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 Ralph L. Perkins

In a stipulation and agreement between the Commission and a judge who had twice intentionally struck and caused bodily harm to his then-spouse and entered a plea of guilty to two counts of assault, the judge agreed and stipulated to resign and terminate his judicial duties no later than December 1, 1993. He also agreed not to seek or serve in any judicial office in Washington unless the Supreme Court granted a petition for reinstatement of eligibility.

Supreme Court Order filed 11/9/1993.

Stipulation and Order of Closure filed 10/21/1993.

Statement of Charges filed 9/3/1993.

In re the Honorable Kenneth R. Eiesland

Pursuant to a stipulation and agreement with a judge, the Commission publicly reprimanded a judge for using the telephone in his court chambers to make numerous long distance phone calls for personal matters not related to the business of the court and for having court personnel prepare his personal correspondence using county equipment and supplies on three to five occasions over the eight years he has served as a judge. After the Commission sent the judge a statement of allegations, the judge had reimbursed the county for the use of staff and equipment.

Stipulation, Agreement and Order of Reprimand filed 10/1/1993.

 

In re the Honorable Michael F. Moynihan

The Commission publicly admonished a judge for writing a letter on official stationery and an affidavit on behalf of a child living in his home, a minor of no relation, to the American Schools of Correspondence, representing himself in the documents as a superior court judge, and providing in those documents legal representation for the minor. The judge stipulated that he had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and accepted the admonishment.

Stipulation, Agreement and Order of Admonishment filed 10/1/1993.

General Denial of Charges filed 9/10/1993.

Statement of Charges filed 8/17/1993.

 

In re the Honorable John G. Ritchie

The Commission censured a judge for making improper claims for travel reimbursement and improperly using county phones for personal long distance calls and recommended to the Washington Supreme Court that the judge be removed. There were five trips, one each year from 1987 through 1991, four to Florida, one to Arizona. The judge was reimbursed approximately $2,750. The Commission found that travel vouchers submitted by the judge in connection with the trips contained false and misleading statements concerning the nature, purpose, duration, and benefit of the court-related business allegedly conducted during the trips. The Commission also found that the judicial business that the judge contended that he conducted on the trips was incidental and insignificant to the main purpose of the trips, which was personal, and that the evidence most favorable to the judge suggested that he would occasionally meet for lunch or dinner with a Florida judge who was a close personal friend and business associate.

The Commission also concluded that judge's length of service and purported competence were minimized as mitigating conditions given the duration and nature of his misconduct; that the misconduct was extremely serious, involving dishonesty and conversion of public funds; and that, although none of the judge's misconduct was manifested through courtroom activities, all of it occurred in his official capacity. Noting that the high performance ratings garnered by the judge underscored the insidiousness of the misconduct, the Commission stated that sustained and relatively furtive misconduct, once discovered, not only taints the reputation of the offending judge, but also the system that had neglected to identify and rectify the situation in a timely fashion. Noting that only through much searching and effort was the Commission able to ascertain the facts, the Commission also concluded that there was nothing to indicate that the judge had acknowledged or recognized anything wrongful and that, other than the judge's reimbursement for phone calls after initiation of the proceedings, there was little to indicate whether the judge would refrain from similar conduct in the future. The Commission also ordered as corrective action that the judge make full restitution to the county within 30 days for the travel expenses and the personal long distance telephone charges. Two members of the Commission would have recommended censure with a 60 to 90 day suspension rather than removal from office. One member would have limited the sanction to censure with corrective action.

Supreme Court Opinion 123 Wn.2d 725, 870 P.2d 967 (1994). Filed 4/6/1994

Commission Decision filed 8/6/1993.

• Concurrence and Dissent 1
• Concurrence and Dissent 2

Answer to Statement of Charges filed 10/7/92.

Statement of Charges filed 9/18/1992.

