Washington Supreme Court Hears Case Against Judicial Officer Over Parking Discount Scheme
The Washington State Supreme Court conducted a hearing on January 15, 2026, reviewing the disciplinary fate of Judge Pro Tempore David Ruzumna, whose continued service on the bench now rests on the outcome of a dispute rooted in a seemingly routine parking transaction.
Though the final ruling has yet to be issued, oral arguments revealed a bench deeply split over whether Ruzumna’s conduct rose to the level of misconduct justifying permanent removal.
The incident at the heart of the case occurred in February 2023 at the Goat Hill Parking Garage in Seattle. Court records indicate that Ruzumna submitted a typed verification letter to a parking attendant, asserting his employment with the King County District Court. The letter bore the printed signature of Judge Rebecca Robertson and the official court seal—both applied without prior authorization.
Ruzumna used the document to qualify for the employee parking rate, despite not being listed on the county’s official payroll.
Following an investigation, the Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended censure and removal, calling it the most severe sanction available. Prosecutors representing the Commission emphasized that Ruzumna’s use of judicial symbols for personal benefit eroded confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. The Commission also found that Ruzumna provided inconsistent accounts to investigators, describing the document at one point as a “farce” and at another as a “joke,” while also referencing additional stamps that were not present in the submitted evidence.
Ruzumna’s attorneys have contested the Commission’s findings, characterizing the document as a “stupid attempt at humor” and arguing that his belief in his eligibility for the discount negated any ethical violation. They maintain he was properly classified as a King County employee and thus entitled to the benefit under existing policy.
Attorneys for Ruzumna further noted his clean disciplinary record and urged the court to treat the episode as an isolated misstep rather than evidence of systemic unfitness.
During the January hearing, justices grappled with whether Ruzumna’s conduct reflected a broader pattern of informality and self-justification inconsistent with judicial standards. Some participants in the argument stressed the symbolic weight of a judge using another’s signature and seal without consent, while others questioned whether removal was overly punitive for an otherwise compliant jurist.
The court’s deliberations centered on whether the incident should trigger a lifetime ban from judicial office. Upholding the Commission’s recommendation would bar Ruzumna not only from his current post but also from future appointments to any judicial role within the state.
A written decision from the Supreme Court is anticipated within the next few months.