The Stipulated Facts
Fa'amomoi Masaniai is a judge of the King County District Court in Washington State. In April 2026, the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand against him based on stipulated facts — facts that both he and the Commission agreed were accurate.
Those facts are stark: Judge Masaniai violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by initiating an inappropriate personal relationship with a court clerk. The relationship included unsolicited communications about personal matters via phone and text message. It included unwanted hugging. And it occurred in a context where Masaniai, as a judge, held significant power over the clerk as a court employee.
The Commission's public statement noted that Masaniai's conduct reflected "deeply inappropriate personal conduct and initiated unwanted physical contact" and that he "grossly exploit[ed] the stark power differential between a judge and a member of court staff."
He was reprimanded. He was ordered to complete remedial training in sexual harassment and gender dynamics and to review the Code of Judicial Conduct. He remains a judge.
What Reprimand Means
In Washington's disciplinary system, "reprimand" is the second-lowest level of public discipline. It is less severe than censure, which is less severe than removal. A reprimanded judge remains on the bench. A reprimanded judge can continue hearing cases. A reprimanded judge faces no loss of pay or position — only the public record of the reprimand itself.
The Commission could have recommended to the Washington Supreme Court that Masaniai be suspended or removed. It did not. The determination was that sexual harassment of a court clerk, involving unwanted physical contact and exploitation of power, warranted a reprimand and training.
Power and Consent
The Commission's language about the "stark power differential" is important. A judge and a court clerk do not meet as equals. The clerk works in the judge's chambers or courtroom. The clerk's job security, work assignments, and professional standing are all subject to the judge's influence. When a judge initiates personal communications and unwanted physical contact with a court clerk, the question of consent is obscured by that power imbalance.
The clerk cannot easily decline the judge's advances without risking professional consequences. She cannot easily report the conduct without reporting to the very person who has power over her working conditions. The dynamic is coercive by its nature, even if no explicit threat is made.
The Commission's stipulation that Masaniai's conduct violated the Code reflects an understanding of that power imbalance. But the remedy — reprimand and training — does not directly address whether a judge who has shown such poor judgment about boundaries should continue to preside over cases involving vulnerable people and power imbalances, such as custody disputes or criminal sentencings.
The Clerk's Position
The court clerk's name does not appear in public documents about the case. Her account of the conduct is not detailed beyond the Commission's summary. She is not identified as having participated in the disciplinary process voluntarily or under pressure. Her current status — whether she remains employed in the King County courts, whether she has sought other employment — is not disclosed.
The disciplinary process focused on Masaniai's violation of the Code. It did not, in any public way, center the clerk's experience or her interests in seeing the conduct addressed or prevented from recurring.
Ongoing Service
Masaniai continues to serve as a King County District Court judge. Litigants who appear before him may or may not know about the reprimand, depending on how actively they research judicial conduct records. Court employees working in his vicinity know, or should know, about the finding that he initiated unwanted personal contact with a colleague.
The training he was ordered to complete is confidential — its content, his participation, and any assessment of whether the training changed his conduct are not public matters. The Commission may have required follow-up or verification, but those details are not disclosed.
A Note on Sources
This article is based on reporting from the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct (April 24, 2026 stipulation), the Seattle Red (April 28, 2026), the Olympia Herald (April 25, 2026), and the Commission's public database of 2026 actions. Judge Masaniai and the Commission did not respond to requests for comment before publication.
The Ethics Reporter is an independent legal accountability publication. We rely entirely on reader donations to fund this work. If this reporting matters to you, please consider supporting us at theethicsreporter.com/donate. Even $1 keeps the lights on. Thank you.