In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against David Ruzumna

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed de novo a Commission on Judicial Conduct decision concerning Judge Pro Tempore David Ruzumna’s unauthorized use of a judge’s signature stamp and a court seal in an attempt to obtain a discounted parking rate. The court upheld findings that he violated Canons 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and determined that censure and removal from judicial office were appropriate sanctions.

Holdings

1. A judge's unauthorized use of another judge's signature stamp and an official court seal to create a false or misleading document for a personal benefit constitutes impropriety and a lack of integrity in violation of CJC 1.2 and therefore violates CJC 1.1's requirement to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2. CJC 1.3 does not contain an express knowledge requirement, but its prohibition on abusing the prestige of judicial office requires conduct that is unreasonable or wrongful. Unauthorized misappropriation of a judge's signature stamp and a court seal to obtain a personal financial benefit is an abuse of the prestige of judicial office, even if the judge believed he was entitled to the benefit.
3. Removal from judicial office, together with censure, is warranted when the misconduct constitutes a flagrant and intentional violation of the oath of office or misuse of judicial power and the totality of the applicable disciplinary factors supports removal.
4. The Supreme Court reviews Commission on Judicial Conduct decisions de novo, independently evaluating the record and the appropriate sanction while giving considerable weight to the Commission's credibility determinations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ruzumna's unauthorized use of a sitting judge's signature stamp and the official court seal to obtain a personal parking discount violated CJC 1.1 and 1.2.
2. Whether Ruzumna's use of judicial insignia to obtain a personal financial benefit violated CJC 1.3, including whether CJC 1.3 requires proof of knowledge or intent.
3. Whether censure and removal from judicial office were the appropriate sanctions under the Deming factors and CJCRP 6(c).
4. What standard governs the Supreme Court's review of a Commission on Judicial Conduct decision.

Disposition

other