State judicial commission reprimands Tri-Cities judge for abusing authority

Judge Bruce Spanner was reprimanded by a state board Friday for exploiting his position and failing to protect the integrity of Benton-Franklin Superior Court when he intervened on a case that was not assigned to him.

Spanner was required to appear in person in SeaTac before the Washington state Commission on Judicial Conduct for the decision.

The discipline carries a requirement to complete four hours of pre-approved training on judicial ethics within one year and to review the Code of Judicial Conduct within one month.

He previously admitted abusing his judicial authority when he issued an order unsealing documents that detailed a settlement in a medical malpractice case in March 2018.

“Publicly and gratuitously attacking the character of two local attorneys in a court order without notice and without a reasonable evidentiary basis, coupled with (Spanner’s) initial refusal to acknowledge the obvious inappropriateness of his actions, reflects poorly on him and, by extension, his bench and the judiciary in general,” the reprimand said.

Spanner has been a member of the Benton-Franklin Superior Court bench since January 2009 after being elected. He had never been publicly disciplined before this.

“Judge Spanner acknowledged his ‘findings’ and ‘conclusions’ gratuitously impugned the integrity of the attorneys involved and were not based on competent evidence, but rather on mere speculation and conjecture from what he described as ‘back hall courthouse chatter,’” the commission said Friday in a news release.

“Judge Spanner accepted (that) his actions denied the parties and their attorneys an opportunity to be heard according to law, created a perception of unfairness and partiality, and were improperly grounded on ex parte information.”

The commission is an independent agency of the judicial branch that works to protect the integrity of the judicial process and promote public confidence in the courts by enforcing ethics rules for judges.

The board found in April that Spanner violated two canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

His actions, according to the board, undermined the basic principles of the conduct code involving: compliance with the law; promoting confidence in the judiciary; avoiding abuse of a judge’s prestige; impartiality and bias; ensuring the right to be heard; and ex parte communications.

Spanner disputed the allegations and any wrongdoing, saying that when he unsealed the settlement, he had a duty to intervene because of “blatant attorney misconduct.”

Medical malpractice case

The settlement was between a Spokane hospital and a woman with a brain injury. It no longer was an active case, and was only before Spanner to review with a related file on a guardianship matter.

He ultimately was disqualified from hearing the guardianship case and it was assigned to another judge, but Spanner still took action on it by entering the order dealing with the confidential settlement.

The judge said it was clear two attorneys had misused a state court rule to inappropriately seal the documents and intentionally committed a fraud on the court.

One of those lawyers was in the middle of a contentious divorce, and keeping the “enormous” $2.6 million attorney’s fee secret could have given her an unfair advantage in her earnings disclosure to her estranged husband, Spanner said at the time.

The judge said he was motivated only by his desire to address the wrong the attorneys perpetrated.

When he issued the order to unseal the case, he put it on hold for 14 days to allow the parties the chance to address his decision before the file became public.

A complaint was immediately filed with the state commission.

He was scheduled to have a fact-finding hearing at the Benton County Justice Center in October.

But just days before nine members of the state board were to be in Kennewick, it was announced that Spanner had reached an agreement.

It was worked out by Spanner’s lawyer, David Allen of Seattle, and commission disciplinary co-counsel Rita Bender and William Bender.

Details could not be disclosed until it was filed publicly at an open session. And since the board only meets every two to three months, that meant the public had to wait six weeks to learn the resolution in Spanner’s matter.

Disciplinary action

Discipline options go from admonishment to censure and a recommendation to the Washington Supreme Court for suspension or removal.

The commission said that his reprimand is an “intermediate level of disciplinary action,” which required Spanner to appear in person before the board, along with a finding that his conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The board said it appears to have been an isolated instance of misconduct from Spanner, but it was not spontaneous.

Spanner’s actions were deliberate and taken after reflection, and “betrayed basic judicial obligation to act as a neutral arbiter,” according to the 14-page stipulation, agreement and order of reprimand.

The findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by him in the settlement’s unsealing order “suggest a flagrant disregard of his duty to faithfully and impartially uphold the Constitution in performing his duties as a judge.”

His actions also have been “injurious to the professional reputations of the attorneys” and interfered with the orderly resolution of the one lawyer’s divorce case, and his improper allegations have received wide attention through local media reports, the board said.

The board noted how Spanner repeatedly sought to justify his actions since the discipline proceedings against him started last spring and failed to appreciate his ethical obligations as a judge.

Then, he waited until a week before the fact-finding hearing to concede that he was wrong and express regret.

Spanner assured the commission he would not repeat this conduct in the future, according to the board.

Spanner could not be reached by the Herald on Friday about the decision.

This story was originally published November 22, 2019 at 12:50 PM.