Censure for Former Okanogan County Superior Court Commissioner Over Conduct and Delayed Ruling
The Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct has formally censured former Okanogan County Superior Court Commissioner Robert Colbert, citing inappropriate sexual exchanges with a subordinate and a significant delay in issuing a key family law ruling.
Under a stipulated agreement released today, Colbert is barred from holding or seeking any future judicial position without the commission’s prior approval. His service as a commissioner spanned from 2018 through April 2026. He was placed on administrative leave on February 4, 2026, after the presiding judge became aware of his communications with a staff member, and his judicial appointment was officially revoked on April 6, 2026.
The commission initiated its review after receiving a complaint on January 20, 2026, concerning a protracted decision in a parenting plan modification case. During its inquiry, investigators uncovered a pattern of personal and professional interaction between Colbert and a female court employee who had been assigned to his division starting in August 2022.
According to the stipulated facts, the two regularly corresponded through text messages on personal devices, work email, and in-person conversations. Several exchanges contained sexually suggestive language and comments. Though the employee reported feeling uneasy at times, she refrained from voicing concerns, partly due to the hierarchical dynamic between them. She continued engaging in the dialogues and shared details of the exchanges with colleagues, noting her apprehension about potential retaliation or dismissal if she raised objections formally.
Colbert described the employee as an active contributor to the correspondence, stating she often began conversations herself. At the same time, he conceded that, as a judicial officer, such interactions with staff were inappropriate regardless of initiation. The agreement notes that Colbert’s courtroom had developed a relaxed atmosphere, occasionally crossing into unprofessional territory, and emphasized that maintaining a respectful workplace remained his responsibility—even if he viewed the exchanges as mutually agreeable.
The employee reported measurable impacts on her well-being and job satisfaction, despite enjoying her role. The misconduct also disrupted broader office dynamics, with colleagues noting shifts in morale and workflow.
Since entering leave, Colbert has followed the commission’s directive and refrained from reaching out to the employee.
In a separate matter, Colbert missed deadlines in a parenting plan and contempt case heard on April 29, 2025. He issued a temporary parenting plan 204 days after final submissions, well beyond the constitutionally mandated 90-day window. The contempt motions remained unresolved. Following his recusal on January 8, 2026, a colleague took over those issues.
Colbert attributed part of the delay to a request— relayed through court staff—for the involved attorneys to draft a proposed order. When none arrived, he drafted and signed the order himself. He accepted that the ultimate obligation to adjudicate promptly rested with him.
The commission determined the misconduct was substantial, spanning multiple years, and fell short of standards expected of judicial officers. While Colbert had no prior disciplinary record, he responded promptly and cooperatively once contacted, acknowledged his actions fell short, and engaged fully in the resolution process.
The commission issued censure, which represents the harshest penalty it possesses the authority to impose. The body also retains the option to advise the Washington Supreme Court to either suspend or remove a judge from their position.
According to the settlement terms, a formal recommendation for removal was deemed unnecessary. This determination was made after the judge consented to a restriction preventing them from holding or seeking any judicial role unless they first received explicit approval from the commission.
Furthermore, the judge accepted a provision prohibiting retaliation against any individual who was recognized, or suspected, of having assisted the commission or played a part in the proceedings.