Chantel E. Contiguglia

Trial Court · Gilpin · Gilpin

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2026 retention cycle
Trial Court · Gilpin · Gilpin
Meets Standards
VotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.
Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) finds Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Contiguglia was appointed to the District Court in Jefferson County on January 1, 2024. She presides over a mixed docket of criminal, civil and domestic relations matters. Judge Contiguglia has been described as prepared, fair, consistent, and respectful with good judicial demeanor and temperament. She is thoughtful and sets clear deadlines and expectations. Her case management was described as efficient; however it was noted her scheduling practices could be inflexible for trial and docket management, which has been perceived by some litigants to overlook practical needs of the parties. During her interim evaluation Judge Contiguglia was given this feedback and since that time, there has been improvement. Judge Contiguglia’s background is predominantly criminal defense work, which is reflected in her acumen with criminal law. Judge Contiguglia is committed to increasing her proficiency in civil and domestic relations law by seeking out colleagues with this expertise and attending continuing legal education in these areas. The Commission finds Judge Contiguglia meets performance standards and is pleased she has committed to increasing her proficiency in civil and domestic relations law. The commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Contiguglia, reviewed orders she authored, observed her in court, reviewed the judicial performance survey responses from attorneys, non-attorneys, jurors and court staff, and received feedback from the chief judge of the 1st Judicial District, the Office of the District Attorney, and the Office of the State Public Defender. There was a limited number of survey responses for this evaluation period. Five appellate court judges responded to the survey and rated Judge Contiguglia high (4.0 out of 4.0). Judge Contiguglia grew up in Walden, Colorado, a small town in Jackson County. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Mesa State College and her Juris Doctorate from the University of Denver in 2006. Before her current appointment, she served as a County Court Judge in Arapahoe County for six years. Prior to that Judge Contiguglia spent over ten years with the Colorado State Public Defender’s Office. In addition to her public responsibilities, she remains committed to community service, frequently volunteering at local schools, mentoring young attorneys, and participating in programs that support access to justice.
2020 retention cycle
Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe
Commission vote: 9 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 77.0% yes
218,288 yes · 65,015 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report The Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 9-0, with one Commissioner absent from voting, that Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Contiguglia presides over a county court docket that is 90% criminal (45% misdemeanor and 45% traffic), 5% civil and 5% small claims. Judge Contiguglia’s demeanor is described as warm and personable, as well as respectful and patient with all parties. She is dignified and fair while maintaining a professional decorum in the courtroom. She is well prepared, is an excellent communicator and possesses a strong knowledge of the law, which she often uses to teach new attorneys. She is prompt in her rulings and both her oral and written decisions are clear and concise. Docket and case management challenges, especially setting too many cases for trial on the same day, is the only concern for the commission. The commission recommends that Judge Contiguglia review her docket and case management processes with respect to this issue. Judge Contiguglia stays current on the law by reviewing the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court decisions weekly. She also sends opinions on to her colleagues when she finds information relevant to their areas of expertise. Based on these findings the Commission agrees that Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia meets performance standards. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Contiguglia, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys. The commission also interviewed the District Attorneys, Probation, Public Defenders and the Chief Judge. The surveys reflected personal opinions on Judge Contiguglia’s Case Management, Application and Knowledge of the Law, Communications, Diligence, Demeanor and Fairness. Of the thirty-seven (37) completed surveys returned, Judge Contiguglia achieved an overall performance rating of 3.5 out of a possible 4.0, compared to all County Court Judges at a rating of 3.4. Her ratings for meeting performance standards from attorneys was 86% and 77% from non-attorneys. A total of twenty-three (23) attorneys and fourteen (14) non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Contiguglia.

Surveys & reports

2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Structured scores pending
  Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
- 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Structured scores pending
  Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
2020 cycle
- 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.5
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  86%
  31 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  77%
  18 respondents
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . 14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Contiguglia, 37 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 37 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.5 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Contiguglia All County Judges Judge Contiguglia All County Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 94% 86% 83% 77% 80% 60% 40% 20% 15% 13% 10% 8% 5% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Contiguglia All County Judges Judge Contiguglia All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Contiguglia Contiguglia Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 86% 83% 77% 94% standards No, does not meet performance 10% 13% 8% 4% standards No opinion 5% 5% 15% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.5 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.4 3.6 Fairness 3.8 Judge Contiguglia All County Judges All Judge County Contiguglia Judges Case 3.4 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.3 Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.5 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.4 Fairness 3.6 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 31 20% 74% 23 Non-Attorneys 18 37% 78% 14 In addition to the responses above, Judge Contiguglia received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Contiguglia Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Contiguglia Attorneys 3.5 Judge Contiguglia Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Judge County Judge Contiguglia Number of Contiguglia Judges Contiguglia Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.4 20 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.2 30 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.4 27 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3 3.4 3 3.1 30 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Contiguglia Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Contiguglia Attorneys 3.4 Judge Contiguglia Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Contiguglia Number of Contiguglia Judges Contiguglia Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.8 35 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 21 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 19 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.1 3.1 3.1 N/A 21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 20 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 11 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.3 3.7 N/A 3.3 12 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Contiguglia Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Contiguglia Attorneys 3.7 Judge Contiguglia Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge County Judge Contiguglia Number of Contiguglia Judges Contiguglia Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 34 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 13 reasoned Using language that everyone 3.7 3.8 N/A 3.7 13 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.8 N/A 3.8 13 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Contiguglia Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Contiguglia Attorneys 3.7 Judge Contiguglia Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Contiguglia Number of Contiguglia Judges Contiguglia Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 35 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.6 35 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.5 35 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.5 3.8 N/A 3.5 13 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Contiguglia Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Contiguglia Attorneys 3.4 Judge Contiguglia Non-Attorneys 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 11 ## Page 12 Judge Judge County Judge Contiguglia Number of Contiguglia Judges Contiguglia Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 20 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 20 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 16 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 12 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 13 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 12 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.8 N/A 3.8 13 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 13 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Contiguglia Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Contiguglia Attorneys Judge Contiguglia Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Contiguglia Contiguglia Contiguglia Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 3.7 3.8 N/A 3.7 13 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.7 3.8 N/A 3.7 12 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.4 3.8 N/A 3.4 10 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.8 3.8 N/A 3.8 13 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Contiguglia, 37 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 37 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 13% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 15 ## Page 16 with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 153 31 0 23 74% Staff 36 14 0 10 - Others 4 4 0 4 - Total Non-Attorneys 40 18 0 14 78% Total Respondents 193 49 0 37 76% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Chantel E. Contiguglia 17

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026