State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Question:

The spouse of a judicial officer is employed by the Sheriff's Office. The spouse is not on a patrol assignment, does not make traffic stops or arrests as part of the spouse's regular duties, does not conduct or oversee investigations, and has no supervisory authority over any other deputy sheriff. Is the judicial officer required to recuse in any matter in which any member of the Sheriff's Office investigated the case, seeks a search warrant, or may be called as a witness? If the judicial officer is not required to recuse from such matters, is the judicial officer required to disclose the spouse's employment?

Answer:

Judicial officers must act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. CJC 1.2. Judicial officers also have a duty to decide matters assigned to them except under circumstances requiring recusal. CJC 2.7.

A judicial officer is required to recuse from any proceeding in which the judicial officer's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including, but not limited to, the following circumstances: the judge knows that the judge's spouse is a party to the proceeding, has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding, is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding, or has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding. CJC 2.11(A). "De minimis," in the context of interests pertaining to disqualification of a judge, means an insignificant interest that could not raise a reasonable question regarding the judge's impartiality. CJC Terminology. A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification. Comment 5 to CJC 2.11.

Unless one of the circumstances described above is present or the Sheriff's Office is a party to the litigation, the judicial officer is not required to recuse from matters involving members of the Sheriff's Office. The spouse is not likely to be a material witness in any proceeding before the judicial officer or the judicial officer's court. The spouse does not direct or supervise personnel who are likely to be material witnesses in any proceeding. The circumstances described by the judicial officer also do not suggest that the economic interests of the judicial officer or the judicial officer's spouse would be substantially affected by the outcome of any proceeding involving other members of the Sheriff's Office. The mere fact that the spouse is employed by the Sheriff's Office does not demonstrate that the judicial officer has a bias or prejudice.

In a similar situation, the Committee has opined that a judicial officer is not disqualified merely because the attorney appearing before the judge is from a law firm in which the judge's parent is employed. Opinion 17-03.

However, because parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider the spouse's employment with the Sheriff's Office to be relevant as the basis for a possible motion for disqualification, the judicial officer should disclose the circumstances of the spouse's employment in any matters involving the Sheriff's Office or its employees. Rule 2.11, Comment 5.

Opinion 17-04

12/22/2017