Incumbent Pierce County judge leans on her experience, opponent says it’s not enough

Pierce County’s only sitting judge to be challenged this election is a 16-year incumbent of the Superior Court.

Judge Katherine Stolz, 61, said she’s the best person for the job, because she has those years of experience.

“I know the court and I know my job,” she said.

Her opponent, civil litigation attorney Tim Ashcraft, said that after 16 years on the Superior Court bench, Stolz should be doing better.

Ashcraft, 51, has spent 20 years as an attorney in Pierce County representing defendants and plaintiffs in cases such as medical malpractice, personal injury and appeals.

He’s worked for several area law firms, most recently at Fain Anderson VanDerhoef Rosendahl O’Halloran Spillane.

Asked why he chose to run against Stolz, as opposed to other sitting judges, Ashcraft pointed in part to judicial evaluation surveys, including one put out over the summer by the Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association.

He said Stolz didn’t score well, in particular in the areas of respect for attorneys and parties, and whether attorneys believe she can fairly and competently handle a case.

“After 16 years, in my opinion at least, you should be doing better in the rankings,” Ashcraft said.

Stolz argued that she treats people well, that not many attorneys took the survey and that those unhappy with a judge were more likely to participate than those pleased with a judge’s performance.

“Of course, both sides are convinced that their side is the correct one,” she said. “And you rule for one or the other, and that leaves one happy and thinking you’re the best judge that ever adorned the bench, and the other thinking you’re a senile idiot.”

In rating the Superior Court judges, 354 of the bar association’s members took part, out of the 1,336 who got the survey.

Asked about Stolz, 141 of those attorneys had confidence she would fairly and competently handle their case; 48 others did not. Among the 19 judges evaluated, she had the second-highest number of negative responses to that question.

Asked about Stolz’s respect for parties and attorneys in her courtroom, attorneys rated her in the bottom half of the judges.

That was true as well for the categories on her knowledge of criminal, civil and family law, preparedness for court, appearance of fairness, demonstration of a professional presence on the bench, case management and ability to clearly and concisely articulate rulings.

Attorneys ranked her as the median when asked about the timeliness of her decision making.

“I don’t think it’s reflective actually of the way that the bar as a whole views me,” Stolz said about her numbers. “Because I can tell you, both the prosecution and the defense bar are very happy with me.

“And I know there are some civil lawyers that are very happy with me, and some civil lawyers that aren’t.”

Stolz went to law school at the University of Puget Sound, and graduated at 23. Growing up, she traveled often, and for a time lived in Queensland, Australia.

She specialized in family law, but did a little bit of everything as a general practice attorney for about 20 years before taking the bench, she said.

“The bottom line is, our job is so much more than complex litigation,” Stolz said about the Superior Court bench.

Ashcraft went to Baylor Law School in Texas, after starting his career teaching businesses how to use Macintosh computers. He lives in Puyallup with his wife and six children.

He acknowledges he’d have a learning curve as a judge, given his lack of criminal law experience. But he said he’s been told it’s easier to make that transition than for an attorney who handles criminal cases to start presiding over civil matters.

“My specialty has always been evidence and procedure,” Ashcraft said. “You’ve got to know evidence and procedure immediately to be able to rule.”

Stolz’s disciplinary record consists of one admonishment from the state Commission of Judicial Conduct in 2008, for asking a man to remove his religious head covering in her courtroom.

The admonishment is the least serious form of discipline the commission can dole out, and the body noted Stolz’s action appeared to be an isolated incident.

The man told Stolz he wore the head covering for religious regions, but Stolz told the commission at the time that she believed it was a casual garment.

The state bar association did not list any disciplinary history for Ashcraft.

This story was originally published October 24, 2016 at 10:25 AM with the headline "Incumbent Pierce County judge leans on her experience, opponent says it’s not enough."