On May 17, 2018, Jefferson County District Court Judge Jill Landes filed a complaint with the Washington State Bar Association against Jefferson County Prosecutor Michael E. Haas accusing him of bribery and ethics violations.  The case was being actively investigated by the Bar Association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel until, under a state Supreme Court rule, it was put on hold until after the election. Haas lost re-election to challenger James Kennedy.

Kennedy is at the center of Landes’ complaint.

We have reviewed the complaint, Mr. Haas’ response and Judge Landes’ supplementary materials. We sought comment from Judge Landes and Mr. Haas.  Judge Landes traded telephone calls with us, but we were unable to speak.  Mr. Haas did not respond at all.

We also sought comment from Port Townsend attorney Mindy Walker.  She also figures prominently in the complaints and is accused of ethical violations, including fraud upon the court. Judge Landes accuses her of being complicit with Haas.  Walker has been elected to replace Judge Landes on the bench.  Landes is retiring.

We have been able to speak with two of the central witnesses in the case, Kennedy and Christopher Ashcraft, the Port Townsend City Prosecutor.  Both attorneys were at the time of the events in Judge Landes’ complaint employed by the Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office under Haas.  Ashcraft was then Kennedy’s immediate supervisor. Both men have been interviewed by the Office of Disciplinary Council.  They have confirmed to us the central facts alleged by Judge Landes.

They have stated that they resigned from the Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office and opposed Haas’ re-election in large part because of what they considered to be Haas’ unethical behavior as Prosecuting Attorney.

The third key witness is Adam Sturdivant, then another prosecutor.  He left to be a deputy prosecutor in Snohomish County.  He states he has not been been interviewed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

UPDATE: Following publication of this story, Mr. Sturdivant contacted us.  He generally confirms the allegations of Judge Landes’ complaint and specifically recalls overhearing Haas instructing Kennedy to sign the order he and Walker had worked out, though, as Haas said to Kennedy, “You won’t like it.” Mr. Sturdivant says he has yet to be interviewed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

We have also reviewed the pertinent video records, more evidence which the Office of Disciplinary Counsel is considering. The videos of two key hearings largely corroborate Judge Landes, though they do not show, as alleged by Landes, Haas huddling with Walker and then instructing Kennedy to engage in the conduct Landes reported to the Bar Association.  The videos do show both Kennedy and Ashcraft expressing to the court their concerns with the ethics of the actions Haas instructed them to take and their reasons for refusing to act as the County Prosecutor instructed.

The evidence of Haas huddling with Walker and issuing instructions to Kennedy depends on the testimony of Kennedy, Ashcraft and Sturdivant.  And, of course, Walker.

Ethics investigations and complaints are normally kept confidential until resolution.  But because Haas is a public official, we were able to obtain the documents from his office, though not those in the files of the Disciplinary Counsel. We did not receive the documents until the day before the election.  See our earlier report:  Michael Haas Under Investigation, Hiding the Truth from Voters.

What we have obtained in Office of Disciplinary Counsel case 18-00843 can be read at the following link. Some material is redacted as attorney work product. Note that much of the material on the second case covered by Judge Landes’ complaint has been redacted because it concerns a juvenile. To read those documents simply click on these highlighted words: Landes files. (Patience, please.  WordPress can be very sluggish.)

The allegations against Haas concern two cases.  One case, State v. Siekaj was a prosecution for drunken driving.  Haas represented the defendant as a client of Haas & Ramirez before he became prosecutor. Judge Landes alleges that even after he became prosecutor, Haas continued to act on behalf of Siekaj and remained counsel of record.

Judge Landes claims Haas engaged in the crime of bribery because he used the powers of his public office to benefit an individual from whom he received money.  If true, this is a direct and egregious conflict of interest, in addition to possibly being bribery. Judge Landes alleges that Walker was aware of this, and that she knowingly used Haas’ ethical breach to benefit her client, while failing to disclose to the court her knowledge of Haas’ alleged misconduct.  Lawyers, under their professional code of conduct, are obligated to report attorney misconduct that comes to their attention.

The complaint logically assumes that Haas was not working for free as private counsel for Siekaj. It assumes he was paid at some time.  Landes does not specifically allege that Haas accepted money from Siekaj directly after being sworn in as prosecutor.  The amount paid is not stated.

Not mentioned in the complaint, but perhaps investigated by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, was whether Haas continued to receive compensation from his former law firm, in which Walker had become a partner, after he became prosecutor.  It is not uncommon for law partnerships to continue to split fees and divide assets for some time after they are dissolved.  As a partner in the firm, Walker would likely have known of any payments to Haas after he took office, payments made at a time when she was seeking Haas’ assistance on behalf the firm’s client.

The second case concerns a juvenile. Because much of the material has been redacted, it is difficult to understand exactly what it is about.  We had heard of this matter before we knew of Judge Landes’ complaint, but will not disclose the juvenile’s name.  It is not much a secret around the courthouse.  It concerns a juvenile related to Haas who, as we understand it, assaulted a person with whom Haas had a personal history of conflict.  In short, what happened was that Haas ordered the prosecutor assigned to the case to dismiss the charges.  The prosecutor, Kennedy, refused.  He and his supervisor, Ashcraft, demanded that Haas appoint a special prosecutor because the office had an obvious conflict of interest.  Haas resisted calls to appoint a special counsel and himself dismissed the charges against his relative.

One interesting back story:  Haas in his response to the complaint notes how certain records from the Siekaj case would normally have been destroyed pursuant to standard archival practices.  But they were not.  At a time when he was away from his office in 2016, they were released in response to  an anonymous public records request.  That resulted in them being preserved and now available to investigators.  We were not able to determine who filed the anonymous public records request.  But the disclosure of those records, so they could be preserved, was done by prosecutors or other staff then in Haas’ office who later resigned and opposed his re-election.  Haas says it was Kennedy who responded to the anonymous request. It appears that the groundwork for Landes’ complaint was started years ago.  If that is the case, on an editorial note, it shows that Mr. Kennedy can be a formidable adversary.

This raises an issue as to why Landes waited until 2018 to notify the Bar Association of her concerns.  Haas told investigators it was for political reasons.  He went to the extreme of photographing the political bumper stickers on her car to show she was supporting Kenndy and Walker’s opponent. Landes told them she waited until her final year on the bench so that Haas would not be disqualifying her from presiding over all his cases and causing the county increased costs in having to pay an outside judge to fulfill her duties.

A ruling will eventually be rendered by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.  Haas could face a range of sanctions and possible referral for criminal prosecution.  Or he could be exonerated.  The determination could be made public. If not, we will seek it through another public records request.

[This article has been corrected to state Mr. Sturdivant’s departure for a prosecution job in Snohomish County and that he has not yet been interviewed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.]