State of Washington Seal

State of Washington

Search Result


Case Summary for Complaint # 1652


Name: A'Lan S. Hutchinson

Title: Judge

Court: Pierce District Court #3

County: Pierce

Discipline: Censure

Method of Resolution: Decision

Discipline Date: 02/03/1995

Canons Violated:1, 2(A), 3(A)(3), 3(A)(4), 3(C)(1)(a)

Summary: The Commission censured a judge for initiating and considering ex parte communications regarding a petition for name change pending before him; used words and descriptions that had the potential to disparage or demean, and did in fact humiliate, the petitioners in a case to change names; and acquired personal knowledge of evidentiary facts from ex parte communications that contributed to a personal bias and/or prejudice. In a dissent as to sanction, three Commission members argued that the judge should have been reprimanded. Two men who were going through gender reassignment therapy petitioned to have their names changed to female names. After the judge declined to grant the petitions until gender reassignment surgery was completed, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. The judge initiated an ex parte, independent factual investigation about gender reassignment surgery, without prior or contemporaneous notice to the petitioners, communicating with several medical organizations. During a hearing in a crowded courtroom, the judge reported the results of his investigation, stating that gender reassignment surgery is probably illegal in most states as "maiming," is not offered in Washington, and that "there is some question in my mind whether or not a physician performing this surgery in the State of Washington might not be guilty of a felony." The judge concluded that he should do nothing at all to encourage this procedure because of high statistical failure. The judge suggested that petitioners, if allowed to change their names, would pose a risk to those who "send their daughters into the ladies' restroom." The judge stated: "Although I personally feel that this whole procedure is immoral. It evidences a mentally ill and diseased mind. I am grateful that the physicians of this state and the rest of the United States apparently have the attitude that this surgical amputation is something beyond the medical pale." The Commission found that expert medical testimony clearly established that the judge's conclusions from his ex parte, independent investigations were incorrect or, at best, disputed by knowledgeable experts. The Commission also stated that to the extent that the ex parte communications related to opinions on the law, the judge should have received such communications through amicus briefs. The Commission found that the judge's moral pronouncements and demeaning statements directed to petitioners deprived them of an impartial and unbiased forum and the judge's ex parte investigation resulted in his reaching a conclusion before he gave the petitioners a right to respond and be heard. The Commission noted that the judge's misconduct was an isolated event; his testimony at the hearing suggested that he would do the same thing if he were faced with similar circumstances in the future; the judge's misconduct occurred in the courtroom and in his official capacity; he acknowledged his behavior but did not believe that it constituted a violation of the canons; the judge testified that he would modify his behavior if the Commission ordered it; the judge had served in his judicial capacity for thirteen years and there had been no complaints concerning him that resulted in public statement of charges; the judge's treatment of the petitioners undermined the public's expectation that judges will act impartially and will treat each citizen appearing in a court with the respect, dignity, and courtesy; and the judge used his judicial position to impose his personal moral views upon others. The Commission also ordered the judge to take the following corrective actions: read and follow the Code of Judicial Conduct; treat all persons appearing before him with respect, courtesy, and dignity regardless of their differences and refrain from all impermissible ex parte contacts; disqualify himself where his impartiality can be reasonably questioned; attend the next available offering of a cultural diversity program sponsored by the minority and justice commission; within thirty days, write a letter of apology to each petitioner; and refrain from conduct that could cause a repetition of the violations.

Case Documents Available: