Ruzumna, who served as a pro tem judge for several courts including King County District Court since 2013, created a typed letter on February 16, 2023, stating he was employed with the King County District Court 'as a Judge Pro Tem.' He then affixed the signature stamp of Judge Rebecca Robertson, for whom he was serving that day, along with the court seal to the document, which he presented to a parking attendant at the Goat Hill Garage seeking the county employee discount rate of $20 instead of the standard $30 daily fee.
Writing for the court, Justice Johnson held that Ruzumna's conduct violated three rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including rules against impropriety and abuse of judicial prestige. 'The unauthorized misappropriation of official judicial insignia to achieve a personal benefit—however small—constitutes an ethical violation,' Justice Johnson wrote, emphasizing that Ruzumna had taken 'at least four steps' in preparing the fraudulent document, including changing the date on Robertson's signature stamp to match the document date.
The court delivered particularly sharp criticism of Ruzumna's defense, rejecting his claim that the document was covered with 'multiple random stamps' as a joke. 'Judge Pro Tem Ruzumna's argument that he was entitled to the discount and he created the document as a lighthearted attempt to demonstrate that entitlement fails to acknowledge the severity of his offense and does not minimize or excuse his conduct,' Justice Johnson wrote, noting that the Commission on Judicial Conduct found Ruzumna's testimony 'was complicated and at times contradicted his earlier testimony.'
The case reached the state high court after the Commission on Judicial Conduct censured Ruzumna and recommended his removal following a fact-finding hearing. The Commission concluded that pro tem judges had not been eligible for the parking discount since at least 2005, and that Ruzumna never contacted human resources or the court administrator to clarify his eligibility. Judge Robertson, whose signature stamp was misused, testified that she was 'confused,' 'shocked,' and 'incredulous' when she learned of the incident, leading the court's executive committee to unanimously vote to remove Ruzumna from the pro tem list.
The court rejected Ruzumna's arguments that his conduct warranted only an admonishment, the least severe disciplinary action. Justice Johnson noted that garage manager Regina De Los Santos testified 'unequivocally that there were no other stamps on the letter,' contradicting Ruzumna's story about additional stamps, and that HR director Kevin Whitley testified 'there was not sufficient space left on the paper to contain additional stamps.' The Commission found Ruzumna's changing explanations demonstrated 'ongoing dishonesty throughout disciplinary proceedings.'
The unanimous court opinion aligned with precedents requiring removal for judges who engage in dishonest conduct for personal gain. Justice Johnson noted that past removal cases in Washington have involved 'harassing, abusive, or deceitful behavior,' and that Ruzumna's case was particularly serious because he 'not only engaged in dishonest conduct' but also 'abused the power of his judicial status when he created a false document while engaged in judicial duties.' The court emphasized that judicial signature stamps and court seals 'carry significant legal weight' and their misuse 'threatens the integrity of the judiciary and risks eroding public confidence in the courts.'
Under the court's analysis of disciplinary factors, Ruzumna's decade of judicial experience worked against him rather than in his favor. 'The longer a judge has been in their position, the more they are expected to understand the significance of their conduct and its effect on the integrity of the judiciary,' Justice Johnson wrote. The court found Ruzumna's conduct constituted 'flagrant and intentional' misuse of judicial power, noting his lack of genuine remorse and continued minimization of the misconduct even after disciplinary proceedings concluded.
The removal renders Ruzumna ineligible for any judicial office or pro tem work unless his eligibility is reinstated through the court's disciplinary rules. The court concluded that 'honesty and integrity are among the most critical traits expected of those entrusted with judicial office,' and that despite Ruzumna's previously clean record and positive reputation in the legal community, his violations warranted the ultimate sanction of removal from office.