At least three judges — Colorado's Supreme Court chief justice and a now-retired appellate court judge among them — years ago knew of a Denver juvenile court judge's drinking problems but never reported them, then maintained that silence while a courthouse manager who had sought their help in confronting the judge faced firing instead, The Denver Gazette has learned.
The judge, D. Brett Woods, 63, presided over Denver's juvenile court until he resigned Feb. 8, seven weeks after he was suspended pending an inquiry by the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline into recent allegations of misconduct. The commission has not disclosed the nature of the inquiry — commission investigations are by law secret — and the case remains open.
Denver Juvenile Court Presiding Judge D. Brett Woods
But Woods' use of alcohol, which multiple sources confirm is at the core of his discipline case, wasn't new to anyone except commission investigators, and several judges, including Supreme Court Chief Justice Brian Boatright, were aware of it for years, The Denver Gazette has learned.
Woods did not respond to telephone messages from The Denver Gazette.
The discipline commission, the state's constitutional authority for investigating and sanctioning judicial misconduct, only recently learned that Boatright and other judges knew about Woods' drinking and did not report it nor the subsequent alleged retaliation against the courthouse manager. That happened in January when the commission investigated a complaint filed last summer, people familiar with the inquiry confirmed. It was last summer's complaint that led to Woods' resignation last month.
Since 1966, the Colorado Constitution has recognized that a judge's problems with alcohol, called "intemperance," are reason enough to remove the judge from the bench. The state's judicial discipline rules define intemperance as including the abuse of alcohol. And the state's Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits retaliation for reporting any alleged misconduct.
The commission handles all violations of the code of conduct and recommends discipline for any infractions, which could include a judge being removed from the bench. That can only happen with the Supreme Court's approval or by a special tribunal if a conflict of interest exists. The legislature also has constitutional authority to impeach judges and justices, though that has never happened.
The commission has disciplined judges for problematic alcohol consumption outside of the courtroom, including at public events such as conferences or other semi-official gatherings.
The current complaint against Woods came from courthouse employees concerned about Woods' drinking who were reticent, for some time, to come forward because they feared the same retaliation the courthouse manager had faced earlier, people familiar with the inquiry confirmed to The Denver Gazette.
Several high-ranking Denver juvenile court employees in 2019 planned to confront Woods about his drinking and their concerns it was impacting his work as a judge, similar to an intervention session held with a colleague or family member suffering from addiction, The Denver Gazette has learned.
Colorado Supreme Court Justice Brian Boatright listens to oral arguments Thursday, May 4, at Colorado Mesa University in Grand Junction.
To that end, the employees asked for support or advice from at least three judges — Boatright, now-retired Court of Appeals Judge Karen Ashby, and Denver Juvenile Court Judge Laurie Clark — according to several people with knowledge of the events.
At least two — Ashby and Boatright — offered their support to the employees, sources confirmed, though it's unclear whether either agreed to participate in any intervention plan.
Additionally, commission investigators were told that Clark had been approached multiple times by the courthouse manager, but that stopped when it appeared no help was forthcoming, sources said. Additionally, investigators learned that Clark had allegedly expressed her own concerns with the court manager about Woods' alcohol use in discussions about a class the judges co-taught at a law school, sources confirmed.
Despite ethics rules compelling judges to tell the discipline commission about any troublesome conduct of their colleagues or to take other appropriate action, none reported Woods' drinking, according to several sources who asked not to be identified because they feared repercussions or were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Then, when Woods learned of the court manager's efforts to confront him, he instead pursued disciplinary measures against the manager specifically because discussions about his personal conduct and alcohol use were had with others, including his judicial colleagues, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Denver Gazette.
That discipline included an admonishment against the manager for having said Woods was disengaged and frequently absent from court, according to documents and interviews.
The manager was told by a superior that Woods had lost confidence in the manager and was likely to fire them, according to people familiar with that conversation and documents reviewed by The Denver Gazette.
