In the Matter of Ryan L. Kamada , 2020 CO 83 ( 2020 )

Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the
public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch’s homepage at
http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the
Colorado Bar Association’s homepage at http://www.cobar.org.
ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE
December 7, 2020
2020 CO 83No. 19SA266, In the Matter of Ryan L. Kamada—Judicial Discipline—
Sanctions.
In this judicial disciplinary proceeding, the Supreme Court considers the
recommendation of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline
(“Commission”) that now-former District Court Judge Ryan L. Kamada be
sanctioned by public censure for numerous violations of the Colorado Code of
Judicial Conduct that occurred while he was serving as a judicial officer.
The Commission’s recommendation concluded that then-Judge Kamada’s
conduct violated the following provisions of the Code: Canon 1, Rule 1.1(A)
(requiring a judge to comply with the law), Rule 1.2 (requiring a judge to act in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary), Rule 1.3 (prohibiting
abuse of the prestige of judicial office); Canon 2, Rule 2.9 (prohibiting ex parte
communications), Rule 2.10 (prohibiting judicial statements on pending cases);
and Canon 3, Rule 3.5 (prohibiting the intentional disclosure of nonpublic judicial
information).
The court concludes that the Commission properly found that then-Judge
Kamada’s actions violated numerous provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Had Kamada not already resigned his position, removal from office would have
been an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. Because he has resigned, the
court agrees with the Commission’s recommendation that Kamada should be
publicly censured.
The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203
2020 CO 83Supreme Court Case No. 19SA266
Original Proceeding in Discipline
Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline Case No. 19CJD121
In the Matter of Ryan L. Kamada
Order re: Recommendation of the Colorado Commission on
Judicial Discipline and the Imposition of Sanctions
en banc
December 7, 2020
Appearing for the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline:
William J. Campbell, Executive Director
Denver, Colorado
Attorney for Ryan L. Kamada:
Michael L. Bender
Denver, Colorado
PER CURIAM.
¶1 In this judicial disciplinary proceeding, we consider the amended
recommendation of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline
(“Commission”) that now-former District Court Judge Ryan L. Kamada be
sanctioned by public censure for violations of the Colorado Code of Judicial
Conduct that occurred while he was serving as a judicial officer.
¶2 The Commission’s amended recommendation was based on a stipulation
and agreement between the Commission and Kamada, as well as records from the
criminal proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, United
States v. Kamada, 1:20-cr-00174-WJM, and the Colorado attorney disciplinary
proceeding, People v. Ryan L. Kamada, 20PDJ057. The recommendation concludes
that then-Judge Kamada’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Code
of Judicial Conduct: Canon 1, Rule 1.1(A) (requiring a judge to comply with the
law), Rule 1.2 (requiring a judge to act in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the judiciary), Rule 1.3 (prohibiting abuse of the prestige of judicial
office); Canon 2, Rule 2.9 (prohibiting ex parte communications), Rule 2.10
(prohibiting judicial statements on pending cases); and Canon 3, Rule 3.5
(prohibiting the intentional disclosure of nonpublic judicial information).
¶3 Having now considered the full record, we conclude that the Commission
properly found that then-Judge Kamada violated numerous provisions of the
Code of Judicial Conduct. Had Kamada not already resigned his position, removal
1
from office would have been an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. Because
he has resigned, we agree with the Commission’s recommendation that Kamada
should be publicly censured.
I. Facts and Procedural History
¶4 In June 2020, Kamada pled guilty in U.S. District Court to obstructing the
proceedings of a federal agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (2018). His
sentencing hearing is scheduled for February 17, 2021.
¶5 In August 2020, Kamada conditionally admitted to misconduct in his
capacity as an attorney in a stipulation filed jointly with the Office of Attorney
Regulation Counsel, and the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ordered his disbarment.