• SOC Exhibit A
• SOC Exhibit B
• SOC Exhibit C
• SOC Exhibit D
• SOC Exhibit E
• SOC Exhibit F
• SOC Exhibit G
• SOC Exhibit H

In re the Honorable Jerry J. Moberg

Pursuant to a stipulation, the Commission publicly admonished a former judge who, while a judge, contracted with a public university to teach a class for compensation, which was inconsistent with an advisory opinion issued by the Washington Ethics Advisory Committee of which the judge was aware, and discussed legal representation with persons while a judge but after announcing his pending resignation. The former judge also agreed to make restitution to the university for the amount received as compensation and not to serve as a judge pro tem in any court in Washington for four years.

Stipulation, Agreement and Order of Admonishment filed 8/6/1993.

 

In re the Honorable John R. Junke

The Commission reprimanded a judge who 1) threatened to cancel the public defender contract of one of the attorneys who held the contract and had filed several affidavits of prejudice against the judge; 2) after a deputy prosecuting attorney presented an agreement with defense counsel that would dispose of the charges in a case, arrested the deputy prosecuting attorney and held him in contempt for refusing to have a state trooper arrested who was a key witness in the case; 3) visited a defendant in jail after the defendant was arrested on a failure to appear arising out of a traffic ticket; after the defendant told him the ticket was not his but his brother's, released the defendant without setting a court appearance date; and instructed one of his staff to talk to the arresting officer about the identity of the person who received the ticket; and 4) dismissed sua sponte a DWI charge against a defendant who had had knee surgery and could not get into the courtroom when there were other reasonable alternatives for taking the plea; in a memo regarding the lack of access to the court for disabled litigants, the judge had suggested he would not get anywhere with the county commissioners until a highly publicized case got dismissed or someone fell down the stairs.

In addition to the reprimand, the Commission ordered the judge to 1) take no retaliation, directly or indirectly, against witnesses or other persons who cooperated with the Commission in its investigation and proceeding; and 2) at his expense, attend, participate, and complete a course on ethics for judges at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, and, before June 1, 1994, attend another National Judicial College course of similar duration that is offered to new judges, to be selected by the judge and approved by the Commission.

Noting that the evidence did not show that a single defendant suffered unjust or unfair treatment in the judge's court, one member of the Commission dissented from the sanction and argued that admonishment (which the hearing panel had recommended) was more than sufficient sanction for what seemed to be no more than an intramural squabble among members of a closed system.

Commission Decision filed 6/4/1993.

Answer to Statement of Charges filed 10/12/92.

Statement of Charges filed 9/21/1992.

 

In re the Honorable William J. O'Roarty

Pursuant to a stipulation with the judge, the Commission admonished a judge who, during an arraignment concerning a charge of no valid operator's license, directed insensitive questions and comments to the defendant related to AIDS. The order noted that the courtroom was crowded with spectators and others waiting their turn to address the court and that the judge's comments and questions appeared to others to be demeaning and to violate the defendant's basic expectation of privacy.

Stipulation, Agreement and Order of Admonishment filed 4/2/1993.

 

In re the Honorable Larry W. Larson

Pursuant to a stipulation with the judge, the Commission reprimanded a judge who had been very argumentative with officers of the county sheriff's department who stopped a boat in which he was a passenger on a lake in Idaho. The judge was non-responsive to reasonable requests for information made by the officers, used abusive language to the officers and attempted to pick a fight with one of them, was arrested for being in physical control of a boat while under the influence of alcohol, refused to exhale into the alco senser III, and was charged with obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties and being in physical control of a boat while under the influence of intoxicants. The actions of the judge became public knowledge and were widely disseminated by news media, both in Idaho and in the county where he served as judge until he was defeated in an election. A certified alcohol agency evaluated the judge and recommended that he attend alcohol information school, followed by six months of monthly counseling at an approved alcoholism treatment agency. The stipulation noted that the judge had never before been sanctioned for any violations of the rules of judicial conduct by the Commission, he had been forthright and immediately reported his conduct to the Commission, and had cooperated by providing information requested by the Commission. The judge had agreed to the reprimand (he was still serving as a pro tem judge.)

