Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.64
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.64.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) "Admonishment" means a written disposition of an advisory nature that cautions a judge or justice not to engage in certain proscribed behavior. An admonishment may include a requirement that the judge or justice follow a specified corrective course of action.
(2) "Censure" means a written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that conduct of the judge or justice violates a rule of judicial conduct, detrimentally affects the integrity of the judiciary, undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and may or may not require a recommendation to the supreme court that the judge or justice be suspended or removed. A censure shall include a requirement that the judge or justice follow a specified corrective course of action.
(3) "Commission" means the commission on judicial conduct provided for in Article IV, section 31 of the state Constitution, which is authorized to recommend to the supreme court, after notice and hearing, the suspension or removal of a judge or justice for violating a rule of judicial conduct, or the retirement of a judge or justice for disability.
(4) "Judge or justice" includes justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior courts, judges of any court organized under Titles 3 or 35 RCW, judges pro tempore, court commissioners, and magistrates.
(5) "Removal" means a written recommendation by the commission and a finding by the supreme court that the conduct of a judge or justice is a violation of a rule of judicial conduct and seriously impairs the integrity of the judiciary and substantially undermines the public confidence in the administration of justice to such a degree that the judge or justice should be relieved of all duties of his or her office.
(6) "Reprimand" means a written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that the conduct of the judge or justice is a minor violation of the code of judicial conduct and does not require censure or a formal recommendation to the supreme court that the judge or justice be suspended or removed. A reprimand shall include a requirement that the judge or justice follow a specified corrective course of action.
(7) "Retirement" means a written recommendation by the commission and a finding by the supreme court that a judge or justice has a disability which is permanent, or likely to become permanent, and that seriously interferes with the performance of judicial duties.
(8) "Suspension" means a written recommendation by the commission and a finding by the supreme court that the conduct of a judge or justice is a violation of a rule of judicial conduct and seriously impairs the integrity of the judiciary and substantially undermines the public confidence in the administration of justice to such a degree that the judge or justice should be relieved of the duties of his or her office by the court for a specified period of time, as determined by the court.
This chapter shall apply to any judge or justice, regardless of whether the judge or justice serves full time or part time, and regardless of whether the judge or justice is admitted to practice law in this state.
[ 1989 c 367 s 1; 1987 c 186 s 1; 1981 c 268 s 2.]

Notes:

Contingent effective date—1989 c 367: "This act shall take effect upon the effective date of an amendment to Article IV, section 31 of the state Constitution making changes to the commission on judicial conduct. If such amendment is not validly submitted to and approved and ratified by the voters at a general election held in November 1989, this act shall be null and void in its entirety." [ 1989 c 367 s 12.] Substitute Senate Joint Resolution No. 8202 was approved and ratified by the voters at the November 7, 1989, general election.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1991–1999 · leading case: In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Turco, 970 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Turco, 970 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 4× “Censure is defined in RCW 2.64.010(2) as: [A] written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that conduct of the judge or justice violates a rule of judicial conduct, detrimentally affects the…”
In Re Turco, 970 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 4× “Censure is defined in RCW 2.64.010(2) as: [A] written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that conduct of the judge or justice violates a rule of judicial conduct, detrimentally affects the…”
In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Stoker, 827 P.2d 986 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 2× “14 Under RCW 2.64.010, the Commission may recommend the sanctions of suspension or removal.”
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anderson, 981 P.2d 426 (Wash. 1999). “The judicial branch of government depends upon the public's confidence and respect. Judge Anderson's misconduct has eroded the integrity and respect for the judiciary to such a degree that he must be relieved of the duties of office.”
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Anderson, 138 Wash. 2d 830 (Wash. 1999). “See RCW 2.64.010(5). We note that the Commission considered four mitigating factors: the misconduct occurred outside of the courtroom; the misconduct was not committed in Judge Anderson’s official capacity as a judge except as to his duty to comply with the financial disclosure…”
In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Niemi, 820 P.2d 41 (Wash. 1991). “4, § 31, RCW 2.64.010, WAC 292-12-150(1) and (3), and DRJ 2(a), the chairperson of the Commission certified the record of the proceedings to this court on March 19, 1991.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.64.010(2) — 2 cases
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Turco, 970 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1999). “Censure is defined in RCW 2.64.010(2) as: [A] written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that conduct of the judge or justice violates a rule of judicial conduct, detrimentally affects the…”
In Re Turco, 970 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1999). “Censure is defined in RCW 2.64.010(2) as: [A] written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that conduct of the judge or justice violates a rule of judicial conduct, detrimentally affects the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.64.010(5) — 4 cases
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Turco, 970 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1999). “Censure is defined in RCW 2.64.010(2) as: [A] written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that conduct of the judge or justice violates a rule of judicial conduct, detrimentally affects the…”
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Anderson, 981 P.2d 426 (Wash. 1999). “The judicial branch of government depends upon the public's confidence and respect. Judge Anderson's misconduct has eroded the integrity and respect for the judiciary to such a degree that he must be relieved of the duties of office.”
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Anderson, 138 Wash. 2d 830 (Wash. 1999). “See RCW 2.64.010(5). We note that the Commission considered four mitigating factors: the misconduct occurred outside of the courtroom; the misconduct was not committed in Judge Anderson’s official capacity as a judge except as to his duty to comply with the financial disclosure…”
In Re Turco, 970 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1999). “Censure is defined in RCW 2.64.010(2) as: [A] written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that conduct of the judge or justice violates a rule of judicial conduct, detrimentally affects the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.64.010(8) — 2 cases
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Turco, 970 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1999). “Censure is defined in RCW 2.64.010(2) as: [A] written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that conduct of the judge or justice violates a rule of judicial conduct, detrimentally affects the…”
In Re Turco, 970 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1999). “Censure is defined in RCW 2.64.010(2) as: [A] written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that conduct of the judge or justice violates a rule of judicial conduct, detrimentally affects the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.