1. Complaints Admissibility and Screening
J. Reiko Callner, Esq.
Executive Director, Washington State Judicial Conduct Commission
Member Emeritus, Association of Judicial Disciplinary Counsel
Saturday, October 20, Session III 22 mins

2. 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.

3. Basic Screening Threshold Determinations: Find out whether
The person against whom the allegations are made is a judge subject to the disciplinary authority of the commission; and either
The facts alleged, if true, would constitute misconduct or incapacity; or
The investigative officer has grounds to believe that upon further inquiry such facts might be discovered. If not, the investigative officer shall recommend to the commission to dismiss the matter or, if appropriate, refer the complainant to another agency.

4. Topics Worthy/Not Worthy of Investigation
Do Investigate Judge intentionally committed legal error. Operated from provable bias. Engaged in unlawful ex parte communication. Engaged in criminal behavior. Abused the prestige of office.
Don’t Investigate Sheer disagreement with legal conclusions. Judge believed lies. Scandalous allegations with no apparent basis. Engaged in legal conduct unrelated to job
Threshold question is always if true, would this be a Code violation? If not, you’re done.

5. Source of Complaints

6. Complaint Format Is the complainant anonymous?
Specific complaint form?
Does the complainant have a direct relationship to the allegation?
Was the alleged conduct a willful violation of the Code?
Is the judge still on the bench?
Is the judge particularly highly placed/influential?

7. Investigation Determined by Nature of Allegations
Is there a basis to believe investigation would yield evidence of a Code violation?
Exercise due diligence. Consider the allegations from multiple perspectives.
Choose a logical order of inquiry, including evidence and witnesses.
Examine and be prepared for evidence that contradicts evidence you have already gathered.
Test the results of your investigation for assumptions.
A bare allegation of scandalous misconduct should not be investigated.

8. Some complaints are harder to investigate than others.