A special tribunal has issued an unprecedented public censure of former Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan “Ben” Coats for violating the state’s judicial code of conduct when he allowed a $2.75 million contract with a former top courts administrator.
The censure of Coats, who retired in 2020, is largely ceremonial, carrying no penalty. The 16-page opinion posted Monday morning on the Colorado Supreme Court website declares, “The Special Tribunal hereby publicly censures you, former Chief Justice Nathan B. Coats, for violating Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct Canon Rule.”
The public discipline was based on an agreement reached earlier this year between Coats and the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Coats admitted he failed to perform judicial and administrative duties “competently and diligently” as required.
It’s the first time a Colorado Supreme Court justice has been censured. All of the current high court justices recused themselves from this case, directing a special tribunal made of Colorado Court of Appeals judges to handle the matter.
Those judges concluded in their decision that Coats “undermined the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary,” the censure opinion said.
It marks the latest step in a mop-up of misdeeds that have shaken Colorado’s high court at a time when nationwide public confidence in the judicial branch of government has eroded following unpopular U.S. Supreme Court decisions and revelations of questionable judicial conduct.
In addition to his judicial duties reviewing legal decisions on the Colorado Supreme Court, Coats as chief justice also was the executive head of the judicial system responsible for court administration — for which he may not have received sufficient training, the reviewing judges determined.
Coats served on the Supreme Court for two decades and as chief justice from 2018 until 2020.
During his time as chief justice, the state judicial branch issued a $2.75 million contract to Mindy Masias, who had served as chief of staff in the Colorado Judicial Department. She was facing dismissal for alleged financial irregularities. She took a leave.
Another state judicial branch employee leaked information about the awarding of the contract, which would have funded judicial training activities. The employee alleged the contract was given to Masias to prevent her from revealing high court judges’ misconduct. The contract was issued following Masias’ resignation from her judicial department position and was later canceled.
An investigation last year concluded that, while the issuance of the contract involved unethical behavior, misconduct and lies, the contract wasn’t specifically designed to silence Masias. Outside investigators found evidence of a toxic work environment where top state judicial officials pursued the contract.
They determined that Coats as an administrator was out of touch and easily manipulated, not equipped to manage the state judicial department.
On Monday, Coats, through his attorney John Gleason, declined to comment.
The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline appointed Denver-based attorney Qusair Mohamedbhai to represent the people of Colorado and conduct a lengthy investigation into what happened. Mohamedbhai on Monday lauded Coats for his cooperation through that investigation.
“We have a system where judicial ethics apply to all judges and also our justices of the Colorado Supreme Court. We have a system where the people of Colorado in the 1960s ensured that all branches of government would be accountable to the people and where no branch of government will exist above public scrutiny,” Mohamedbhai said.
“Our federal system could definitely learn from the fact that all the rules should apply to everyone equally. Unfortunately, we have a U.S. Supreme Court that says ‘the rules apply to them and not to me.’ At least, in Colorado, that’s not the case.”
Colorado Judicial Department officials declined to comment on the censure.
Since 2019, court officials have made changes in their contracting process, procurement rules and leave-approval systems, department spokesman Jon Sarché said. Supreme Court justices now function like “a board of advisors” on administrative matters, he said.
“This helps the chief justice receive additional perspectives and eases some of the administrative burdens on the chief while keeping the full court much more aware of the department’s administrative work,” Sarché said.
Investigators in 2022 made recommendations and court officials say they are working to clarify the state judicial mission and values, improve their workplace complaint process, enhance anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training for employees and judges, and update their employee code of conduct and reporting systems.
Court administrators also have clarified obligations to report allegations of judicial misconduct and updated rules, Sarché said, “to more clearly prohibit retaliation and harassment by judges.”
Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.
