April 2004

Letters to the Editor

Law Week: It's a good thing
The WSBA Public Information and Media Relations Committee has as its mission the goal of "broadening public knowledge about and respect for the law; the rule of law; and the roles, responsibilities and contributions of lawyers and judges, including their ethical commitments." As the chair of that committee I would like to urge all attorneys who are members of the WSBA to support Law Week by volunteering their services. Law Week consists of weeklong community outreach in which judges and lawyers visit classrooms the week of May 1 of every year to meet with students and teachers to educate them about selected legal issues (this year the program begins on April 26). Members of the Public Information and Media Relations Committee will be volunteering their efforts in support of the planned programs, and hope to be participating in that event with many WSBA members.

The Committee members have recently voted to undertake a community forum (or forums), in a town meeting format, on significant legal issues in connection with next year's Law Week. The ultimate goal is that the forum will be taped or preserved in some other fashion, so that it may be more broadly disseminated to news media in the local communities after Law Week has ended. Given that goal, the Committee is requesting your assistance in identifying legal topics of public concern that you think would be a means of educating the public about the respective roles of lawyers, judges and perhaps Congress or the state Legislatures in addressing those issues (for example, the USA Patriot Act). Please send your suggestions to committee liaison Judy Berrett at judithb@wsba.org.

Karrin Klotz
Kirkland

Posthumous discipline notices are a gratuitous slap
Why must WSBA admonish a man who is already dead? Charles McCullough died in May 2003. Bar News published an admonition in January 2004. ELC 3.5(d) does not require publication of an admonition.

Theresa E. Tilton
Tacoma

Editor Lindsay Thompson responds: It was no one's intention to embarrass the memory of Mr. McCullough, or his family. Many years ago the Board of Governors directed that disciplinary notices be printed as drafted by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The only discretion Bar News has in the matter is, if there are too many for one issue, to carry some over to the next.

Additionally, there is no established process for people to notify WSBA — and Bar News — of the death of members. I write all obituaries not contributed by others, and they, too, sometimes may be delayed from month to month depending on overall space availability in a given issue of the magazine.

Mr. McCullough was ordered to receive an admonition. He subsequently died. ELC 3.5 (b) says notice of an admonition must be provided to Bar News, and 3.5(c) gives counsel to the Disciplinary Board discretion in drafting notices which "should include sufficient information to adequately inform the public and the members of the Association about the misconduct, the rules violated and the discipline imposed." The reason for discipline notices is not to embarrass anyone, but to inform and teach with an eye toward deterrence. Because of the elimination of the discipline backlog, the WSBA has a large number of discipline notices, with the result that this was not published until several months after Mr. McCullough had died.

Critical Thinking 101
Brian L. McCoy (Bar News, Letters, January 2004) needs to get a grip on his logic, not to speak of his overblown rhetoric. He calls Lawrence v. Texas "an act of judicial terrorism." Not one person has died as a result of that ruling. According to Mr. McCoy the legislative and judicial branches have the moral obligation to proscribe and punish such offensive private conduct, listing further examples such as incest through "mere possession of child pornography."

Mr. McCoy fails to distinguish between private acts between consenting adults that do not cause harm to third parties or society in general, and acts that clearly do cause such harm. Most would agree that the creation of child pornography causes harm to minors. It is at least arguable that incest risks the social harm of having to support genetically impaired offspring (although there is scant evidence that proscribing first cousin marriage serves any such purpose). Even proscribing bestiality supports the notion that non-human creatures have the right not to be abused.

As for prostitution, a strong argument can be made that the proscription has created far worse social ills than if it was instead regulated and contained. The same goes for our often-hypocritical policies toward various drugs and their users and abusers.

Supporters of criminalization of "sodomy" need to produce evidence of harm to society or individuals from the actions of consenting adults before we should take their arguments seriously. Reference to a spinning "moral compass" is not evidence. This type of argument is similar to the outraged opposition to the movement to afford non-heterosexuals equal protection under the law. Both are based on fear. I would rather have laws based on the morality of hope and compassion.

Personally, my fear is that we will continue to underfund our schools, leading to the production of ever more adults without the capacity to think critically. At least there is evidence to support this concern.

Toby Thaler
Seattle

Lawyers make poor politicos
Even more "curious" than Steve Jones' letter about Initiative 601 limits on spending (Bar News, Letters, February 2004) is the Editor's note reporting WSBA General Counsel's response. The question raised was whether Initiative 601 limits on fee increases apply to bar dues. The published response was, "The Legislature does not have authority to set fees for licensing of lawyers. That is within the exclusive authority of the Supreme Court."