Stipulation, Agreement and Order of Reprimand filed 4/2/1993.

General Denial of Charges filed 3/18/1993.

Statement of Charges filed 1/21/1993.

 

In re the Honorable Robert D. Moilanen

The Commission publicly censured a judge and recommended that he be suspended for 30 days without pay. (1) The judge had asked his clerk during her job interview in 1988 with whom she associated in the clerk's office and what she thought of women's lib. (2) After becoming annoyed with what he considered to be clutter on his clerk's desk, the judge on several occasions removed files from the desk and deposited them under her desk or in garbage cans or drawers, making it necessary for her to collect and reorganize her files before she could proceed with her work. (3) The judge had called his clerk a "slut" at numerous times in the presence of her co-workers while at work (for example, he would say "It's time for court, slut"). (4) The judge had referred to another judge's clerk as "bitch" even after she asked him not to. (5) After discovering that his clerk was upset over the possible loss of her dog, the judge taunted her to the point of tears by portraying a gruesome scene of discovering a beloved pet dead in the street and saying "Doggie, doggie, doggie" or "bow wow wow," or "Arf, arf, arf." (6) The judge had taunted another judge's clerk with a spider until she became hysterical. (7) In the presence of female court personnel, in or about the courthouse, the judge had referred to two fellow judges, respectively as "Big Dick" and "bastard" and told his clerk that a female employee of another department was a "cunt." (8) In 1979 or 1980, the judge had told a female attorney in his chambers (referring to two women who had appeared at a hearing in halter tops), "God, those nipples. I just love summertime, because you can see those nipples when the air conditioning is on" and advised the attorney that lawyers should not show their nipples, that he did not want to see her nipples, and that she should always wear a bra. On a second occasion, the judge had told the same female lawyer that he thought she was crabby, that she should "get laid," and that he had a single friend she could go out with. (9) The judge had told his clerk after he learned that she had been invited by a lawyer to a Rotary luncheon, "You can't go, you have to be a doctor or a lawyer or a judge or a somebody, you can't be a nothing. You have to be a somebody. If they let you go, next they'd have to let a goddamn waitress go." (10) One evening when his clerk was leaving, the judge had said "See you tomorrow. Now go get fucked." (11) The judge had frequently gestured obscenely at his clerk with his finger, at times when she was with other female clerks. (12) The judge had filed a small claims matter in his own court although he could have brought it elsewhere; his signature appeared as the judge on the notification of default to defendant because he was the presiding judge at the time and the signature was applied by a rubber stamp. (13) The judge had used court staff time, equipment and/or supplies to get a pumpkin from a farm one Halloween, to do his personal correspondence; to conduct a search to learn the latest T-bill rates on one occasion; to arrange for him and his relatives to attend the races on one occasion; and to attend to his personal travel on at least one occasion. (14) On the individual county telephone line installed in his office, the judge had placed numerous personal, long distance calls, which were charged to and paid by the county and not reimbursed by the judge. (15) The judge had interrogated a court secretary after the Commission investigator met with her and, after she reported this event to the investigator, the judge had asked her about the nature of the information conveyed to the investigator. (16) The judge had attempted to interfere with the Commission's investigator by directing a court secretary to destroy evidence on the court computer that related to his personal correspondence.

