Washington Supreme Court Removes Judge Pro Tem David Ruzumna
The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a final order censuring and removing Judge Pro Tempore David Ruzumna from the bench, effective April 9, 2026. The unanimous ruling ends a prolonged disciplinary process that originated with a dispute over a parking discount at a Seattle garage.
The court’s decision bars Ruzumna from holding any judicial position or serving as a temporary judge going forward—unless and until his qualifications are formally restored.
Origins in a Parking Dispute
The chain of events began on February 16, 2023, at the Goat Hill Garage, a King County–owned facility commonly used by courthouse staff and visitors. While the standard daily rate for the general public is $30, King County employees—including pro tem judges—qualify for a $20 rate.
However, testimony from the county’s District Court budget director indicated that short-term, non-benefited pro tem judges had not been included in the discount program since at least 2005.
Prior to his visit that day, Ruzumna made several efforts to obtain the employee rate. He initially presented his name placard and, on a subsequent occasion, his judicial robe to parking staff. When those attempts did not yield the expected discount, he drafted a letter stating that he was employed with the King County District Court as a Judge Pro Tem.
According to the Supreme Court’s written order, Ruzumna took four specific actions to strengthen the document’s authenticity: he prepared a dated letter, retrieved and used Judge Rebecca Robertson’s signature stamp—under whom he was serving that day—adjusted the stamp’s date to match the letter’s, and affixed an official court clerk seal.
He submitted the completed letter to the parking attendant, who brought it to garage manager Regina De Los Santos. De Los Santos declined to accept it as proof of eligibility but photographed the document for possible follow-up verification.
Ethical Violations Upheld
Following a formal hearing, the Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that Ruzumna breached Canons 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed each of those findings.
During the proceedings, Ruzumna maintained he acted in honest belief that he qualified for the discount and described the document’s various stamps as part of a lighthearted effort to demonstrate his access. Yet the court found this explanation unconvincing.
HR Director Kevin Whitley testified that the standard letter-sized paper lacked sufficient space to support Ruzumna’s claim of multiple “random” stamps, and De Los Santos gave definitive testimony that no additional seals appeared on the document beyond those applied by Ruzumna.
The court concluded that Ruzumna’s explanation amounted to a “convoluted story,” crafted to obscure facts and soften perceptions of his conduct. Its persistence through multiple stages of the disciplinary process, the court added, significantly eroded public trust in his judicial integrity.
This continued lack of candor ultimately led to what the Supreme Court described as “irreparable damage to trust and confidence in him as a judicial officer.”
A unanimous panel of the state’s highest court has affirmed the removal of a part-time judge who improperly utilized a colleague’s official seal to secure a fee discount. The appellate decision highlights that the central violation was not merely the financial gain, but the unauthorized use of a signature stamp reserved for specific judicial acts.
During testimony, the affected jurist, Judge Robertson, described her reaction to the discovery as one of shock and confusion. She confirmed that she held sole authority over the use of her personal seal. Robertson underscored the serious implications of such an act, noting that the public expects strict adherence to court orders issued by judges. She expressed deep concern that an individual might leverage the weight of a judge’s seal for personal advantage, thereby compromising the dignity of the office.
The Supreme Court echoed these sentiments, ruling that the unauthorized application of official stamps to court documents poses a direct threat to judicial integrity. The justices determined that even if the judge, Ruzumna, had a valid claim to the fee reduction, the mechanism he employed to obtain it constituted an abuse of his judicial standing.
The court weighed several factors when deciding that dismissal from the bench was the correct penalty. While acknowledging Ruzumna’s clean disciplinary record and his positive reputation, including volunteer service at a local legal clinic in Phinney Ridge, the justices focused on the severity of the breach. They noted that with more than a decade of service as a temporary judge, he should have possessed sufficient experience to know that borrowing another judge’s seal was incorrect.
The panel was particularly critical of Ruzumna’s apparent failure to grasp the seriousness of his error. They referenced a statement he issued after the initial disciplinary decision, in which he criticized the disciplinary attorney, suggesting the lawyer should feel embarrassed and that the handling of the case would linger in their memory. The court interpreted this reaction as a sign that he lacked true regret for his actions.
Although the incident began with a minor monetary issue, the final ruling emphasizes that the case represents a significant ethical failure. The decision characterizes Ruzumna’s conduct as a deliberate and conspicuous misuse of judicial authority, illustrating a serious disregard for the principles that uphold the court system.