In a blistering, unanimous opinion, the state Supreme Court pointedly rebukes a presiding municipal court judge for trying to quash disclosure of an investigation into his alleged misconduct.
The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Federal Way municipal court Judge Michael Morgan bent the state’s public records act beyond recognition when he tried to to stifle the release of an investigation report into allegations of misconduct against him.
The court’s 8-0 opinion, published this morning, expands upon its June 12th order to immediately disclose the report to the Tacoma News Tribune, after a state court of appeals panel, in April, had intervened to stay a King County Superior Court order to release it.
The report, known as the “Stephson Report,” was the result of an investigation ordered by Federal Way City Attorney Patricia Richardson after a municipal court employee complained to the city about a hostile work environment created, at least in part, by Judge Morgan’s “inappropriate behavior.” Judge Morgan tried, unsuccessfully, to block the investigation.
After the Tacoma News Tribune sought the Stephson Report via a public records request, Judge Morgan then tried to block its release. He did so by 
raising two of the most potent arguments that are regularly used by state and municipal officers in Washington to withhold sensitive records–attorney-client privilege and privacy.
But the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Susan Owens, rejected these arguments and, in today’s ruling, explained why. For starters, the court affirmed that the Stephson Report was a public record under terms of the Public Records Act (PRA) because it was “prepared, owned, used and retained by the City” and is thus subject to disclosure. Moreover, the court said, it was not exempt under the “work product” doctrine because it was not connected to “completed, existing, or reasonably anticipated litigation.”
As for the attorney/client privilege claim by Judge Morgan, the court’s answer was simple: attorney Amy Stephson had been hired by the City to investigate on their behalf, not Morgan’s and, thus, no attorney/client relationship existed between Morgan and Stephson.
As for the personal information exemption that Judge Morgan raised, the Supreme Court addressed it in this way:
“Judge Morgan claims that the report violates his right to privacy because it contains unsubstantiated allegations of ‘inappropriate behavior,’ which he contends are highly offensive. However, the allegations–including angry outbursts, inappropriate gender-based and sexual comments, and demeaning colleagues and employees–are nowhere near as offensive as allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor and do not rise to the level of ‘highly offensive.’ Contrary to Judge Morgan’s assertion, the incidents are not unsubstantiated simply because he disputes them. The Stephson Report evaluates each person’s credibility and concludes that many of the allegations are likely true…Judge Morgan also fails to demonstrate how his behavior in the workplace is not of legitimate concern to the public and to voters.”
–CFJ
No comments yet.