This response may suggest a plausible legal argument, but what it really achieves that is more damning is a quotable example of lawyers' lack of political savvy. I have witnessed wrangling by the Legislature, attempting to provide access to justice within budget restraints imposed upon it by the people's initiative. Programs have been cut, services have been eliminated. Living within the confines of 601 has been a painful process for the Legislature. The "curious" thing is why the Bar would choose to publicize disdain for the Legislature by suggesting it can do what it wants without consideration of the laws affecting every other licensed professional as well as every public service this state has to offer. This is particularly notable given the fact that various budget requests to the Legislature this year include: $207,000 by the Supreme Court, $900,000 for the Law Library; $265,000 by the Court of Appeals, and $4.6 million by the Administrator of the Courts. Why not consider the policy behind 601 and its application to bar dues? It seems a better approach than thumbing one's nose at the Legislature.

Joan K. Mell
Fircrest

What would Dr. King think?
I find myself writing once again to address the issue of perceived racial inequality within the state bar association. The perceived inequality has arisen this time in the form of the President's Corner in the January 2004 Bar News.

Mr. Savage speaks thoughtfully about a topic that has clearly been troubling him, namely, the disparity between the various races and other unique characteristics of our population versus the percentage the various groups are represented in the bar association. It seems that once again the notion is being proffered that the bar association, as a whole, is whiter, older, and more male than the rest of the state's population. He then concludes that more must be done to even out the disparities.

While Mr. Savage has clearly spent considerable time contemplating the matter and planning to address the disparity, his premises are flawed. First, implied in the article is a notion that the differences between age, sex and race amongst the bar's members and the members of the population as a whole is automatically bad. It is unreasonable to expect all professions, or even one specific profession, to be a perfect mirror of society. There are too many variables, and people in our country are, subject to opportunity and ability, free to choose their professions. I suspect that if a larger study were conducted, disparities would be found in all or nearly all professions.

Second, Mr. Savage concludes that the problem is that we are simply not doing enough to recruit members of under-represented classes. I've been licensed to practice over 15 years now, and that may be the very first time I've heard someone seriously suggest we need more lawyers. I cannot imagine how he arrived at this conclusion. Is there some place in this country where we are raising our children in such a way to prevent them from hearing about our profession?

I had the poor taste to turn 40 last year. Since I was already white, male, middle class, married, Protestant and heterosexual, I have suddenly, at 40, become a symbol of what the bar association's leadership seems to think is wrong with our happy little club. But I'm not a lawyer because I'm white, or because I'm male, or any of those other demographics. And it's not because I was granted any breaks for being white. My parents never seemed to have two nickels to rub together. I'm a lawyer because that's what I always wanted to be, and I worked very hard to become one.

Bigotry is evil. Discrimination is evil. If there is something the bar has been doing, or even the law schools, or other schools, to erect barriers to any group of people on a discriminatory basis, then I say, by all means, let's identify the problem(s) and plan an intelligent and vigorous course to reverse that discrimination. Just assuming there is a problem based on numbers is not an intelligent approach. If there is a problem, then we need to identify it. I would fully support such a study. So far, the problem has been assumed and the plan has been formulated with no examination for the underlying cause(s).

Over 40 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of a dream that foresaw a day when children were judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I suggest the bar take that cue when judging its members.

Tom Pacher
Freeland

Jonathan Swift probably giggled, too
Jim Rigby probably had fun composing his Bar News December 2003 letter and I am sure he is now on the floor howling with glee after reading the letters in response (Bar News, Letters, February 2004). How can this be? Irony: a method of humorous or subtly sarcastic expression in which the intended meaning of the words used is the direct opposite of their usual sense.

Anyone with a sense of humor on the wry side would know, after reading his letter, that Mr. Rigby thinks mandatory pro bono is an absurdly bad proposal. He is filled with glee since everyone who wrote in on the issue also thinks mandatory pro bono service is a bad idea, for the 28 reasons stated. (OK, I made that number up.)

When I am working for free and opposing counsel asks how my client found me, I like to reply: " My name is on the work release list at the jail, because I can get out during the day if I am doing pro bono." Making pro bono service mandatory would take all the fun out of it. Get it?

Scott K. Wilson
Bellevue

Thanks, but no thanks
After reading the Editor's Page (Bar News, January 2004), I'll bet Rule No. 1 around Poulsbo is, or is about to become, "Never accept a referral from Jeff Tolman!" So how long have Jablonkenstein, McDonnally and Morrena been saddled with Jeff's rejects? Have they figured out what is going on yet?

Pat Anderson
Snoqualmie

Art for art's sake
Is WSBA engaged in some kind of competition to determine who can come up with the ugliest magazine cover? If so, allow me to nominate your February 2004 issue for the grand prize. The last time I saw colors like that, they were on some leftovers that had stayed in the fridge long enough to turn into a science project.

Joseph Dundin
Silver Spring, MD

Back to table of contents >>