State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Question

The judge of a one-judge District Court entered a criminal judgment and sentence that included fines and costs. The fines and costs went unpaid and were subsequently sent to a debt collection company.

1. May the judge enter a judgment and order of default against the defendant/debtor in the subsequent civil collections case?

2. If the default judgment is granted and the garnishment of the debtor’s wages is sought in compliance with statute, may the judge sign an order to pay out garnished funds from the Garnishee to the County once they are retained by the Garnishee?

3. If the Garnishee fails to withhold funds subject to garnishment, may the judge hold the Garnishee personally liable for the garnishment amount as provided for by law?

4. Would it make any difference if the court was a multi-judge District Court and no one judge took all of the actions described above?

Answer

CJC 2.7 provides that a judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification or recusal is required by Rule 2.11 or other law. The Code provides that a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when the judge has personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding or when the judge previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court. CJC 2.11(A)(1) and CJC 2.11(A)(6)(d).

1 & 2. In courts of limited jurisdiction, civil default proceedings are directed by CRLJ 55. Although the default judgment process includes specific procedural requirements, it does not require the review of disputed facts related to the judgment contained within the sentencing order. Presiding over a sentencing matter, the failure to comply with which becomes the basis of a motion and subsequent order of default and garnishment action, does not present a situation in which the judicial officer’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned nor does it confer upon the judicial officer personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.

3. A judge must decide matters assigned to them unless disqualification is required, and must uphold and apply the law (CJC 2.11 and CJC 2.2). Because Chapter 6.27 RCW governs garnishment proceedings and allows for the garnishee to be held personally liable, the judge may order the garnishee personally liable.

4. These answers apply to both multi-judge District Court and one-judge District Courts. The disqualification analysis here does not depend on whether there is one judge or several; it depends on whether the judge’s appearance may reasonably be questioned when deciding several related matters. The fact that one judge hears several matters in the same court which involve, for example, the same parties, or include identical facts, does not in and of itself create a situation in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Nor does the court’s lawful action to order the collection of any fines, fees, or sanctions from a party rise to a level where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned when such action is executed according to the law.

Opinion 17-02

05/25/2017