The Washington Supreme Court unanimously overruled the Commission on Judicial Conduct's recommendation to remove Bremerton Municipal Court Judge Tracy S. Flood, instead imposing a 30-day suspension without compensation in a decision filed Dec. 4, 2025.
Chief Justice Stephens wrote for the court in *In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against The Honorable Judge Tracy S. Flood* that censure and removal was not an appropriate sanction for the misconduct at issue. The court held that suspension was proportionate to Judge Flood's violations of multiple judicial conduct rules.
The disciplinary case arose under Discipline Rules for Judges 2(a) and 3(a) after the Commission on Judicial Conduct censured Judge Flood and recommended her removal from the bench. Judge Flood contested the commission's decision, prompting the Supreme Court's de novo review of the proceedings.
Following a public hearing, briefing from both parties, and oral arguments held Oct. 30, 2025, the court reviewed Judge Flood's stipulation to violations of Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.8(B). The court also found substantial evidence supporting a violation of CJC Rule 2.5(A).
Rule 1.1 requires judges to comply with the law and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. Rule 1.2 mandates that judges act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Rule 2.8(B) addresses judicial conduct regarding court personnel, while Rule 2.5(A) governs competent and diligent performance of judicial duties.
The court's decision represents a significant reduction from the Commission's original recommendation. While the Commission sought Judge Flood's removal from office, the Supreme Court determined that a 30-day suspension without pay was sufficient punishment for the established misconduct.
In determining the appropriate length of suspension, the court considered several mitigating factors. Judge Flood has been off the bench since January 2025 due to the Commission's removal recommendation and chose not to seek reelection to her position. The court noted these circumstances when crafting what it deemed a proportionate sanction.
The 30-day suspension begins immediately and may extend beyond Judge Flood's current term in office, according to the court's order. This timing ensures the disciplinary action is carried out regardless of when Judge Flood's current judicial term expires.
The Supreme Court's decision also addresses Judge Flood's future eligibility for judicial positions. Following completion of the suspension period, Judge Flood will be eligible to pursue a judicial position upon completion of an approved program, though the court's opinion as provided does not specify the nature or duration of this required program.
The case demonstrates the Washington Supreme Court's authority to review and modify disciplinary recommendations from the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Under the state's judicial discipline system, the Commission investigates allegations of judicial misconduct and makes recommendations, but the Supreme Court has final authority over disciplinary sanctions for judges.
The Court's unanimous decision to reduce the sanction from removal to suspension reflects the justices' collective judgment that Judge Flood's misconduct, while serious enough to warrant discipline, did not rise to the level requiring permanent removal from the bench. This distinction is significant in judicial discipline cases, where removal represents the most severe sanction available.
Bremerton Municipal Court serves the city of Bremerton in Kitsap County, handling municipal violations and other local legal matters. Judge Flood's absence from the bench since January 2025 has required the court to operate with alternative judicial coverage during the disciplinary proceedings.
The Supreme Court's decision brings finality to Judge Flood's disciplinary case after nearly a year of proceedings. The court's willingness to overturn the Commission's removal recommendation demonstrates its independent review authority and commitment to ensuring disciplinary sanctions are proportionate to the underlying misconduct.
While the specific details of Judge Flood's misconduct are not fully outlined in the available portion of the court's opinion, her stipulation to multiple Code of Judicial Conduct violations indicates acknowledgment of wrongdoing. The court's determination that suspension rather than removal was appropriate suggests the misconduct was serious but not fundamentally incompatible with continued judicial service after appropriate discipline and rehabilitation.
The case serves as a reminder of the multi-layered judicial discipline system in Washington, where the Commission on Judicial Conduct investigates and makes initial recommendations, but the Supreme Court maintains ultimate authority over the sanctions imposed on judges found to have violated ethical rules.