State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Opinion 84-04

Question

Is it proper under the Code of Judicial Conduct for a District Court Judge to permit or direct court staff to:

  1. Prepare a list of names and other identifying data of persons who have failed to appear in court after signing a promise to respond to a traffic infraction and to refer the list to the appropriate prosecuting or city attorney; or

  2. Prepare unsigned complaints, after the preparation of such a list, alleging violation of RCW 46.64.020, and forwarding the unsigned complaints to the appropriate prosecuting or city attorney to review as to whether these complaints shall be signed and filed with the court; or

  3. May any District Court Judge who permits or directs court staff to do 1 or 2 above, or both, properly adjudicate such cases if any are filed?

Answer

It is proper under the Code of Judicial Conduct for a District Court Judge to permit or direct court staff to prepare a list of names and other identifying data of persons who have failed to appear in court after signing a promise to respond to a traffic infraction and to refer the list to the appropriate prosecuting attorney or city attorney.

However, it is not proper under CJC Canon 2A for a District Court Judge to permit or direct court staff to prepare complaints alleging a violation of RCW 46.64.020 and forwarding the unsigned complaints to the appropriate prosecuting or city attorney for review to determine whether these complaints shall be signed and filed with the court.

Assuming the judge has no personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, it is not improper for a District Court Judge to adjudicated cases which are before the court as a result of a list of prepared by court staff identifying persons who have failed to appear. However, if the judge does possess personal knowledge of the disputed facts, the judge should disclose this to any lawyers or parties involved in the action in which the judge’s impartiality or appearance thereof may reasonably be questioned under CJC Canon 3, and the Judge should offer to withdraw from the case.

Since it is not proper for a District Court Judge to permit or direct court Staff to prepare unsigned complaints and to forward them to the appropriate prosecuting or city attorney for review, that portion of the third issue relative to this practice need not be addressed.

The Supreme Court adopted a new Code of Judicial Conduct effective January 1, 2011. In addition to reviewing the ethics advisory opinions, the following should be noted:

CJC 1.2
CJC 2.11(A)

Opinion 84-04

07/20/1984

 

Privacy and Disclaimer NoticesSitemap

© Copyright 2024. Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts.

S5