Washington Supreme Court Reviews Removal of Judge David Ruzumna

The Washington State Supreme Court held oral arguments on January 15, 2026, to determine the fate of Judge Pro Tempore David Ruzumna, whose judicial career hangs in the balance following a controversial attempt to secure a parking discount.

While the court’s final decision is currently pending, the justices appeared sharply divided during the proceedings on whether the misconduct warrants a permanent bar from the bench.

The case stems from a February 2023 incident at the Goat Hill Parking Garage in Seattle. According to Commission findings, Ruzumna created a typed note verifying his employment with the King County District Court and affixed the signature stamp of Judge Rebecca Robertson and the official court seal without permission.

He presented this document to a parking attendant in an effort to obtain the discounted rate reserved for county employees.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct has recommended the harshest possible sanction: censure and removal from office. Disciplinary counsel argued that Ruzumna’s actions, specifically the unauthorized use of judicial insignia for personal gain, undermined public trust. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that Ruzumna repeatedly lied to investigators and the panel, claiming the document was a “farce” or a “joke” and that it contained multiple other stamps that were not visible in evidence photos.

Ruzumna’s legal team has appealed the recommendation, describing the document as a “stupid attempt at humor” and arguing that the Commission’s conclusion of dishonesty was an error. Ruzumna maintains that he was, in fact, a King County employee and genuinely believed he was entitled to the discount, which he argues precludes a violation of judicial rules against abusing the prestige of office.

During the January 15 arguments, the Supreme Court justices weighed whether Ruzumna’s “cavalier attitude” and subsequent testimony constituted a pattern of dishonesty that makes him unfit for judicial service.

Some justices focused on the gravity of misusing a sitting judge’s signature, while others questioned if removal was a proportionate response to what the defense characterized as a single, foolish lapse in judgment by a judge with no prior disciplinary record.

The court seemed particularly split on whether the incident should lead to a lifetime ban from the judiciary. A decision to affirm the Commission’s recommendation would not only remove Ruzumna from his current role but would also likely prevent him from serving in any judicial capacity in the future.

A written opinion from the Supreme Court is expected in the coming months.