Name: Robert D. Moilanen
Title: Judge
Court: Clark District Court
County: Clark
Discipline: Censure & Resignation
Method of Resolution: Supreme Court affirmed
Discipline Date: 09/13/1993
Canons Violated:1, 2(A), 3(B)(1)
Summary: 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. The State Supreme Court affirmed the stipulation to censure and accept Judge Moilanen's resignation.
Case Documents Available:
Supreme Court Order In re Moilanen, JD No. 8 filed 11/5/1993.
Stipulation and Agreement of Censure and Resignation filed 8/31/1993.
Order Changing Three Member Decision filed 4/5/1993.
Order Denying Motions and Clarifying Commission Decision filed 2/5/1993.
Commission Decision filed 2/5/1993.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 1 filed 2/5/1993.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 2 filed 2/5/1993.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 3 filed 2/5/1993.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 4 filed 2/5/1993.
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.