Pierce County Judge Ousted By High Court -- Dishonesty Cited; Removal Called `Proper Decision'

OLYMPIA - The state Supreme Court this morning ordered a Pierce County judge removed from office for what it said was a "pattern of dishonest behavior unbecoming of a judge."

It is only the second time Washington's highest court has removed a sitting judge.

Pierce County Superior Court Judge Grant Anderson was accused of misconduct relating to his handling of the estate of a deceased client.

The state Judicial Conduct Commission ruled last year that Anderson, before he was a judge, sold a bowling alley owned by an estate he represented at a reduced price to a friend.

The friend was making payments on Anderson's Cadillac at the same time. He continued to be involved after becoming a judge and failed to disclose three years of payments he received.

In a unanimous decision, the court overturned the Judicial Conduct Commission's order that Anderson be suspended without pay and forced to attend a judicial-ethics course.

The court said the commission's sanction was "far too lenient."

Anderson's claim that his violations of the judicial canons were insignificant shows the judge's "failure to understand or his willful denial of the magnitude of his misconduct," the court said.

"It demonstrates his disregard of the importance of the integrity of the judiciary, both in the sense of the individual judge's personal integrity and in the sense of the integrity of our justice system."

"The judicial branch of government depends upon the public's

confidence and respect. Judge Anderson's misconduct has eroded the integrity and respect for the judiciary to such a degree that he must be relieved of the duties of office."

Neither Anderson nor his attorney could be reached this morning.

Anderson's case became a political issue this year when the Legislature began a process to remove the judge.

Lawmakers were frustrated with the slow process of Anderson's appeal to the Supreme Court and some thought the suspension was not severe enough.

This morning, Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach, applauded the court's action.

"I think that's a proper decision and it will save the Senate going through a process to remove him if they hadn't ruled that way," Snyder said.

Lawmakers had been lobbied to pursue Anderson's removal by Tacoma attorney David Schafer, who filed the complaint against Anderson and for more than three years has dogged the conduct commission, the bar association and the Legislature to take action against him.

"I thought I'd never hear this. I'm still shaking," he said when told of the court's ruling. "Its been since February of 1996. I'm just aghast that the system works so poorly. I just find something needs correction."

The case dates back to the 1993 sale of a bowling alley that was owned by the estate of a deceased client Anderson had represented before becoming a judge. He sold it to a friend, William Hamilton, and reduced the price from an original agreed upon price of $300,000 to $207,171.

At about the same time, Anderson bought a Cadillac. He told his wife - who was surprised to find him home with a new Cadillac - that it was a commission for his work selling the bowling alley.

But on Jan. 8, 1993, the day Anderson was sworn in as judge, Hamilton made arrangements to pay the car loan. Hamilton testified that he made the offer because he had gotten so much free legal advice over the years from Anderson.

Anderson said he declined the offer at first, but then was persuaded.

"We find it is more than coincidental that the discussions about price reduction occurred just after Judge Anderson began accepting car-loan payments from Mr. Hamilton," the Supreme Court wrote in its decision.

The proceeds of the bowling-alley sale were supposed to go to Ocean Beach Hospital in Ilwaco, Pacific County. Earlier this year, Anderson and his associates settled a lawsuit brought by the hospital for $500,000.

While the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, there were four judges substituting for justices who felt they had a conflict in ruling on the Anderson case.

The Judicial Conduct Commission found mitigating factors to reduce Anderson's punishment, including that the offense did not relate to his official duties as a judge.

But the Supreme Court found none of the factors "sufficient to justify a sanction less than removal."