What Washington Law Requires
Judicial officers are required under Washington law to maintain not only actual impartiality, but also the appearance of impartiality. Public confidence in the courts depends on both.
The Washington Code of Judicial Conduct establishes that judges must avoid conduct that might reasonably call their impartiality into question. Procedural safeguards — notice, service verification, on-the-record findings, independent review — are the mechanisms that produce and document impartiality in every proceeding.
When those safeguards are absent or inconsistently applied, the appearance of fairness is compromised regardless of the outcome — and regardless of the intentions of the individual judicial officer involved.
Process, Not Personalities
Whatcom Court Watch does not assert personal bias against any judge or commissioner. We do not characterize the motivations or intentions of any individual.
Instead, we examine whether procedural safeguards functioned as intended. A proceeding in which the required safeguards were absent — regardless of why — produces a structural fairness problem that can be documented from the record alone.
Our goal is to support transparency, highlight areas where improvements may be needed, and provide the public with clear, factual information about how cases are processed in Whatcom County Superior Court.
Situations We Document
Whatcom Court Watch reviews situations where procedural safeguards designed to preserve neutrality and fairness were absent from the record.
Significant decisions made without full participation from all parties — including property orders, fee awards, and signing authority issued at ex parte hearings where the opposing party had no notice or opportunity to respond.
Proposed orders adopted or modified without independent review — including orders containing dollar amounts or factual findings that did not appear in any prior oral or written ruling.
Findings of fact not provided — decisions affecting substantive rights issued without articulating the factual basis or legal reasoning, making appellate review substantially more difficult for the affected party.
One-sided allegations accepted without verification — the transcript record reflecting that assertions about finances, property, or conduct were accepted without supporting evidence or an opportunity for the other party to respond.
Signature authority or property orders issued without analysis — commissioner signatures on real estate documents without a court-filed order establishing the scope, terms, and duration of that authority.
Service not meaningfully confirmed before proceeding — hearings proceeding on the basis of a brief assertion that service occurred, without verification of method, timing, or compliance with CR 5.
Revision hearings conducted as affirmance rather than independent review — written decisions opening with language affirming the commissioner's ruling rather than stating the court's own independent findings under RCW 2.24.050.
Structural Fairness Is Documentable
The procedural rules that govern Whatcom County Superior Court exist for the benefit of everyone who appears there. They are not suggestions — they are the structure that makes outcomes predictable, reviewable, and fair.
When those rules are consistently applied, a litigant who loses can understand why. When they are not, a litigant who loses cannot know whether the outcome was driven by the facts and the law, or by the absence of the procedural structure the rules require.
Whatcom Court Watch documents the gap between what the rules require and what the record shows. That gap is a matter of public record — and the public has a right to know about it.
Have You Experienced a Fairness Concern?
If procedural safeguards were absent from your proceeding, your submission helps identify patterns across multiple cases.
Submit Your Experience