The stipulation recited incidents in which Kamada, as an attorney serving as a
district court magistrate (from 2015 until his appointment as a district court judge
on January 8, 2019), violated the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, and
subsequent incidents in which he, as a judge, violated the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
¶6 The circumstances leading to his guilty plea in federal court and his
disbarment included a pattern of disclosing nonpublic, confidential information
to his friends while serving as a magistrate and later as a judge. For example, in
January 2019, during his first month as a district court judge, he disclosed details
of a divorce proceeding to his long-time friend, Geoffrey Chacon, and another
2
friend in a text message declaring that the wife would be “free game tomorrow
night” and that the husband was keeping the family’s Mercedes. In another
matter, he sent his friends a photo of a father and child involved in a parenting
dispute, commenting “check out the dad in my trial today.” Further, on one
occasion, Chacon asked then-Judge Kamada to get him information about a person
being taken into custody by the FBI. Kamada responded to that request by
searching Colorado court records and, when he could not locate the case,
suggesting to Chacon that it was likely a federal matter.
¶7 In January 2019, Chacon texted Kamada that two drug dealers―one of
whom was Alberto Loya, an individual Kamada had been familiar with in high
school and through various community events―had been in an altercation.
Chacon commented that the other dealer was “high on coke.” Kamada replied
that Loya needed to “grow up” if he wanted “to play big boy stuff.” At the time,
it was widely believed in the community that Loya had been distributing illegal
drugs, including cocaine.
¶8 The incident that triggered the federal criminal prosecution, the attorney
disciplinary proceedings, and the commencement of this judicial disciplinary
proceeding involved a late-night request on April 23, 2019, for Kamada, as the on-
call district court judge, to issue a search warrant. The request for the warrant was
made by law enforcement officials in the Weld County Drug Task Force, which
3
included both federal agents and local law enforcement personnel. The task force
was part of a federally controlled investigation of alleged drug trafficking by Loya.
Kamada was not provided a copy of the warrant but was advised that the person
named in the warrant was Loya. Because of their school and community
connections, Kamada recused himself from issuing the warrant and referred the
matter to another judge.
¶9 The morning after the request for the warrant was made, Kamada reached
out to Chacon and told him to “stay away” from Loya. In prior conversations, he
had warned Chacon―who had recently been appointed as principal of a public
school―that associating with Loya could cause him problems. In his plea
agreement, Kamada acknowledged that his disclosure to Chacon was
“inappropriate and reckless” and that he “should have foreseen” that Chacon
would alert Loya about the task force investigation. And, in fact, when the task
force members searched Loya’s home on May 15, 2019, they found no evidence
related to Loya’s suspected drug activities. However, subsequent investigations
ultimately led to the arrest and guilty pleas of both Chacon and Loya.
¶10 Then-Judge Kamada self-reported this misconduct to the Commission on
July 18, 2019, and voluntarily resigned from his position as a district court judge
on August 21, 2019. The Commission’s initial investigation resulted in a
stipulation with Kamada for public censure of Kamada’s judicial misconduct.
4
That stipulation focused only on Kamada’s conduct in revealing sensitive
nonpublic information about the task force investigation to Chacon, in violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.2, and Canon 3, Rule 3.5, of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
¶11 When the Commission submitted its initial recommendation for public
censure to this court based on the stipulation, the facts and circumstances
established in the federal case and in the proceedings before the Presiding
Disciplinary Judge had not been disclosed by Kamada in his self-report and were
unknown to the Commission. In light of this missing information, some of which
was later publicly reported in the press, this court remanded the matter back to
the Commission for completion of the record. After completing the record, the
Commission again recommended public censure.
II. Analysis
¶12 We begin by discussing our jurisdiction to consider this matter and the
applicable standard of review. We then proceed to address the appropriate
sanction for Kamada’s conduct, concluding that public censure is appropriate in
light of the fact that Kamada has already resigned his position.