In determining the appropriate sanction, the Commission concluded that (1) the judge's misconduct was not isolated but clearly part of a pattern of misconduct, (2) the judge's misconduct was demeaning to court personnel, primarily female and primarily working in subordinate positions to the judge and at times was clearly cruel, (3) the judge's misconduct occurred outside the courtroom but always in and about the courthouse during the work day, (4) the judge's misconduct occurred in his official capacity as opposed to his private capacity, (5) while the judge now acknowledges some of his misconduct, it appears that his acknowledgement came only as a result of the discipline proceedings, (6) there is no evidence that the judge has made any effort to change or modify his conduct, and, although his testimony during the hearing indicated a limited awareness and desire to change, the judge did not appear contrite before the Commission, (7) the judge had served in his capacity as district court judge for 14 years, (8) there have been prior complaints against the judge, none of which resulted in a finding of probable cause, (9) there has been a substantial and materially adverse effect on the integrity of and respect for the judiciary, e.g., court personnel were aware of the judge's misuse for personal benefit of county-provided property, equipment, and personnel; court personnel and others were aware of the judge's demeaning and derogatory comments and treatment of others, showing little or no respect for their feelings; court personnel and others were aware of the judge's derogatory and demeaning comments and treatment of females and subordinate staff; and court personnel were aware of the disrespect the judge has shown for another county official and other judges, and (10) the judge exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires, requiring court personnel to conduct his personal private business and run personal private errands for him.

In addition to censuring the judge and recommending that the Washington Supreme Court suspend him for 30 days without pay, the Commission ordered the judge to take the following corrective action: (1) cease and desist from making disparaging or embarrassing comments while in the performance of his official duties in and about the courthouse, whether or not such comments are intended by him as jokes; (2) take no retaliation, directly or indirectly, against witnesses or other persons who cooperated with the Commission in its investigation and proceeding; (3) attend, participate, and complete courses selected by the Commission concerning judicial conduct pertinent to behavior exhibited by the judge at the National Judicial College within one year at his own time and expense; (4) within 60 days after completing the courses, develop and propose rules to the other judges of his court that shall include rules to improve the working environment and a meaningful method for complaints to be dealt with, and for true accountability; (5) cause an accounting, at his own expense, of the value of court resources appropriated by him for his personal use and tender the amount to the county commissioners at a regular public meeting; and (6) cooperate with the Commission monitoring of his compliance with the order.

One Commission member filed a concurring and dissenting opinion. That member argued that the findings relating to the clerk's job interview in 1988 and to the comments to the female attorney had not been in the statement of charges and so could not be the basis of discipline (three other members concurred as to the job interview finding) and that the comments to the female attorney may have taken place before the adoption of the state constitutional amendment in November 1980 creating the Commission and so could not be the basis of discipline. The member dissented from the finding that the judge did not appear contrite and argued that the Commission should not hold a person's lack of contrition against him or her. Dissenting from the finding that the judge's conduct undermines the public confidence in the administration of justice, the member noted that all of the misconduct occurred outside the courtroom and there was no finding much less evidence that the public as opposed to the employees of the court lacked confidence in the judge.

The member agreed that the judge had committed misconduct in the use of court resources and by making inappropriate comments and gestures to some members of the court staff and that the judge should be censured and required to take corrective action. Dissenting as to recommendation of suspension, however, the member stated that the incidents regarding use of court resources were isolated and trifling and that making telephone calls that were long distance was inadvertent. With respect to the judge's conduct toward court staff, the member stated that the behavior did not result from any venal motive but from his misguided effort to be humorous or a feeling that he wanted to treat his employees "like one of the guys." Concluding that the judge was not a lost cause, that member noted statements from his testimony such as "Things have changed, there's been -- in recent years there's a change, this talk of sexual harassment, there's -- what was acceptable a year ago or two years ago isn't acceptable anymore. . . . I'm more tuned in with it frankly." The dissenting member noted that no witness testified that the judge was inefficient in the performance of his duties or that he was less than judicious on the bench.

Supreme Court Order In re Moilanen, No. J.D. 8 (Nov. 1993), filed 11/5/1993.

Stipulation and Agreement of Censure and Resignation filed 8/31/93.

Order Changing Three Member Decision filed 4/5/1993.

Order Denying Motions and Clarifying Commission Decision filed 4/5/1993.

Commission Decision filed 2/5/1993.

• Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 1
• Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 2
• Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 3
• Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 4

Commission Decision (Three Member) filed 2/5/1993.

Answer to Amended Statement of Charges filed 9/21/1992.

Amended Statement of Charges filed 9/14/1992.

Answer to Statement of Charges filed 5/5/1992.

Statement of Charges filed 4/14/1992.