Judge Basden Attacks Press as “Cyberbullies” Amidst Growing Scandal

Facing intensified scrutiny over his decision to appoint his close friend and former business partner, Lane Wolfley, as counsel for a high-profile murder trial, Superior Court Judge Brent Basden has gone on the offensive.

In a display from the bench this morning—during a hearing that, ironically, involved yet another of his close personal friends—Basden labeled investigative reporting into his potential conflicts of interest as “cyberbullying.”

A Deflection from Fiscal and Ethical Questions

By recasting reporters as bullies, Basden appears to be attempting to shift the narrative away from his judicial conduct and toward his personal feelings.

Basden’s accusation of cyberbullying came just one day after another close friend, Matt Kiddle, launched a public defense of the judge. Kiddle, who serves alongside Basden in a local LDS “Bishopric”—a high-ranking ecclesiastical leadership trio—argued online that he had never witnessed Basden demonstrate bias.

However, this defense highlights the very “good ol’ boy” dynamic Basden is accused of perpetuating. In a 2002 commentary, Basden defended this exact type of insular justice system, writing that local attorneys and judges were “good and honorable men.”

A Troubling History Ignored

Basden’s claim of victimization omits the substantial concerns regarding his appointee’s past. Lane Wolfley, the beneficiary of Basden’s appointment, was previously suspended from the practice of law for three years by the Washington State Bar Association. The Bar found that Wolfley had “knowingly and intentionally made sexual advances” toward a female client, including fondling her.

Basden and Wolfley were partners at the firm “Wolfley, Basden & Hansen” during the period surrounding Wolfley’s misconduct.

No Free Speech In Clallam?

We reached out to the Superior Court administration to ask if they agree with Basden’s stance. They have not responded.

While Basden may view scrutiny as persecution, we remind him that the law takes a different view.

Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution states: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.” The Washington Supreme Court has often interpreted this to provide greater protection than the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (See e.g. Bradburn v. N. Cent. Reg’l Library Dist., 168 Wn.2d 789, 801 (2010)).

As the United States Supreme Court held in 1964, the public has a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” (See N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)).

Basden is a public figure, thus his decisions are likely to be subject to public scrutiny, especially decisions perceived as controversial.

Yet, once again, Basden’s poor temperament has prevailed.