A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
¶13 Article VI, section 23(3), of the Colorado Constitution entrusts matters of
judicial discipline to the Commission and, ultimately, to this court. Colo. Const.
art. VI, § 23(3)(f); see also Colo. R.J.D. 40 (providing that the decision of the supreme
5
court, including such sanctions as may be ordered in a judicial disciplinary matter,
shall be final). Under Colorado’s rules governing judicial discipline, this court
must consider the evidence and the law and reach an ultimate conclusion about
appropriate sanctions, which may involve adopting a recommendation from the
Commission. See Colo. R.J.D. 40. If the Commission recommends adoption of a
stipulated resolution, “the Court shall order it to become effective and issue any
sanction provided in the stipulated resolution, unless the Court determines that
its terms do not comply with Rule 37(e) or are not supported by the record of
proceedings.” Id.
¶14 We will uphold the Commission’s findings of fact unless, after considering
the record as a whole, we conclude that they are clearly erroneous or unsupported
by substantial evidence. See In re Jones, 728 P.2d 311, 313 (Colo. 1986). We review
de novo the Commission’s conclusions of law. See id.B. Public Censure Is an Appropriate Sanction
¶15 In his initial self-report and his original stipulation with the Commission,
Kamada did not address the full extent of his violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. The stipulation focused only on the single incident in which he disclosed
nonpublic, confidential information to his friend regarding the search warrant and
the task force investigation of Loya. Thus, the Commission, in its amended
recommendation, appropriately looked beyond the stipulation to consider the
6
entire record, including the criminal and attorney regulation proceedings. We
must do the same.
¶16 Upon our review of the entire record, we agree with the Commission’s
conclusion that Kamada violated numerous provisions of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. In particular, when he warned Chacon to stay away from Loya, Kamada
obstructed the proceedings of a U.S. agency, a violation of federal law. This
conduct violated Canon 1, Rule 1.1, which requires a judge to comply with the law.
Kamada’s repeated disclosures of nonpublic judicial information and his
interference with the federal investigation also violated the requirement that
judges “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” Canon 1, Rule 1.2.
When Kamada searched nonpublic judicial records at his friend Chacon’s request,
he violated the prohibition in Canon 1, Rule 1.3, against abusing the prestige of his
judicial office. Kamada’s warning to Chacon that he should stay away from Loya
constituted a violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.9, prohibiting ex parte communications
about pending matters, and Rule 2.10, prohibiting any nonpublic judicial
statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial. And, finally,
Kamada’s communications over text message reflect numerous violations of
Canon 3, Rule 3.5, which prohibits judges from sharing nonpublic judicial
information.
7
¶17 The Code of Judicial Conduct directs us, in fashioning an appropriate
sanction, to consider factors such as “the seriousness of the transgression, the facts
and circumstances that existed at the time of the transgression, the extent of any
pattern of improper activity, whether there have been previous violations, and the
effect of the improper activity upon the judicial system or others.” Colo. C.J.C.,
Scope ¶ 6. Here, we acknowledge that prior to the matters now before us, Kamada
had not been subject to any judicial or attorney disciplinary proceedings and that
his violations in this case were not motivated by a desire for personal financial
gain. Nonetheless, the violations in this case are very serious. Then-Judge
Kamada’s pattern of reckless disregard for confidential information undermined
his office and the public’s confidence in the judiciary. In fact, his behavior
interfered with a multiagency law enforcement operation and resulted in a
criminal conviction in federal court.
¶18 In light of these serious violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, removal
from office would be an appropriate sanction if Kamada was still serving as a
district court judge. Because he resigned his office in August 2019, however, we
conclude that the public censure recommended by the Commission is the
appropriate sanction for Kamada’s misconduct.
8
III. Imposition of Sanctions
¶19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby PUBLICLY CENSURES now-
former Judge Ryan L. Kamada for his violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.1, Rule 1.2, and
Rule 1.3; Canon 2, Rule 2.9 and Rule 2.10; and Canon 3, Rule 3.5, of the Colorado
Code of Judicial Conduct.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9