Appeals court won't touch Justice Sanders' case

The state Court of Appeals has handed off a public-records case involving Washington Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders, saying that the appellate court doesn't have the authority to apply a recent ruling authored by Sanders to a lawsuit filed by him.

Sanders has defended his decision not to recuse himself from a case in January in which the high court set up new guidelines for calculating fines and penalties in public-disclosure cases that could benefit Sanders in a lawsuit he has pending in the Court of Appeals.

Sanders had appealed the award of just under $70,000 in fines and penalties awarded against the state for failing to fully comply with a public-records request he made in 2005. Sanders alleged the state withheld documents involving his controversial visit to a sexual-predator facility. He was admonished for the visit by the state Judicial Conduct Commission.

While that appeal was pending, Sanders in January authored the majority opinion in a case involving King County and businessman Armen Yousoufian. That decision set guidelines for courts to consider when tallying fines or penalties involving violations of the Public Disclosure Act.

Sanders' attorneys then cited the Yousoufian ruling to ask that the court increase Sanders' award for fines by more than $500,000.

The justice has insisted that he will not personally benefit from the ruling. Any additional money he recovers would go to his lawyers, he said last week. Sander's lawyer, Paul Lawrence, confirmed that agreement Wednesday.

He also said he consulted the court's ethics expert, Nan Sullins, who confirmed she had offered Sanders an "informal opinion" before the Yousoufian case was decided but wouldn't say what it was.

"I believe I did nothing wrong," Sanders said last week.

Judge C.C. Bridgewater, the presiding judge in Division II of the Court of Appeals, wrote in an order last week that both sides have agreed that the Yousoufian case is germane to Sanders' lawsuit and that the Court of Appeals questions its jurisdiction because of Sanders' involvement.

Bridgewater noted that the Court of Appeals cannot decline to consider precedent by the higher court and that, given the "unusual circumstances" presented here, the only court with that authority is the Supreme Court.

Considering a sitting justice is the plaintiff in the case, Lawrence suggested that the entire court may recuse itself and hand it off to a panel of appointed judges.

Mike Carter: 206-464-3706 or mcarter@seattletimes.com