Court of Appeals Judge Karen Ashby speaks to 9News in an interview.
Though the judges who were notified of Woods' alcohol use were also aware of the alleged retaliatory discipline he pursued, none of them reported it to the commission, though two of the judges — Ashby and Boatright — agreed to provide the manager with a favorable job reference going forward, people familiar with those discussions said.
Clark told The Denver Gazette that she was unaware of Wood's drinking on the job and does not know the focus of the discipline commission's inquiry.
"I want to be clear, no employee ever came to me regarding Judge Woods use of alcohol related to court business," she wrote in an email. "I never had a concern regarding any alcohol use by Judge Woods at the courthouse or while we co-taught at the" law school."
Regarding the manager's discipline, Clark said she knew little about it.
"I was aware of the firing but had no information regarding the purpose of that firing," Clark wrote in an email to The Denver Gazette. "I have never been privy to the basis of that firing."
Ashby told The Denver Gazette she wasn't aware of any concerns that Woods' drinking had impacted his performance on the bench and that employees only expressed a general concern to her of his lack of leadership and the poor performance of the juvenile court.
"There were no specific allegations that he was drinking on the job, that he was drunk on the bench or at the courthouse," Ashby said. "Had there been, I would have the responsibility to report that kind of thing."
As an at-will employee of the juvenile court's presiding judge, the manager chose to resign rather than be fired in June 2019, leaving behind a career that spanned more than two decades and relinquishing nearly all the retirement benefits that came from it, according to people with knowledge of that outcome.
The Judicial Department also required the manager to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which would not be possible today following legislation last year banning the practice in state government.
Several high-ranking positions within a judicial district — Denver's juvenile court is viewed as wholly separate from the overarching Second Judicial District in which it sits — are hired at the discretion of the presiding or chief judge. Because they are at-will employees, they can be terminated at any time and without reason.
None of the colleagues who assisted the manager in planning the intervention with Woods, nor the judges whose advice they sought, came to the manager's assistance when the manager was suspended and faced termination, sources confirmed.
Ashby was the only one of the judges to remain in touch with the manager and offer additional support — but still did not report any of Woods' conduct or the retaliation to the discipline commission, according to interviews.
Ashby told The Denver Gazette that she was unaware of the reasons for the court manager's discipline, did not ask why, but did say the manager was "in my experience a very good employee. I didn't like the fact that it happened."
Many of the manager's colleagues at the time feared for their jobs if they said anything or approached the manager, several people with knowledge of their thinking told The Denver Gazette.
The Woods' inquiry has again put Chief Justice Boatright in the spotlight of scrutiny. He was named to the Colorado Supreme Court in 2011 and became its chief justice in January 2021.
In just the past several months, The Denver Gazette has learned Boatright is at the center of at least two additional matters before the commission. They include recent allegations that a judicial misconduct complaint that led to the resignation of 17th Judicial District Judge Robert Kiesnowski Jr. was slow-walked to the commission — claims the Supreme Court quickly forced the commission to remove from the public record — at a time when Boatright had assured legislators he was personally tracking all misconduct complaints to ensure they were handled promptly.
Also before the commission is an inquiry into the Supreme Court's public denial in February 2021 of allegations that former Chief Justice Nathan "Ben" Coats had approved a quid-pro-quo contract to silence claims that judicial misconduct was being covered up for years. That denial was delivered by Boatright although it was signed as coming from the Supreme Court's seven justices.
Coats was later censured by the judicial discipline commission for his role in that scandal. In November 2022, former 10th Judicial District Chief Judge Dennis Maes filed a formal complaint — known as a "request for evaluation" — with the discipline commission about the Supreme Court's public denial because judges are precluded from expressing public opinions on matters that might come before them. Maes' complaint remains under investigation.
Importantly, Boatright has grappled with the discipline commission the past few years over when a judge is required under the Code of Judicial Conduct to report the misconduct of others, which Boatright has said only applies to a judge's "actual" first-hand knowledge of any misconduct rather than through someone else, such as what occurred with Woods, no matter how credible they might be.
