2 recent cases illustrate the aggravating and mitigating factors that are often particularly relevant for determining the appropriate sanction in judicial discipline cases involving drunk driving.
Based on a stipulation and agreement, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded former court commissioner Robert O’Neal for driving his vehicle after consuming alcohol. In re O’Neal, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct June 27, 2025).
On January 18, 2025, at approximately 5:30 p.m., while attempting to drive off a Washington State Ferry, the commissioner rear-ended the car in front of him, pushing that vehicle into the car in front of it. The commissioner was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. At the police station, the commissioner’s breath alcohol concentration test result was 0.16/0.18; the legal limit in Washington State is 0.08. The commissioner has not yet been charged with a crime.
On January 22, the commissioner resigned his judicial position on the Everett Municipal Court because DUI matters were common in that court and the commissioner concluded that he should not preside over them while his matter was pending in the courts. On January 28, the commissioner’s counsel reported the commissioner’s arrest to the Commission on his client’s behalf. The agreement states that the commissioner has completed inpatient treatment and is currently in outpatient treatment for alcohol use disorder.
The Commission discussed the factors it considered.
(a) Characteristics of the Misconduct. DUI is a serious offense that can result in great bodily injury and this accident did result in injury to another driver. Respondent was insured and restitution to the accident victims is being handled by his insurer. DUI cases are a significant portion of the dockets over which the commissioner of Everett Municipal Court presides. The public has a reasonable expectation that judicial officers will comply with the criminal laws they enforce upon others. Respondent’s actions undermine public respect for him and the judiciary as a whole. This is, however, an isolated incident. Respondent has no prior judicial misconduct history nor criminal history. The misconduct occurred outside the courtroom, in Respondent’s private life, and there is no basis to conclude Respondent intentionally violated his oath of office.
(b) Service and Demeanor of the Judge. Respondent has acknowledged the acts occurred and, by self-reporting and entering into this agreement even before being charged with a crime, he has accepted responsibility for his conduct. He has completed inpatient treatment and is currently in outpatient treatment for alcohol use disorder, which evidences an effort to avoid repeating the behavior that led to this disciplinary action. Respondent promptly self-reported this incident and has cooperated with the Commission throughout these proceedings. Noting that DUI matters were common in Everett Municipal Court and that he should not preside over them while this matter was pending in the courts, Respondent resigned his judicial position.
Adopting the findings of fact and conclusion
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Judicial Conduct Dispatch to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.