On Monday, June 2, 2025, the ABA Journal reported that Seattle Municipal Judge Pooja Vaddadi filed a disciplinary complaint with the Washington State Bar Association against Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison and her former criminal chief, Natalie Walton-Anderson. Vaddadi alleges the two made false statements about her judicial record to remove her from criminal cases, damaging her professional reputation.

The conflict stems from a 2024 decision by the city attorney’s office to file affidavits of prejudice to disqualify Vaddadi from all criminal cases, as permitted by Washington State Court Rules. These rules allow prosecutors and defense attorneys to remove one judge per case with such affidavits.

Walton-Anderson’s memo outlined the office’s plan, citing Vaddadi’s alleged tendency to overrule prior probable cause findings and make incorrect evidentiary rulings. The memo claimed Vaddadi showed “a complete lack of understanding, or perhaps even intentional disregard, of the evidence rules, even on basic issues.” A press release from the city attorney’s office also raised “serious concerns” about Vaddadi’s “conduct and rulings.”

As a result, Vaddadi, a former public defender who campaigned on restorative justice, was reassigned to handle civil matters and traffic infractions after taking the bench in 2023 to preside over misdemeanor cases like DUIs and domestic violence charges.

Vaddadi’s complaint to the bar association asserts that the memo and press release “were calculated to excite public spectacle and inflame public opinion.” She requested an investigation into Davison and Walton-Anderson’s conduct, suggesting possible suspension or disbarment.

“There is no evidence that my judicial practice deviated from judicial norms,” Vaddadi wrote in her complaint.

She told the ABA Journal, “They have smeared my reputation and lied about me to the public. There is a canon of ethics that says you can’t lie about a judge to the public.”

The Washington State Bar Association stated in an email that there is “no public discipline information” regarding Vaddadi’s complaint, and Vaddadi noted the agency has not yet addressed it.

In response, Davison and Walton-Anderson issued a statement saying they “strongly disagree with the allegations” and “will fully cooperate with any requests for information that the bar may have.” The statement emphasized that Davison’s “primary goal is to protect public safety through the work of her office, and that has been her guiding principle in all matters.”

In October 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Washington Community Alliance and three Seattle voters, alleging the city attorney’s office misused prosecutorial discretion against Vaddadi, effectively disenfranchising voters. The case was dismissed in February 2025. That same month, the city attorney’s office ended its policy of blanket affidavits against Vaddadi.

According to Lisa Foster, a Seattle Municipal Court spokesperson, “Judge Vaddadi has resumed hearing criminal matters in her courtroom,” though she remains excluded from domestic violence and DUI cases.

Steven Lubet, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, noted that judges rarely file disciplinary complaints against lawyers, as “the overwhelming majority of lawyers behave appropriately and honorably” and “disciplinary processes move slowly and beyond the judge’s control.”

Ed McKenna, a former presiding judge in Seattle Municipal Court, described the local criminal justice system as increasingly contentious, stating, “It’s a total mess there, and it has been for several years.”

Brooks Holland, a criminal law and legal ethics professor at Gonzaga University School of Law, called the public announcement of the blanket affidavits a “strong move,” noting it removed individual prosecutors’ discretion and could place them in “difficult ethical positions” if the policy was retaliatory, as Vaddadi alleges.

 

 

Source: ABA Journal