado voters adopted Amendment H, which required the discipline commission to make records from cases that resulted in public discipline publicly available. Under the amendment, the records are no longer “confidential” following the period after formal proceedings began. The changes also require the commission to make its records available to the public whenever a decision is made to initiate formal proceedings.

Generally, the rule-making committee formulates the rules relating to the handling of judicial discipline and attorney misconduct.

Gregory raises questions as to why the discipline commission has not made its investigations publicly available, most notably the files in "Matter of Coats," which occurred in 2023 following the “hush money” contract scandal, and other past cases that have resulted in public discipline. The former chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, Nathan Coats, received a public censure following the disciplinary proceedings in 2023.

Gregory asserts that the circumstances involved in Matter of Coats merit the disqualification, immediate suspension and ultimately the removal of all the current justices of the Colorado Supreme Court.

When The Center Square previously requested the judicial discipline commission's records related to Coats, the discipline commission’s executive director, Anne Mangiardi, said, “The Colorado Constitution makes the Commission on Judicial Discipline’s records confidential unless and until the Commission, after evaluating a Request for Evaluation, initiates formal disciplinary proceedings.”