Opinion ID: 659388
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disciplinary Petition

Text: 26 The disciplinary petition charged Sandlin with making a public, false and malicious attack on a judicial officer. Tracking this language, Sandlin contends that his statements were not (1) public, (2) false and malicious, or (3) an attack on a judicial officer. We discuss the first and third of these arguments, leaving the second to our discussion of Sandlin's argument under the First Amendment. 27 Sandlin concedes that WSRPC 8.2(a) is not by its terms restricted to public statements. He argues, however, that that is the charge brought against him and that is how this rule and its predecessors have been applied. See In re Kaiser, 111 Wash.2d 275, 759 P.2d 392 (1988) (construing judicial canons); In re Donohoe, 90 Wash.2d 173, 580 P.2d 1093 (1978) (construing DR 8-102(B)). Sandlin claims that, absent the filing of the petition, the issues raised by that petition would not have been brought to the public's attention. 28 We reject Sandlin's argument. While the disciplinary petition did charge Sandlin with making a public statement, it also referred to WSRPC 8.2(a), which contains no requirement that the statement at issue be made publicly. Cases such as Kaiser and Donohoe do involve public statements--e.g., campaign advertisements. However, neither case was decided under WSRPC 8.2(a). Moreover, neither opines that WSRPC 8.2(a) applies only to public statements. 29 Sandlin also argues that he did not accuse Judge McDonald of altering the record; rather, his attack was on Blankenship. He points out that the disciplinary petition does not charge him with attacking Judge McDonald, but rather, with attacking a judicial officer. Sandlin argues that before he can be punished for statements critical of a particular government official, he must specifically identify that official as the target of his criticisms. 30 Sandlin correctly notes that the disciplinary petition does not specifically charge him with attacking Judge McDonald. However, a fair reading of that petition reveals that Sandlin was charged with violating WSRPC 8.2 by making false statements about Judge McDonald. 31 Sandlin's argument that his attack was actually on Blankenship does find some support in the record. For example, the FBI's complaint form lists Kay Blankenship under Subject's name and aliases. That complaint states that Sandlin alleged that Judge MacDonalds (sic) clerk (sic) recorder intentionally deleted the (unreadable) comment from the transcript. Nonetheless, the record also supports the district court's finding that Sandlin stated to FBI Agents Moulton and Detlor, AUSA Beatty, and USA Lamp that Judge McDonald ordered Blankenship to materially alter the transcript of the May 8th hearing. As such, we cannot say the district court clearly erred in finding that Sandlin's attack was directed at Judge McDonald.