|
|
|
 |  |
 |
 |
WSBA Info | |
|
For Lawyers | |
|
For the Public |  |
 |
For the Media |  |
|
CLE |  |
| | Bench Bar Guidelines | News Releases | Publications | |
|
|
July 2004Letters to the EditorReader thoughts about "Random Thoughts" As a lawyer for over 43 years I read with appreciation many things noted in Judge Nichols' article "Random Thoughts from 20 Years on the Bench" (June, p. 23). My own perception is that things have changed in our courts much for the worse during such years. Judge Nichols' comment on the need for courteous behavior towards opposing counsel is more than true, for the discourteous behavior towards opposing counsel now occurs just as often outside the courtroom. This was not very often the case during the early years I practiced. Judge Nichols omitted noting the current problem of being unable to trust the word of opposing counsel. I did not see this as a major problem until some years ago. Some other things troubled me among the Judge's comments. One was his advice to present a case as "a nicely conceived drama" and "turn[ing] it into a stage or screenplay." How is the search for the truth to be fair and successful if the court and juries decide the case based on this effort? My experience is that the most truthful witnesses often appear least certain, and the liars most certain, of their memories and facts. But the reverse is true of how they are perceived by the triers of fact. Is a case to turn on how well lawyers prepare their witnesses to look certain? Not if truth is to be found. If we really wanted the truth to be found in our courts, it may be best learned with no preparation of witnesses, the court's right to question witnesses and the retention of all expert witnesses by the court, as I understand is the case in some countries in Europe. Judge Nichols admits to naïveté in "coming to the realization that attorneys do not join the judge in a search for a correct result." I started as a lawyer with Bogle & Gates in 1961, working almost exclusively on a major case for four years. It took me about six months or less to lose that naïveté. The truth was the last thing they wanted the court to learn. I left Bogle's to join Legal Services so I could save my soul. Another omission of the Judge was any reference to the politics of judges. I never used to be concerned about the politics of the case and a judge's concerns for such politics. But if you haven't experienced this problem yet, just read our State Supreme Court's decisions in the Washington Public Power Supply System and the Mariners' baseball stadium cases and then read the briefs and the law review articles on these cases. I enjoyed reading the article "Random Thoughts from 20 Years on the Bench." Allow me to disagree with a small part of it. The writer claims that the practice of filing affidavits of prejudice "is demeaning, disrupts the flow of cases through the system, and is essentially useless." I suppose that it would seem that way to a judge who is "affidavited." It certainly doesn't seem that way to many practicing lawyers. Most judges are neutral, objective, and conscientious. A few are not, and routinely exhibit bias or behavior that hardly engenders confidence that a fair decision will be reached. Affidavits of prejudice are sometimes the only meaningful way for a party of limited means to get a fair shot without having to file an appeal. That is the unfortunate reality, and it should not be blamed on the lawyers. Section believes diversity can mean "different opinions" On behalf of the WSBA World Peace Through Law Section, let me welcome the June letter (p. 7) querying our selection of Congressman Jim McDermott for the Ralph J. Bunche Award. Ours, like other WSBA sections, is a voluntary association of Washington lawyers that cannot necessarily reflect the opinion of the Bar as a whole. Yet concern about Law and Peace knows no boundary, of politics, religion, race, or any other kind. To quote Dr. Bunche's 1950 Nobel Prize lecture, "In this most anxious period of human history, the subject of peace, above every other, commands the solemn attention of all men of reason and goodwill." We therefore include persons of every pursuasion in our discussions. We've had a former Nixon White House lawyer, the Pope's legal representative in America, a government negotiator with the Chiapas rebels. I urge — no, I challenge — any lawyer who believes that law has something to do with peace to join us, to educate us, to express your point of view in reasoned discussion, beyond the meaningless clash of bumper sticker slogans. If you have a reasoned disagreement, so much the better! Our meetings and our listserve are open to all persons of reason and goodwill. We welcome you! Randall E. Winn EDITOR'S NOTE: The writer is chair of the World Peace Through Law Section. Its website is www.wsba.org/lawyers/groups/worldpeace. Hoopster news We are pleased to announce that the veteran squad of Johnson & Associates* (12-1) has captured the 2004 Seattle Lawyers Basketball League crown. On May 20, 2003, #1 seed Johnson & Associates prevailed over #3 seed Stanislaw-Ashbaugh, in an epic battle where, literally, blood from both teams spilled on the court. It was a loud, high-energy contest, with a majority of the players being litigators and trial lawyers verses transaction attorneys. Team members and their respective law schools are James H. Clark (Willamette, '87), Eric C. Hanson (Seattle Univ., '96), Robert Iannucci (Boston Univ., '88), Anthony C. Johnson (Boston Univ., '88), Joshua M. Lipsky (Georgetown, '95), Eric S. Nelson (Pepperdine, '92), Charles T. Paglialunga (UPS, '92), Robert J. "Jack" Slavik (Seattle Univ., '96), and William R. Spurr (Boston Univ., '90). Anthony C. Johnson *Johnson & Associates is the name of the basketball team composed of nine lawyers, many of whom are practicing law in small firms: it is not a law firm; the team members are not legal associates in my law firm although one team member, Bill Spurr, is my law partner. If only "only" was that simple Robert Cumbow's articles are one of the onliest things I like to read in Bar News. In the May edition, however, he really misses the point. In law, unlike lesser disciplines, the expression "one of the only" is a term of art. It is purely utilitarian, breathing life into logical structures otherwise uninhabited by persuasive force. Standing mute is for the hapless laity, not for the lawyer. If something must be said, yet nothing quite fills the bill, the expression "one of the only" adds dignity and length to an argument and a time sheet requiring both. The road to Utopia I just finally got to your article (Editor's Page, p. 64) in the back of the May Bar News (sorry, I'm a little busy these days). I did want to say I got a good chuckle out of it. I've edited a school paper and written for papers and magazines (freelance) for several years now. I've come to the conclusion that there is a simple way for editors to satisfy everyone. Here it is: 1. Publish articles exactly as they are written, without editing or cutting, no matter how many thousand of pages they consume. OK, the solution is simple. Implementing it is another matter. Good luck! Tom Pacher EDITOR'S NOTE: The writer is also author of the Island County Report in "Around the State."
|
