Establishing Judicial Accountability: Public Censure for Alcohol Impairment and Retaliation

Introduction

In the Matter of Complainant: The People of the State of Colorado, and David Brett Woods, a former judge of the Denver Juvenile Court, Respondent (2024 CO 72) presents a disciplinary proceeding before the Colorado Supreme Court. The State Commission on Judicial Discipline charged former Presiding Judge David Brett Woods with two core violations: serving while impaired by alcohol and retaliating against an employee who reported that impairment. The key issues include whether Woods breached the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct by continuing to work under the influence and by firing an employee for reporting concerns, and what sanction best preserves public confidence in the judiciary. The parties agreed to a stipulation recommending a public censure, and the Supreme Court imposed that sanction on December 9, 2024.

Summary of the Judgment

The Colorado Supreme Court, sitting en banc, adopted the Commission’s recommendation and publicly censured David Brett Woods. The court found that prior to his resignation on February 9, 2024, Woods was at times under the influence of alcohol while performing judicial duties. When a newly hired Clerk of Court reported smelling alcohol on his breath, Woods consulted Human Resources, disclosed the complaint, and—despite knowing the report was legitimate—terminated the employee in retaliation. The court concluded that these acts violated Canon Rule 1.2 (impropriety and public confidence), Canon Rule 2.3(C) (no retaliation), and Canon Rule 2.5(A) (competence and diligence). A public censure was deemed appropriate to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.

Analysis

Precedents and Regulatory Authorities Cited

Although the decision does not rest on prior case law, it relies heavily on the structure of Colorado’s judicial ethics regime:

• Canon Rule 1.2 of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates avoidance of impropriety and upholding public confidence in the judiciary.
• Canon Rule 2.3(C), prohibiting any form of retaliation against those who report judicial misconduct.
• Canon Rule 2.5(A), requiring judges to perform their duties with competence and diligence.
• Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline (Colo. RJD) 36(e) and 37(e), authorizing public censure and stipulated resolutions in disciplinary proceedings.
• Chief Justice Directive 22-01, which sets internal reporting procedures for judicial misconduct, underscoring proper channels and confidentiality.
• Colorado Judicial Department Personnel Rule 20.A, outlining procedures and protections concerning reports of misconduct by employees.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning follows a three-step analysis:

1. Violation of Personal Conduct Standards: Woods admitted to alcohol impairment at work, contravening both the ethical requirement to avoid intemperance (Canon Rule 1.2’s prohibition on “abuse of alcohol”) and the duty to perform competently (Canon Rule 2.5(A)).
2. Retaliation Against Reporting Employee: By disclosing the employee’s report to HR and then firing her, Woods directly violated Canon Rule 2.3(C), which protects all judicial employees from adverse action when they report misconduct.
3. Sanction Selection: The stipulated facts and admission of wrongdoing led the Commission and the court to agree that a public censure—rather than suspension or removal—balanced the seriousness of the offenses with Woods’s resignation and cooperation.

Impact on Future Cases and the Law

This decision reinforces several important points:

• Zero Tolerance for Impairment: Judges are presumptively held to a high standard; alcohol impairment on the bench will justify disciplinary action even absent a criminal conviction.
• Protections for Whistleblowers: Any adverse employment action against judicial staff reporting misconduct is per se unethical, strengthening internal compliance systems.
• Role of Advisory Opinions: Reliance on Human Resources advice does not excuse violations of the ethics code; judges remain the ultimate guarantors of their own conduct.
• Precedential Weight: Future disciplinary bodies and courts will cite 2024 CO 72 when addressing similar mixtures of impairment and retaliation in the judiciary.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Public Censure: An official statement of disapproval published by the court, less severe than removal or suspension but recorded on the judge’s disciplinary history.
• Canon Rule 1.2 (Impropriety): Judges must avoid actions that compromise or appear to compromise their integrity, even outside the courtroom.
• Canon Rule 2.3(C) (No Retaliation): Encourages candid reporting of judicial misconduct by safeguarding reporters from punitive measures.
• Canon Rule 2.5(A) (Competence): Judges must carry out all duties—judicial and administrative—with necessary skill and care.

Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in 2024 CO 72 sends a clear message: judges must maintain sobriety and integrity at all times, and they must not retaliate against employees who report concerns about their conduct. By imposing a public censure, the court balanced accountability with proportionality, reaffirming the high ethical standards that underpin public confidence in the judiciary. This ruling will guide future disciplinary proceedings and strengthen protections for those who report judicial misconduct.