In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Flood

Key Facts

Issues

• The court analyzed whether the misconduct met the high threshold for removal from judicial office, which requires flagrant and intentional violations of the oath of office or misuse of power, ultimately finding that the conduct did not satisfy this standard.
• The court considered whether the Commission's recommendation of censure and removal was appropriate or if a lesser sanction like suspension was more proportionate to the misconduct at issue, ultimately determining that suspension followed by remedial services was the appropriate sanction.
• The court evaluated Judge Flood's violations of Code of Judicial Conduct rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.5(A), and 2.8(B), which included impatience, discourtesy, and failures in managing court operations competently and diligently.

Holdings

Remedies

• The court orders Judge Flood to be censured and suspended from judicial duties for 30 days without compensation, with the suspension period beginning immediately and potentially extending beyond her current term in office.
• Following the period of suspension, Judge Flood must complete an approved program of judicial coaching or mentoring before becoming eligible to pursue a judicial position upon completion of the remedial services.

Legal Principles

• The Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) provides standards for judicial behavior. CJC 1.1 requires compliance with law, CJC 1.2 requires promoting confidence in the judiciary, CJC 2.5(A) requires competent and diligent performance of duties, and CJC 2.8(B) requires patience, dignity, and courtesy to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and court staff.
• The court applies de novo review of the Commission on Judicial Conduct's decisions, giving considerable weight to the Commission's findings and credibility determinations. The court uses the Deming factors to determine proportionate sanctions based on the character of misconduct and the judge's service and demeanor. There is a presumption that judges will heed court orders and can benefit from judicial coaching and mentoring, absent flagrant and intentional violations of the oath of office or misuse of power.
• Judicial discipline sanctions must be proportionate to the misconduct. Removal is reserved for flagrant and intentional violations of the oath of office or misuse of power. Suspension is appropriate for less severe misconduct. Remedial services including judicial mentoring or coaching may be required before returning to judicial service.

Precedent Name

• In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kaiser
• In re Tollefson
• In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eiler
• In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Turco
• In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Deming
• In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Anderson
• In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Michels
• In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Ritchie

Cited Statute

• Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
• Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors
• Compliance with the Law
• Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation
• Washington Constitution Article IV, Section 31

Judge Name

• Judge Madsen
• Judge Tracy S. Flood
• Judge Johnson (dissenting)
• Judge Berns
• Judge Cooney
• Chief Justice Stephens
• Judge Lawrence-Berrey
• Judge Murphy
• Judge Thompson
• Judge Toynbee

Passage Text

• When the misconduct found here is considered in full context, the high threshold for a sanction of removal is not met. We hold by majority that the proportionate sanction is suspension, followed by remedial services prior to returning to judicial service. The court rejects the Commission's recommendation of censure and removal because removal is the ultimate, permanent sanction for judicial misconduct and has been limited to flagrant and intentional violation of the oath of office or misuse of power.
• Judge Flood stipulated that she engaged in conduct that was rude, condescending, or harsh toward staff and litigants, in violation of CJC 1.1, 1.2, and 2.8(B). Substantial evidence supports the violation of these rules, as well as the allegation that Judge Flood violated CJC 2.5(A) in failing to diligently and competently manage court operations. The court rejects the Commission's recommendation to remove Judge Flood from office because her conduct did not involve flagrant and intentional violations of her oath of office or the misuse of power.
• Based on Judge Flood's stipulation to violations of Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.8(B), as well as substantial evidence supporting violation of CJC 2.5(A), the court by majority orders that Judge Flood be censured and suspended from judicial duties for 30 days, without compensation. This 30-day period begins immediately and may extend beyond Judge Flood's current term in office. Following the period of suspension, Judge Flood will be eligible to pursue a judicial position upon completion of an approved program of judicial coaching or mentoring.