Tri-Cities judge disputes misconduct charge. State board says he abused his authority

A Benton-Franklin Superior Court judge abused his judicial authority when he got involved with a case that wasn’t assigned to him, a state board has found.

Judge Bruce Spanner issued an order unsealing documents that detailed a settlement in a related medical malpractice case.

He’s accused of doing that “on his own initiative and without notice to any party” because he believed it was sealed from public view to prevent the husband of an attorney from finding out about a $2.6 million fee her law firm received.

The Washington state Commission on Judicial Conduct announced its charges against Spanner in a release on Friday morning.

It will wait for his response before deciding the appropriate discipline, which could range from admonishing or reprimanding him to recommending his removal from the bench.

The charges stem from a guardianship case in Benton County but Spanner’s actions in early 2018 were related to two other cases, the malpractice suit and a divorce case.

At the time, one of the lawyers representing a woman with a brain injury in the guardianship case was in the middle of her own divorce in Franklin County.

Making public the terms of the settlement in her law firm’s medical malpractice case meant it could be used in her divorce settlement when discussing her earnings.

Spanner’s conclusion that the medical malpractice settlement was intentionally kept confidential so the attorney’s estranged husband wouldn’t find out was “based on general talk he had heard at the courthouse and in the community,” commission Executive Director Reiko Callner said in the five-page statement of charges.

Complaint filed with state agency

A complaint was filed the next day with the state commission. Spanner, when served with a “statement of allegations,” denied violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.

“He explained that on the date in question, he believed he discovered attorney misconduct and that his actions were motivated solely by his desire to protect the integrity of the court, not out of any hostility or animus towards the attorneys,” according to commission’s statement.

He had reviewed a minor settlement action involving the woman with a brain injury in preparation for that day’s guardianship hearing.

Before the hearing, he was notified that he had been disqualified from handling the case by the woman’s attorneys, and that the hearing would be rescheduled for another judge.

Spanner told the commission he noticed the settlement sealed and kept confidential through a procedure that did not apply to minor settlement actions. He told the commission he believed the attorney had the case sealed improperly in order to defraud her husband, and in turn committed a fraud on the court.

Spanner also explained that he halted the order that would open up the malpractice decision for 14 days, giving the parties a chance to be heard on his decision before the documents became public.

He told the board “his actions were justified and did not indicate bias or prejudice.”

Abused rule to keep $2.6M secret

On Friday, Walla Walla attorney Brandon L. Johnson issued a release to the Herald on Spanner’s behalf saying the judge “inadvertently discovered what he believed to be egregious misconduct” while doing his regular duties.

Spanner argued that the attorneys “took advantage of their position as officers of the court by abusing a court rule to keep a $2.6 million fee secret,” the release said.

The judge reasonably concluded, based on reliable information, that the attorneys may have been trying to keep the amount secret “in an attempt to gain unfair advantage in a very contentious divorce.”

Johnson, who represented Spanner before the conduction commission, said the board’s statement does not dispute the judge’s opinion that the lawyers misused a court rule about sealing court records.

It also does not assert that Spanner’s opinion was erroneous, he noted.

“Judge Spanner had, and has, the authority to act to protect and maintain the dignity and respect of the Superior Court and its processes. His actions were so motivated,” Johnson wrote in the release. “He has the authority to act without hearing or an opportunity to be heard when circumstance(s) so dictate.

“Judge Spanner believed those circumstances were present and carefully crafted his order to give the attorneys the opportunity to dispute his legal and factual conclusions.”

“A different Superior Court judge ultimately agreed with Judge Spanner and found that the court records were not appropriately sealed,” he continued. “While the attorneys involved initially protested Judge Spanner’s opinion that the motivation for their misconduct was ‘perhaps nefarious,’ they did not further pursue their assertion.”

Judicial conduct commission

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

After receiving a complaint, the commission conducts a confidential investigation and brings the results before board members for potential action.

The board met April 26 and found probable cause that Spanner violated two canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Spanner entered an order in a case not assigned to him, and he did that without giving the parties notice before taking action, according to the commission.

The commission said his actions 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.

“Rather than bringing his suspicions to the judge who had earlier ruled on the case, or scheduling a show cause hearing so that the lawyers and parties could explain what had happened, he made findings and conclusions and entered an order based on conjecture, rather than on evidence ...,” Callner wrote in the statement.

“His finding and conclusion of a suspected nefarious motive was not only unsupported by competent evidence, but was unnecessary to the substantive question of whether the documents were properly sealed, and thus seems to gratuitously impugn the attorney’s integrity, which in turn creates a perception of partiality and unfairness.”

Spanner has 21 days to file a written answer, or admit the factual allegations, before the board moves forward with discipline.

This story was originally published May 3, 2019 at 12:27 PM.