In an emailed statement to The Denver Gazette through a spokesman, Boatright said he could not comment about discipline matters or the issues involving Woods.
"As you know, matters pending before the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline are confidential pursuant to the Colorado Constitution. As a result, I am unable to comment directly on the questions you’ve posed," the statement read. "That said, the Judicial Department fully cooperates with every investigation by the Commission."
He added that he has recused himself from every judicial disciplinary case brought to the Supreme Court whenever he had information gleaned while he has been chief judge.
New complaint exposes prior knowledge
What had been kept quiet in 2019 was allowed to fester for four more years before another courthouse employee, fed up and indignant over Woods' conduct, reported him last summer.
But courthouse employees remained reticent to cooperate with any investigation, still fearful for their jobs, people familiar with their thinking said. That changed last December at a retirement reception for another district court judge, where Woods' conduct again came into question, sources said.
Notably, when the Supreme Court suspended Woods in December pending the discipline commission's investigation, Boatright did not participate in that decision, according to a copy of the court's order.
The court did not give a reason for Boatright's recusal and it is not required that he provide one.
Commission investigators soon learned of the courthouse manager who lost their job in 2019 and interviewed them in January, revealing the details of the three judges' knowledge about Woods' drinking and the alleged retaliation, people familiar with the inquiry said.
The Judicial Department's personnel rules take a hardline stance against retaliation, calling it a fireable offense. However, department insiders say there is a serious argument that those personnel rules don't specifically apply to judges.
The nature of the Woods inquiry has not been made public, but The Denver Gazette has learned the complaint surrounds only his use of alcohol and has nothing to do with the cases he presided over or any of the juveniles who appeared in his court. It's unclear if Woods was ever believed to be in court under the influence of alcohol.
Concerns over Woods' drinking started to become evident during an October 2018 awards dinner held in Denver by the Colorado Judicial Institute where several judges' performance was to be honored, sources told The Denver Gazette. A number of judges from across the state attended — it's unclear if Boatright or Ashby did — and commented about Woods' drinking, the sources said.
At the CJI event, judges and staff from Denver's juvenile courts, including Woods, sat at one table; judges and staff from Denver's district court sat nearby. Other judges sat with their staffs at other tables. At one point, someone had a discussion with Woods over his ability to drive home from the event, several people said.
Juvenile Court Judge Clark, who attended the event, had already been approached several times previously by at least one courthouse employee to discuss Woods' alcohol use, several people said.
Clark told The Denver Gazette that had she known about Woods' excessive drinking at any time, "I would have reported it, as I am required to do so."
Concerns about Woods drinking came to a head again in April 2019 during a Colorado mountain resort conference on juvenile justice, according to several people who attended that event.
It was there the manager and at least two other high-ranking Denver juvenile court employees approached Ashby and asked for her help about confronting Woods, several people said. Offering her support, Ashby told them she would also reach out to Boatright to inform him of their efforts.
Ashby later confirmed to the two employees that she had spoken to Boatright — he was referred to as “Brian” in their communications — and that they had his approval and support, several sources confirmed.
Ashby told The Denver Gazette she only spoke to Boatright generally about the concerns regarding Woods' judicial performance, but not his drinking.
"If there were concerns about his drinking they were never concerns that it impacted his performance or (that he) was drinking on the job," Ashby said. "They were (employee) concerns he was not a good leader for the (juvenile) court. I didn't discuss alcohol (with Boatright), I discussed just the leadership."
Ashby said she couldn't recall if Boatright took any action about Woods following their conversation.
Within weeks, Woods placed the manager on administrative leave pending discipline, specifically noting it was because the manager had spoken to others about his alcohol use.
Clark is the interim presiding judge of Denver's juvenile court following Woods' resignation. Ashby was the presiding judge of that court until she was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2013. She retired in May 2019.
