Washington Supreme Court Finalizes Removal of Judge David Ruzumna

The Washington State Supreme Court has officially censured and removed Judge Pro Tempore David Ruzumna from judicial office. The unanimous decision, filed on April 9, 2026, concludes a disciplinary saga that began with a controversial attempt to secure a parking discount at a Seattle garage.

As previously reported by the Olympic Herald in January, Ruzumna’s judicial career has been hanging in the balance since the Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended the harshest possible sanction for his actions.

The Supreme Court’s ruling now prevents him from serving in any judicial capacity or engaging in pro tem work in the future, unless his eligibility is explicitly reinstated.

The Goat Hill Garage Incident

The events leading to Judge Ruzumna’s removal center on his actions on February 16, 2023, at the Goat Hill Garage.

The facility, owned by King County, is frequently used by courthouse employees and visitors. While the general public pays a $30 daily rate, King County employees are entitled to a discounted rate of $20. However, according to testimony from the King County District Court budget director, short-term, nonbenefited pro tem judges have not been eligible for this discount since at least 2005.

Prior to February 16, Ruzumna made multiple attempts to secure the employee discount, initially showing a parking attendant his name placard and, on a later date, even his judicial robe. When those attempts failed, Ruzumna created a typed letter stating: “David Ruzumna is employed with the King County District Court as a Judge Pro Tem.”

The Supreme Court’s decision outlines that Ruzumna then took at least four deliberate steps to falsify the document: he created a dated document, accessed Judge Rebecca Robertson’s signature stamp—for whom he was working that day—and stamped the document, changed the date on the stamp to match the date of his letter, and finally, accessed and affixed a court clerk seal.

He presented this document to the parking attendant. The attendant brought the letter to the garage manager, Regina De Los Santos, who refused to accept it as proof of employment but took a photograph of it in case his eligibility was later verified.

Violations

Following a fact-finding hearing, the Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded that Ruzumna had violated Code of Judicial Conduct rules 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. The Supreme Court upheld these findings, explicitly rejecting Ruzumna’s core defense.

Throughout the investigation, Ruzumna argued that he genuinely believed he was entitled to the discount and claimed the document was covered in “multiple random stamps” as a joke to prove he had employee access. The Supreme Court found this testimony lacked credibility.

The court noted that HR Director Kevin Whitley testified the standard 8.5 x 11-inch paper did not have enough room left to corroborate the story of additional stamps, and De Los Santos testified unequivocally that there were no other stamps on the document.

The court agreed with the Commission that Ruzumna’s defense was a fabricated “convoluted story” designed to conceal the truth and minimize his conduct. This ongoing dishonesty during the disciplinary proceedings, the court found, compounded his ethical violations and resulted in “irreparable damage to trust and confidence in him as a judicial officer.”

The justices placed immense weight on the misappropriation of the signature stamp. Judge Robertson testified that she was “confused,” “shocked,” and “incredulous” upon learning of the incident, confirming she is the only person authorized to use her stamp.

She emphasized the gravity of the misconduct, stating, “Judges carry an exceeding amount of power, and their court orders must be followed. So it was very concerning to me that someone could or did misuse that stamp given the weight that it could carry.”

The Supreme Court agreed, stating that misusing stamps reserved for official court documents “threatens the integrity of the judiciary and risks eroding public confidence in the courts.” The court found that even if Ruzumna had been legitimately entitled to the discount, his method of obtaining it was an abuse of the prestige of his judicial office.

Aggravating Factors and the Final Sanction

In determining that removal was the appropriate sanction, the Supreme Court evaluated a series of factors, weighing Ruzumna’s lack of prior complaints and positive reputation—including his volunteer work at the Phinney Ridge legal clinic—against the severity of the offense.

Ultimately, the court pointed to Ruzumna’s tenure of over 10 years as a pro tem judge, stating that a judge with any level of experience “should understand that misuse of another judge’s signature stamp is improper.”

Furthermore, the justices were highly critical of Ruzumna’s failure to recognize the magnitude of his misconduct. They specifically cited a postdecision statement in which he disparaged disciplinary counsel, telling them they “should be ashamed” and that their conduct in the case would “haunt you for the rest of your life.” The court noted this statement reflected “a lack of genuine remorse.”

While the catalyst for Ruzumna’s removal may have been a relatively petty financial benefit, the Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that the core issue was a fundamental breach of ethics. The unanimous decision firmly established that Ruzumna’s actions were a “flagrant and intentional” misuse of judicial power, demonstrating a profound lack of respect for the integrity of the judiciary.