State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Questions:

Can a Supreme Court Justice sit on a disciplinary panel regarding a judge the Justice publicly endorsed in the judge's election campaign?

Answer:

Absent additional facts or actual bias, recusal in this situation is not required. However, a judicial officer should disclose, "information that the [judicial officer] believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the [judicial officer] believes there is no basis for disqualification." CJC Rule 2.11 Comment [5].

Judicial officers, "should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence." CJC Preamble. At all times, judicial officers must act in a way, "that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." CJC Rule 1.2. At the same time, judicial officers are permitted to publicly endorse other judicial officers in election campaigns. CJC Rule 4.1(A)(3); CJC Rule 4.1 Comment [4].

"[T]he judge should objectively and subjectively evaluate whether the specific circumstances should be disclosed because the nature of those circumstances would cause the judge's impartiality to reasonably be questioned." EAO 21-01. If a judicial officer has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, the judicial officer should disqualify themselves from the proceeding. CJC Rule 2.11(A)(1). Further, judicial officers should disqualify themselves from proceedings, "in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." CJC Rule 2.11(A). Finally, even if a judicial officer does not believe they should be disqualified, they, "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." CJC Rule 2.11 Comment [5].

In the past, the Ethics Advisory Committee addressed whether a judicial officer is disqualified on the basis of bias or prejudice against the judicial officer's election opponent when that opponent appears before them. The Ethics Advisory Committee stated that disqualification is not necessarily required simply because the election opponent appears before them. EAO 02-21, EAO 18-03, EAO 21-01. The present case involves the opposite implication: whether a judicial officer who endorsed the subject of the disciplinary action is disqualified because of the appearance of bias in favor of the individual. Opposing or supporting a candidate for judicial office, absent something more, does not automatically require disqualification. Id.

However, disclosure of relevant information in these circumstances is appropriate. EAO 02-21, EAO 18-03, EAO 21-01. Information must be disclosed, "that the [judicial officer] believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the [judicial officer] believes there is no basis for disqualification." CJC Rule 2.11 Comment [5].

Opinion 25-01

07/01/2025