General Overview of the Washington State System of Judicial Discipline J. Reiko Callner, Esq. Executive Director, Washington State Judicial Conduct Commission Member Emeritus, Association of Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Saturday, October 20, 2018. 10:00 Session

Dual Responsibilities Ensure Accountability & Safeguard Judicial Independence A judicial enforcement entity should protect the integrity of the judicial process and promote public confidence in the courts. It should do so by enforcing a consistent and transparent Code of Ethics. It should also improve and strengthen the judiciary by creating in judges a greater awareness of proper judicial behavior. Equally importantly, a judicial enforcement entity should provide due process to judges, and not allow unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct to damage judges’ reputations. Judges should be free to make hard decisions without fear. The overall goal of all judicial conduct commissions is to maintain confidence and integrity in the judicial system, and to defend judicial independence. Confidentiality is required under the constitution for pending and dismissed cases. Both the constitutional provision creating the Commission, our enabling statutes, and rules of procedure, require that we keep the fact that we are conducting an investigation confidential, and court officials and employees are required to do the same. That is for two main reasons – 1) to guard against the possibility of retaliation against complainants and witnesses, and 2) to prevent our process from being abused as a means to harass judges for making the decisions they are required to make. The great majority of complaints filed with the Commission are dismissed, because they were basically an expression of disagreement with the judges’ rulings, rather than an allegation of actual misconduct. Most judicial officers in Washington have been the subject of at least one and often multiple complaints that are investigated and then dismissed by the Commission, without ever being aware that the complaint was made. In that way, the agency does not interfere with the ongoing court process.

Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1: A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. Canon 2: A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY. Canon 3: A JUDGE SHALL CONDUCT THE JUDGE’S PERSONAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE. A consistent and easily understood Code is the basis of good judicial ethics enforcement. Written and accessible rules of procedure that ensure due process, confidentiality, and transparency in substantiated cases. Outreach, training, and ethics advisory opinions.The current Code is composed of four overarching Canons, that are then broken down to enforceable Rules. Canon 1 Compliance with the Law RULE 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary RULE 1.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office Canon 2. Express rules governing the duties of judicial office: Canon 4: A JUDGE OR CANDIDATE FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL OR CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, OR IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY.

Each Canon Contains Rules Which are Enforceable by Discipline Example: Rule 1.3: A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests* of the judge or others, or allow others to do so. Canon 1 requires that A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

Comments Accompany the Rules The Comments provide guidance on the purpose, meaning, and proper application of the rules. They also identify aspirational goals for judges.

Comment example: It is improper for a judge to use or attempt to use his or her position to gain personal advantage or deferential treatment of any kind. For example, it would be improper for a judge to allude to his or her judicial status to gain favorable treatment in encounters with traffic officials. Similarly, a judge must not use judicial letterhead to gain an advantage in conducting his or her personal business.

Members and Alternate Members Commission on Judicial Conduct 5 separate appointing authorities. The present constitutionally-mandated composition of the CJC is eleven members who are appointed, by statute, to 4–year terms. Each member has an alternate to serve in the case the regular member is recused or unavailable.

Members’ Policies General Policies – Participation, attendance; Communication, removal and enforcement; Rules of Conduct; Proceedings; Disqualification (conflict, bias); Personnel administration; Financial rules

A complaint can be received by any means, though we request people not send email complaints because the confidentiality of emails is questionable. We have complaint forms to guide people in providing pertinent information, which can be mailed or downloaded from our web site, but we also can take complaints over the telephone, particularly in situations where we need to do so to guarantee access. All complaints are, following the mandate of the constitution, investigated and analyzed independently by the Commission. In this way, the Commission takes care to obtain its own, independent evidence, and to consider the merits of the allegations separate from any motivation the complainant may have. Both the original materials submitted by the complainants and the information derived by the investigators are circulated to the members for consideration. The investigators provide analysis and recommendations to the members, but the members make all decisions in the cases at their bimonthly executive session meetings, at which time all members share their views, questions, and concerns with each other on the cases ready for discussion.

Sanctions Admonition Reprimand Censure -with or without recommendation for suspension or removal Reprimand and censure require remedial measures.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Characteristics of Misconduct. (A) Whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidence of a pattern of conduct; (B) The nature, extent, and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (C) Whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (D) Whether the misconduct occurred in the judge's official capacity or in the judge's private life; (E) Whether the judge flagrantly and intentionally violated the oath of office; (F) The nature and extent to which the acts of misconduct have been injurious to other persons; (G) The extent to which the judge exploited the judge's official capacity to satisfy personal desires; and (H) The effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the judiciary. Derived from the case of In re Deming and codified in Commission Rule of Procedure 6(c). – CJCRP 6(c).

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Service and Demeanor of the Judge. (A) Whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred; (B) Whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify the conduct; (C) The judge's length of service in a judicial capacity; (D) Whether there has been prior disciplinary action concerning the judge; (E) Whether the judge cooperated with the commission investigation and proceeding; and (F) The judge's compliance with an opinion by the ethics advisory committee shall be considered by the commission as evidence of good faith.

Source of Complaints