Boatright was a member of the Supreme Court at the time of the mountain conference, but not its chief justice. He was previously a district court judge in Jefferson County who was noted for his expertise in juvenile and family law.
It's unclear whether any of the judges had spoken with Woods about his use of alcohol at the time.
'Actual' knowledge vs. second-hand
Boatright has tangled with the discipline commission over the requirement that a judge report alleged misconduct of a colleague. The sticking point was whether the judge has the information through first-hand knowledge or through a second-hand source.
The Code of Judicial Conduct is an array of rules judges are required to follow. They span a variety of topics that include conflicts of interest, personal conduct, and issues related to their work on the bench.
A key and often-discussed mandate (Rule 2.15) deals with a judge's obligation to report any misconduct, whether actual or alleged.
It says: "A judge, having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority."
That "appropriate authority" in Colorado is defined as the Commission on Judicial Discipline.
The rule goes on: "A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this code shall take appropriate action."
What "appropriate action" actually means is not defined, but it extends to virtually any potential violation of the code of conduct. It's the commission's function to determine whether a violation actually occurred.
The rule was at the heart of a back-and-forth exchange between the discipline commission and Boatright as the alleged contract-for-silence scandal unfolded in 2021.
The commission repeatedly admonished the Supreme Court for not being forthcoming with information it said it needed to determine whether a deeper investigation into the scandal was necessary, The Denver Gazette has reported previously.
Despite Boatright's public assurances of transparency and cooperation with investigations into the misconduct allegations, the letters between him and the commission portrayed a broader showdown between two constitutionally created entities, each pressing for control of what it deemed to be its mandate.
Specifically at issue was the commission's charge to investigate any form of judicial misconduct, no matter whether the Judicial Department's personnel office in SCAO had already deemed it to be inconsequential, and the Supreme Court's view that judges need only report the misbehavior of another judge if they witnessed it firsthand.
Much of the commission's annoyance appeared rooted in concerns it was learning the details of the contract-memo scandal through press reports and not from the judiciary itself, The Denver Gazette reported.
Rather than answer the commission's questions about what it was reading in the newspaper, Boatright — and by extension the Judicial Department — appeared to delay, asking the commission for more specifics or that it provide a "better understanding" of what it wanted.
For its part, the commission said it merely needed the court to report what it knew.
Boatright wrote the commission in June 2021 — just a month after an Adams County court clerk, Emily Betz, filed her complaint about Judge Kiesnowski — that the panel seemed to misunderstand when a judge is required to report allegations of misconduct by another judge. The commission's 10-member board includes 4 judges who are appointed by the chief justice.
Judges need only report if they actually witness the conduct, Boatright wrote.
"I'm concerned that the duty of individual judicial officers to report known violations of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct (to the commission) … has been misconstrued as encompassing the duty to report either unsubstantiated allegations of judicial misconduct leveled indirectly by a third-party long after the fact," Boatright wrote.
"We need to start with the same basic understanding … because 'knowledge' … is limited to 'actual knowledge,'" he wrote, adding that "I of course recognize and take very seriously" the obligation "to report known violations" to the commission and would "promptly comply" if he had "actual knowledge" of them.
The commission replied that Boatright was wrong.
"The Commission does not agree with the suggestion … that your office and the department are relieved of disclosure and cooperation obligations if information is outside the 'actual knowledge' of an individual judicial officer," El Paso County District Judge David Prince, then the acting-chairman of the commission, wrote Boatright in July 2021. "The Commission renews its prior requests to you for disclosure and active cooperation in the Commission's fulfillment of its constitutional obligations."
Prince left the commission in July 2023 after six years when Boatright, as chief justice, did not reappoint him to a second term.
Two weeks after the commission learned of Boatright's knowledge in the Woods' matter last month, it removed Christopher Gregory as its executive director. He had been a vocal critic of the department's response to the scandal since it began when he was the commission's chairman.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.