The Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct has issued a formal admonishment to a Spokane County District Court judge who continued to issue orders in a matter after consenting to remove herself from the docket. The disciplinary measure was established through a signed agreement and order dated June 26, 2026, addressing conduct observed during a show cause hearing held on July 22, 2025, regarding a defendant’s alleged probation violation.
The procedural conflict originated when defense counsel raised a motion for recusal immediately after the judge rendered her decision on the violation. The attorney cited a potential conflict of interest based on the judge’s prior representation of the defendant in 2011. While the judge accepted the motion to step down, she subsequently reviewed the case file and determined that she had previously issued and then recalled a bench warrant related to the defendant’s failure to appear.
Despite the defendant being physically present in the courtroom, the judge decided to vacate her earlier rulings and reissue the bench warrant before formally transferring the case. In statements recorded in the disciplinary file, the judge indicated she would "unring all of these bells," thereby revoking her order on the show cause hearing as well as the order that had recalled the warrant. She added that she intended to restore the original warrant issued for the matter.
The judge argued that the conflict of interest should have been identified earlier, specifically on June 25, 2025, when the bench warrant was first recalled. However, under Washington’s Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction, specifically Rule 8.9(c), a judge who is disqualified must immediately order the transfer and removal of the case to another judicial officer.
The Commission emphasized that taking substantive action after a judge’s disqualification creates significant concerns regarding partiality and fairness, potentially undermining public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality. Although the Commission noted in a footnote that it did not definitively rule on whether the 2011 representation alone mandated recusal, it determined that the judge was required to follow the procedural rules governing disqualified judges once she agreed to step down.
In her defense, the judge explained that the late disclosure of the conflict left her uncertain about the proper administrative steps to take. She stated her goal was to return the case to its initial status by reinstating the warrant and nullifying her subsequent orders, assuring the Commission that her actions were driven by a desire for procedural correctness rather than malice or retaliation.
The Commission concluded that the judge’s conduct violated Canon 1, Rules 1.1 and 1.2, of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as CrRLJ Rule 8.9(c). These provisions require judges to uphold the law and behave in a way that fosters public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.
When determining the appropriate sanction, the Commission considered several mitigating circumstances. The judge, who represented herself during the proceedings, demonstrated full cooperation with the investigation and admitted that her actions were improper. She has served as a judicial officer for 17 years without prior disciplinary history, having presided over the Airway Heights Municipal Court from 2009 before assuming her current position in the Spokane County District Court in November 2018. By executing the stipulation, the judge waived her right to appeal the decision.
Under the terms of the admonishment, she must complete remedial training on recusal and disqualification laws at her own expense within six months.
She is also required to provide written confirmation within 30 days that she has reread the entire Code of Judicial Conduct, and she must participate in a year-long program meeting regularly with a Commission-approved mentor judge.