Wash. Commi. Jud. Cond. R. Proce. 7
Findings of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct or incapacity shall be based upon clear, cogent and convincing evidence as that term has been defined by the Washington supreme court. "Clear, cogent and convincing" has been defined to mean highly likely. A contention has been proved by clear, cogent and convincing evidence if it is established that it is highly likely to be true. This level of proof requires a greater weight of evidence than "preponderance of the evidence," which has been defined to mean that a contention is simply more likely to be true than not true, but less than the evidence required by "beyond a reasonable doubt," which has been defined to mean that a contention almost certainly is true.
Wash. Commi. Jud. Cond. R. Proce. 7
Comment on Rule 7.
The "clear, cogent and convincing" standard is consistent with the recommendations of the American Bar Association for judicial conduct agencies [note 2] and continues to be used by the great majority of judicial conduct agencies across the United States, including the present Washington Commission. It is a standard of proof that requires more than the "preponderance" standard commonly found in civil matters but less than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal cases. Like the "clear preponderance" standard used in the Washington lawyer discipline cases, [note 3] both standards can be described as being an intermediate standard of proof that is lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard used in criminal proceedings, but more than the preponderance standard used in civil actions.