2026 retention · District Court · 4th Judicial District
3 percentile · rank 63 of 65
composite 0100
6 percentile · rank 102 of 108
composite 0100
42 83rd percentile among peers · 87th percentile statewide
1054
Composite index 7.18 among peers (8.49 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
2.50 of 4 · 3.85 percentile
2.103.80
2.55 of 4 · 4.62 percentile
2.073.82
67.00% 13.08 percentile
25.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 67.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 50.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 2.60median 3.20 | 3.20 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 2.50median 3.10 | 3.10 | |
| Communications | 2.50median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Diligence | 2.50median 3.10 | 3.10 | |
| Demeanor | 2.60median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Fairness | 2.60median 3.10 | 3.10 |
| Year | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | 3.00 | 3.40 | 3.70 | 3.40 | 2.90 | 3.10 |
| Responses | 28 | 32 | 76 | 97 | 31 | 61 |
Commission: meets standards (9–0)
The Fourth Judicial District Performance Commission voted 9-0 (with one absence) that Judge Gregory Robert Werner MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
District Court Judge Werner presides over a docket that is made up of predominately civil cases (70%) and probate matters (25%). He also handles certain mental health-related cases. He is the presiding judge in probate, civil, and water court cases, recognized for his deep knowledge and experience in these areas. Judge Werner serves as a resource for other judges, particularly in civil cases. Although he does not currently maintain a criminal docket, Judge Werner has in recent years presided over several high-profile criminal trials. Twenty-two of the 34 attorneys and four of the eight non-attorneys who responded to survey rated Judge Werner as meeting judicial performance standards. Nine opined that Judge Werner did not meet performance standards and two had no opinion. Judge Werner received relatively high scores from the Appellate Judges that responded to the surveys. However, because the response rate to surveys was less than 3% for attorneys (34 of 767) and 1% for non-attorneys (6 of 125), the survey responses are statistically invalid. Judge Werner conducts his courtroom formally, to demonstrate that he has not pre-judged the matter, does not favor any party, and applies the law to the facts without the influence of emotion.
The Commission personally interviewed Judge Werner, observed him in Court, reviewed judicial performance data, a number of his written opinions and orders, as well as written comments from attorneys, non-attorneys and appellate judges. It also met with the Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial District, and representatives of the District Attorneys’ Office and the Public Defender’s Office. Comments made by both members of the bar and the public include the following: “Judge Werner sets high expectations but does so respectfully;” “Participants are always treated without bias whether represented by an attorney or Pro Se;” and “he’s punctual; gives each side an equal opportunity to present their arguments; and rules quickly. He sets out exactly how he wants counsel to proceed in his courtroom.”
The Governor appointed Judge Werner to the bench on July 10, 2006. Before that he served as a trial attorney in Colorado Springs for approximately 18 years. He is a 1987 graduate of the University of Colorado Law School, having earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado in 1983. Judge Werner is involved in several community service activities including serving as a judge for both college and high school mock trial competitions and for the Colorado Springs Teen Court. He is a member of the Colorado Supreme Court Rules Committee and has frequently spoken to members of the bar and judges on probate issues that come before Colorado Courts. The Commission highly values Judge Werner and his many years of service to our legal community and the bench.
2020 retention · District Court · 4th Judicial District
9 percentile · rank 54 of 59
composite 0100
8 percentile · rank 92 of 100
composite 0100
31 37th percentile among peers · 44th percentile statewide
1488
Composite index 10.45 among peers (8.83 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.00 of 4 · 12.71 percentile
2.203.90
3.15 of 4 · 14.41 percentile
2.423.88
57.00% 4.24 percentile
39.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 57.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 100.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.20median 3.60 | 3.60 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 2.90median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Communications | 3.10median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Diligence | 2.90median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Demeanor | 2.90median 3.60 | 3.60 | |
| Fairness | 3.90median 4.00 | 4.00 |
Commission: meets standards Split vote 7–3
The Fourth Judicial District Judicial Performance Commission voted 7-3 that Judge Gregory R. Werner MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Judge Werner has served the community as a District Court Judge since 2006. The 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report shows some major areas of concern. The Commission acknowledges that since the last evaluation Judge Werner has had an atypical and difficult caseload, including a death penalty case and additional judicial case work assignments, and has experienced the death of several close family members. Numerous survey respondents noted that Judge Werner maintains an efficient docket and courtroom. The Commission’s concerns stem from survey responses that indicate Judge Werner’s scores are well below the average for all District Court Judges. Judge Werner’s areas of weakness include Demeanor with a score of 2.9 (below the average of 3.5), Diligence with a score of 2.9 (below the average of 3.4), Application and Knowledge of the Law (being fair and impartial to both sides of the case) with a score of 2.9 (below the average of 3.3), and Basing Decisions on Evidence/Arguments and Issuing Consistent Sentences both with scores of 2.6 (below the average of 3.3). Judge Werner also had lower than average scores in Case Management and Communications. Overall, it is the Commission’s assessment that while Judge Werner runs his courtroom efficiently, he needs to address these areas of concern to avoid being rated as a marginally effective district court judge. Comments such as arrogant, demeaning, inability to listen and lack of self-awareness repeatedly came up to describe Judge Werner and his dealings with those that appear in his court. Those comments were countered by positive comments like efficient and fair. After further interviews, observations, and feedback the Commission is convinced that Judge Werner will take the necessary steps to address these shortcomings and their 7-3 vote reflects this determination.
The Commission interviewed Judge Werner, observed him in Court, reviewed his self-evaluation, written opinions, judicial performance data, comments from attorneys and non-attorneys, and the judicial performance survey results from 2017 and 2020. It should be noted that a new methodology for the survey was used this year to which lower response rates may be attributed. This methodology affected all judges across the board and is not an explanation for individual results. The Commission also spoke with representatives of the District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office
Judge Werner received his undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in 1983 and his Juris Doctorate degree in 1987 from the University of Colorado School of Law. Prior to his appointment to the District Court, Judge Werner was in private practice at Paul S. Edwards and Associates, primarily in civil litigation with an emphasis on insurance defense. His current court docket includes 50% criminal and 50% civil cases.