June 2004

Letters to Editor

Poor court funding's domino effect
My recent experience as the appointed arbitrator in a mandatory arbitration matter leads me to wonder whether the system can survive. The dispute concerned a house remodel, pitting the contractor's claim for payment against the homeowner's counterclaim for defective construction. Both parties waived jurisdictional limits. The claim and counterclaim added up to $82,000. By contract, attorney fees were awardable, adding $42,000 to the dispute.

We spent a half-day at the house looking at each disputed item and spent an additional day taking testimony. I then wrote my opinion and following that needed to deal with the motions and briefs for attorney fees and motions and briefs for reconsideration.

I spent 24 hours on this matter at an hourly rate that does not pay enough to keep the doors open at the law office. This is too much to ask of a volunteer arbitrator. The Supreme Court needs to amend MAR 1.2 and not allow waiver of claims in excess of the amount authorized by statute.
 
Thomas G. Richards
Seattle

E-filing is no cure-all
There is a big trap lurking in the rosy picture of e-service presented by Scott Wetzel in the April 2004 Bar News (p. 29). He asserts that parties may agree to e-service under GR 30. Given the decision in Schaefco Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission, 121 Wn.2d 366, 849 P.2d 1225 (1993), I doubt very much that courts will allow parties to change the rules for service of motions that extend the time for filing a notice of appeal under RAP 5.2(e) by agreement.

In Schaefco the court dismissed review as untimely when a CR 59 motion for reconsideration had been timely filed but served the same day by mail. Even though the trial court had considered the motion on the merits, the Schaefco court held that because the motion was not timely served the time for filing a notice of appeal was not extended.

I question Mr. Wetzel's claim that parties can agree to change the rules governing service, and would advise against relying on an e-served motion for reconsideration to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Given the extreme consequences of failure to file a timely notice of appeal — see RAP 18.8(b) — I'd caution against wholesale adoption of e-service in the state courts, at least until the rules catch up with the technology.

Catherine W. Smith
Seattle

We rest our case
I read with interest the criticisms of Bar News on page 64 of the April issue. I was surprised to see how many people appear concerned with your publication's "liberal slant," "liberal point of view," and "liberal bias" rooted in a Seattle-oriented, politically left perspective.

I was surprised mostly because I thought I was the only one who felt that way. Before I read your page, I had already noted (page 42 of the same issue) with disgust the WSBA's selection of Congressman Jim McDermott as the recipient of the Ralph J. Bunche Award. The WSBA selection committee seriously considered Congressman McDermott the person most worthy of recognition as "an individual who has made significant contributions toward the goal of achieving international peace"? Please. This transparent decision is precisely what concerns the WSBA and Bar News critics.

Charles W. Lind
Seattle

Editor's note: The WSBA's World Peace Through Law Section gave the award, not the WSBA as a whole. Bar News was not involved in the matter.

__________________________

Bar News welcomes letters from readers. We do not run letters that have been printed in, or are pending before, other legal publications whose readership overlaps ours. We ask that, if possible, letters fall between 250 and 500 words in length, and that they be e-mailed to the editor at tradelaw@thompson-law.com. We reserve the right to edit letters. Bar News does not print anonymous letters, or more than one submission per month from the same contributor.

Back to table of contents >>