Ritchie's Demeanor Prompted Probe

If he hadn't offended a defendant in a small-claims case, King County District Court Judge John Ritchie might not have become the first judge recommended for dismissal by the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct.

In an 8-3 vote that followed a two-year investigation, the commission said yesterday it found that Ritchie, 53, had misused $2,750 of taxpayer money over a five-year period and filed false and misleading expense-account statements. Although Ritchie claimed to be doing official work during four trips to Florida and one to Arizona, the commission said he enjoyed what amounted to vacations at public expense.

Charging him with defrauding the public and misrepresenting the facts, the commission censured Ritchie on the spot yesterday, and then recommended the state Supreme Court remove him from the bench. Pending Supreme Court action, Ritchie will be suspended from duties but will still draw his $51-an-hour salary.

According to commission rules, his suspension begins in two weeks when the commission files its case with the high court, unless Ritchie exercises his right to ask the commission to reconsider. A temporary judge will have to sit in for him.

Courthouse employees say Ritchie's expense accounts were the subject of rumors for years, but the complaint that started the commission's investigation had to do with the judge's demeanor, not his travels.

In May 1991, Debra Oskey, a financial analyst then working for a Seattle company, filed a complaint with the commission claiming Ritchie had been rude and curt with her when she appeared before him in a small-claims civil case. Oskey had been accused of knocking over a man's parked motorcycle. Although she says she had proof she was never near the man's bike, Ritchie ruled that she owed the man $2,000 for damages.

In her complaint, Oskey said the judge had denied her access to evidence, implied she was a liar and showed bias toward the plaintiff.

"He continually bullies his staff and has them totally fearful of losing their jobs if they do something he doesn't want them to do," Oskey, 41, wrote in her complaint.

Complaints like Oskey's normally are rejected, but commission investigator Sally Carter-DuBois started picking up other, more serious allegations. The commission hired two outside lawyers to dig into Ritchie's travels, and the investigation wound up costing the state some $69,000.

Although Oskey's complaint is not part of the official case, the judge himself said her initiative had a role in the commission's ruling.

"As a judge, you are a sitting duck," he said. "All you have to do is get someone who complains about you and the investigators have carte blanche."

Oskey, now a financial analyst for a law firm in Safety Harbor, Fla., was surprised and elated by the commission's ruling.

She said the ruling was "super" because it gives hope to little people mistreated by the courts.

At the courthouse, the judge's bailiff, Molly Torres, denied Oskey's claim that Ritchie had harassed his staff. But she said Oskey certainly got people's attention.

"Boy, she never knew what a can of worms she opened," Torres said.

The judge yesterday exited the commission hearing at a SeaTac hotel swinging at his detractors. He said commission investigators Peter Byrnes and Paul Taylor had leaked information to the news media, wrongly influenced commission members, hid evidence, misstated facts and allowed witnesses to lie. He said the commission bowed to news media pressure and, as for himself, "I feel devastated."

Ritchie said Byrnes indicated his bias when he told him during a January meeting: "The conduct commission wants a censure. You might as well agree to it. If you don't, we will drag you through the mud. . . . The conduct commission has not had a lot of good publicity lately and they are looking forward to a public lynching."

Ritchie's lawyer, Anne Bremner, said she trusts his memory since he immediately wrote the comment down.

Byrnes strongly denied the comment, saying that Ritchie is "absolutely desperate." Byrnes said all he told Ritchie was that "there would be a good deal of publicity" if he went to a public hearing.

Byrnes said Ritchie's comment indicates he hasn't learned anything, and the commission showed it is willing to be tough on judges.

In a preliminary vote last May, a slim majority of commission members voted for censure, without removal. As Ritchie continued to claim a witch hunt, and as news stories detailed questions whether he used his chambers to conduct a loan business, the commission vote swung against him.

In its ruling, the commission indicated why members were swayed.

"There is nothing to indicate that respondent (Ritchie) has acknowledged or recognized anything wrongful about his charging for the trips to Florida and Arizona," the paper said.

And, it added, "there is little . . . to indicate one way or the other whether (Ritchie) will refrain from similar conduct in the future."

It is the most serious sanction the commission has ever recommended against a judge. The commission voted in 1987 to remove a Pierce County District Court judge, Mark Deming, for sexual harassment, but he left the bench before a ruling came down.

Meanwhile, the King County prosecutor is expected to decide in a few weeks whether to bring criminal charges against Ritchie for the abuse of his travel privileges. And the Public Disclosure Commission and the Commission on Judicial Conduct are investigating whether Ritchie violated state laws or judicial ethics codes on the loan business.

Ritchie was ordered to pay back the travel money and $46 worth of phone calls.

The judge, first elected in 1978 and highly rated in lawyer polls, said he never intended to run for re-election when his term expires next year. He said he has earned enough money through investments to forgo his $92,000-a-year salary. Asked what he would do in retirement, he replied: "Maybe write a book." Times staff reporter Duff Wilson contributed to this article.