Where applicable, the following public cases may include Commission decisions, statements of charges, answers to statements of charges, exhibits, and/or supreme court decisions. These documents are available for download as Adobe Acrobat PDF files.

In re the Honorable Philip Y. Killien

The Commission and a district court judge stipulated that the judge should be admonished for granting a new trial before a different judge following an ex parte communication with the plaintiff after entering a judgment in favor of the defendant in a small claims matter. The stipulation noted that the plaintiff had insisted on talking to the judge despite the judge's protests that he could not talk to him and had become emotionally distraught and tearful and that the judge had believed he was serving the ends of justice in granting the new trial.

Stipulation, Agreement and Order of Admonishment filed 12/9/1991.

 

In re the Honorable E. T. Leverette

A judge admitted he had smoked in his chambers contrary to county ordinance, which prohibited smoking in county owned or leased buildings. He assured the Commission he ceased smoking in chambers and pledged not to violate the ordinance in the future. The Commission determined his conduct to be in violation of Canons 1 and 2 (A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The judge was admonished.

Stipulation, Agreement and Order of Admonishment filed 10/10/1991.

 

In re the Honorable Brian P. Coughenour

Pursuant to a stipulation and agreement with a county district court judge pro tem, the Commission publicly admonished the judge, who had been charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs and unlawful possession of marijuana under 40 grams. An order of deferred prosecution had been entered in the traffic matter.

Stipulation, Agreement and Order of Admonishment filed 9/6/1991.

Statement of Charges filed 8/16/1991.

 

In re the Honorable Mark H. Adams

The Commission stipulated to closure of the case and a former court commissioner for the court of appeals stipulated that he would not serve in any judicial office in any state and would not seek judicial office in Washington without applying for and receiving a favorable recommendation from the Commission. Noting that in 1982, the commissioner had been charged with a misdemeanor trespass involving charges that he looked through a neighbor's window, the Commission stated that it had received allegations that he had put his hand in his pants pocket in the presence of female court employees that they perceived as inappropriately touching his genitals, asked female court personnel to arrange dates for him, discussed with female court personnel his out of office dating activities, and kept a personal diary that included references to his personal sexual experiences, and other behavior, that, if true, would evidence a pattern of behavior consistent with a medical/psychological condition relating to the prior criminal charge and made it inappropriate for him to hold judicial office. The commissioner denied the allegations of the complaint (except with respect to the diary, which he kept at the suggestion of a counselor) and the Commission's determination that his conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct but did not contest the determination.

Stipulation and Order of Closure filed 8/26/1991.

Statement of Charges filed 4/15/1991.

 

In re the Honorable Fred J. Stoker

The Commission admonished a judge who, in August 1990, during his campaign for re election, placed or caused to be placed a campaign sign and campaign literature in both the Democratic and Republican booths at a county fair, who could be seen inside each booth at various times during the fair, and who paid the county Democratic party $65 for his use of the Democratic booth at the fair, which was used by the party to help defray the costs of the booth in its partisan political interests.
The Commission found that by campaigning from within a political party's booth, posting his signs in the Democratic and Republican Party booths and placing his campaign literature in the booths, the judge gave the impression either that he was running as a Democrat, or enjoyed the support of the Democratic Party, or that he was running as a Republican with Republican Party support, or at best, that he was running a bipartisan not a non partisan campaign for judicial office, in violation of Canon 7B. The Commission also found that the money paid by the judge to the Democratic Party for the use of its booth was an assessment by or a contribution to a political party, which is prohibited by the Code. One Commission member concurred on the finding with respect to the fee paid to the Democratic Party but dissented from the finding with respect to the judge's placing literature in both parties' booths on the ground that "the simultaneous display of identical campaign material by a non partisan candidate in each booth of the competing political parties in essentially the same location can hardly suggest membership in either party."

Supreme Court Opinion 118 Wn.2d 782, 827 P.2d 986 (1992), filed 4/9/1992.

Commission Decision filed 6/25/1991.

General Denial to Statement of Charges filed 2/6/1991.

Statement of Charges filed 1/15/1991.

 

 

In re the Honorable Russell Heaton, Jr.

The Commission dismissed a complaint against a municipal court judge based on the judge's stipulation that he committed misconduct and the judge's agreement to resign and not seek or serve in any judicial office in Washington without a favorable recommendation from the Commission and approval of the state Supreme Court. The judge stipulated that he had committed procedural irregularities in violation of state law requirements, denying defendants the right to be heard and to a determination of the facts before disposition of a case and failing to provide interpreters in all matters involving non-English speaking defendants, that he had not completed the lay judge examination or mandatory training requirements, and that he had discussed pending cases with police officers outside the presence of the individuals charged.

Stipulation, Agreement and Order of Dismissal filed 3/1/1991.

Statement of Charges filed 1/15/1991.

 

In re the Honorable Janice Niemi

The Commission publicly censured a pro tempore judge who had served on a county superior court for ninety two days in 1990 while also serving as a senator in the state legislature. The Commission found that the senate committees on which the judge served (the law and justice committee and the ways and means committee) had substantial responsibilities in enacting laws and regulating the courts and the judicial system. The Commission concluded that the dual service could cause substantial concerns on the part of the public about the judge's integrity and independence and could seriously affect public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The Commission also held that the judge's activities as a partisan member of the state legislature constitute partisan political activity prohibited to a judge. The Commission noted that the Code of Judicial Conduct clearly states that judges pro tempore are not exempted from the provisions of the Code except in those situations specifically set forth in its Preamble. The Commission also stated that the separation of the branches of government is improperly eroded by the necessity of a legislator appearing before the Commission to receive a reprimand or censure as a judge. Noting the judge's offer to recuse herself from any matters in the senate committees that concern the Commission, the Commission stated that the judge had been elected to serve the citizens of the district and should continue to do so and that the offer to recuse tacitly acknowledged the inherent conflict of interest. In response to the judge's argument that legislators should be permitted to serve as judges pro tempore because of a shortage of elected judges and a backlog of untried cases, the Commission held that expedience should not reign over ethics.
Stating that it is an administrative body, the Commission concluded that it had no constitutional or statutory authority to determine the constitutionality of specific canons. Noting that on July 14, 1986, the Ethics Advisory Committee had issued an opinion stating that a member of the state legislature should not sit as a pro tempore judge, the Commission concluded that the judge's service as a pro tempore judge after notice of the advisory opinion and from the Commission, was, while not egregious conduct, greater than a minor violation. The Commission specified as a corrective course of action that the judge could no longer serve as a judge pro tempore until she is no longer a member of the legislature. Four (of ten) commissioners disagreed with the sanction (but not the corrective course of action), stating that the judge's conduct did not fall to the level of a censure, but that a reprimand was the proper sanction.

Supreme Court Opinion 117 Wn.2d 817, 820 P.2d 41 (1991), filed 11/2/1991.

Order Modifying Decision filed 2/7/1991.

Commission Decision filed 1/4/1991.

Amended Statement of Charges filed 10/23/1990.

Answer to Statement of Charges filed 10/10/1990.

Statement of Charges filed 9/17/1990.