Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

"At issue is whether the State is required to defend a judge who is alleged to have committed an ethics violation while otherwise within the purview of his or her official duties."

"At issue is whether the State is required to defend a judge who is alleged to have committed an ethics violation while otherwise within the purview of his or her official duties." The Supreme Court of Washington State today issued its ruling in the case captioned Honorable Richard B. Sanders, as Justice of the Washington Supreme Court, v. State of Washington.

By a vote of 5-4, the court -- consisting entirely of lower court judges sitting by designation after all of the Supreme Court's justices recused themselves -- has ruled that "the State has no duty to defend when a judge knows or should know that the conduct of which he or she is accused is unethical and therefore not an official act."

Today's ruling consists of a majority opinion and two dissenting opinions (here and here).

Full post as published by How Appealing on May 14, 2009 (boomark / email).