Judge candidate Danielson declines attorney donations

One candidate for Kitsap County Superior Court has resolved to not seek or accept endorsements or contributions from local attorneys to prevent the appearance of conflict of interest, but local lawyers and judges feel the current safeguards are strong enough.

“For a lawyer to contribute to a judge’s campaign is like an athlete giving money to a referee,” said Bruce Danielson, who was the first to declare his candidacy this year. “If a judge candidate accepts money from an attorney who appears before him, it appears as if they are buying their way into the judge’s favor.”

Currently, each judge has a list of business associates posted in his or her courtroom, disclosing the names of those with whom they have present or past business dealings. With this in mind, conflicts are decided with regard to each case and with a conference between the judge and attorneys on both sides.

For instance, the fact that a judge practiced with a particular attorney 10 years prior to serving on the bench may not be important, but if the two own property together it would be grounds for the judge’s immediate recusal.

Danielson doesn’t feel this goes far enough.

If a judge feels compelled to take contributions from an attorney, he said, that fact should be listed along with the other conflicts.

“This feels wrong,” Danielson said of the attorneys’ campaign contribution process. “The purpose of the law is to prevent influence by special interest groups. But attorneys are the biggest special interest group of them all.”

Danielson, who is currently spending much of his time campaigning door-to-door, said many county voters are surprised that judges receive attorney contributions. And many agree with his assessment of potential conflict of interest.

On the other hand, members of the local legal community feel the current statute, which prohibits judges from knowing who contributed to their campaigns, is enough to maintain an objective balance in the courtroom.

Both of Danielson’s opponents, Greg Wall and Jeanette Dalton, said they are honor-bound to not seek out information about their contributors. This is seconded by Superior Court Presiding Judge M. Karlynn Haberly, who said, “The law protects our neutrality, and no good judge will look at their disclosure statements.”

Dalton said she has no idea about her contributors, in spite of the fact that her husband serves as campaign treasurer.

“If I am not ethical in private, what business do I have being on the bench?” she wondered. “As a judge, you will honor the ethical code, waking or sleeping.”

Consequently, Dalton said, even though a judge can log on to the public disclosure sites as easily as anyone else, they will refrain from doing so.

Wall also feels that a judge has a strong internal moral compass that places personal feelings and emotions aside.

He thinks that attorney support is a good barometer for judges since attorneys, like the general public, want to see the best possible judge.

“We all want to win our case and have the judge rule in our favor,” said Wall, speaking as an attorney. “But we want a good judge to make solid rulings that aren’t going to be overturned.

Wall feels Danielson’s refusal of attorney endorsements is a small sacrifice, since few were forthcoming.

“Bruce is turning down these endorsements because he isn’t getting any,” he said. “No one knows who he is and what he stands for. People know who I am, and know who Jeanette is, and that we will both be fair and impartial.”

Dalton disagrees with Danielson that attorneys should be characterized as a “special-interest group,” but points out that the Sheriff’s Guild endorsement of Danielson could create the very conflict he is trying to avoid.

Danielson counters that, “Deputies are public servants who are paid the same no matter how the case goes.That is not true with a lawyer trying a personal injury case.”

Danielson, Wall and Dalton are all running for the seat to be vacated by Leonard Costello, who is retiring.

After the Aug. 19 primary, two of them will advance to the general election unless one candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote.

Danielson doesn’t believe that judges isolate themselves from contributor information, despite the existing ethical guidelines that they are prohibited from logging onto PRC sites and looking at the names.

“That’s what the code says,” Danielson said. “But the harsh reality is that attorneys aren’t shy about letting the judges know about their support. The judge can say they don’t know who gave them money, but the system still gives the appearance of impropriety.

“That’s the last thing the public needs,” he said. “Something that calls the integrity of the bench into doubt.”

• Civil
• Smart
• On-topic
• Free from profanity

We ask that all participants own their words by registering for an account. It's a simple process that will take seconds and helps keep our comments free of trolls, cranks, and drive-by commenters.

As a community site, we ask that the community help by using the "Flag" button on each comment if they feel the comment has violated the rules. You can also use the up and down arrows on each comment to voice your opinion about that particular comment.

Want to tell us something but you don't want it to be public? Talk to us privately.