May 2005

Letters to the Editor

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 be no more than 500 words in length, and that they be e-mailed to the editor at tradelaw@hotmail.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.

The Letter-Writing Habits of Highly Judgmental People

In the March 2005 Bar News, David L. Evans wrote an eloquent letter, objecting to President Ron Ward's column on the duty to provide legal services to the poor. In Mr. Evans' view poverty results from poor choices, and "governmental safety nets" are "pernicious folly."

Unlike Mr. Evans, I believe that dumb luck and socio-economic status have a lot to do with whether a person ends up rich or poor. But perhaps Mr. Evans is correct about the cause of poverty. The point is, it does not matter. The reason for helping people who cannot afford legal representation (or medical care, or shelter, or other necessities) is that they need it. One does not ask a drowning man whether he was negligent is falling overboard before deciding whether to throw the life preserver.

G. Michael Zeno Jr., Kirkland

How utterly discouraging to read Mr. Evans' unaccountably angry and misanthropic reaction to President Ward's thoughtful urgings in support of equal access to justice. Contrary to this bitter rant, all of the state's citizens are well served and quite significantly benefited by the work of our staffed legal aid programs and the many effective volunteer lawyer programs throughout Washington. Working together, their involvement regularly makes the difference between frail elderly persons being able to remain in their own homes or being forced into nursing homes. In many cases it enables frightened refugees and other families to be safe from physical harm. And, in yet others, it allows disabled persons the security of being housed instead of being homeless. I fail to see how giving a mere modicum of meaning to the words carved on our nation's highest court is to "[s]upport a man in his delusions. . ." to strive for "equal outcome" (as opposed to equal opportunity), or to "ensnare more than to protect." But most of all, I strongly resent and adamantly disagree with the contention that striving to assure that the poor get a fair shake in our legal system is, as Mr. Evans' mean-spirited diatribe absurdly asserts, "to enable the voluntarily incompetent, indolent, irresponsible and/or foolhardy to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor."

While he obviously takes relish in cataloging the many mistakes that others can make, Mr. Evans makes a serious mistake of his own when he forgets (or perhaps simply rejects) John Donne's wise and well-worn admonition to the effect that none of us really ever stand alone.

I am extremely proud of what my organization stands for and all that our board and staff is able to accomplish in an increasingly difficult environment. And — far from feeling ill served — I am very glad indeed that this Association is led by someone like Ron Ward, a principled and visionary lawyer with the courage to walk the profession's talk of justice for all. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Evans has it completely backward — it is President Ward who clearly deserves better!

Patrick McIntyre, Executive Director
Northwest Justice Project, Seattle
 
The March Issue of Bar News contains a letter to the editor entitled "The Nine Rules of Highly Ineffective People" which engages in that popular pastime of bashing the poor for their supposed lack of motivation and poor thought habits which causes them to "choose poverty." The mind over matter solution to complex social problems might be tolerable if it were not so rooted in a comfortable mythology of American individualism that was never true and is certainly not true in today's complex economy.

Mr. Evans' letter begins with a critique of President Ron Ward's column. Mr. Evans claims that the column relies on an argument that there is a supposed Constitutional right to legal representation in civil matters for the poor. President Ward makes no such argument. What the column asserts is that civil matters touch on fundamental human rights in a democracy, and as such legal aid for the poor is a laudable endeavor. Though there is no civil Gideon, there is at least a conscientious bar association which must always be aware of the mission of the profession to address legal needs. The law is not the prerogative of the wealthy and when access to justice is too expensive it is effectively denied.

The burden of Mr. Evans' letter in response is that people choose poverty. It then goes on to critique the poor, bash the folly of governmental safety nets, and take a whack at the ever popular target of consumer protection legislation and the treble damage awards that are a civil substitute to police corporate wrongs. Mr. Evans' heady combination of Karl Rove, Horatio Alger, Norman Vincent Peale, and Ebenezer Scrooge deserves an answer, so I propose my own list of nine rules, this time for the comfortable and complacent:

1. To imply that mere belief and choice create reality is a luxury of motivational speakers and those seeking a rationale for lack of compassion. People do not simply choose poverty.

2. Few working spouses can afford to home-school their children and recent budget cuts and state deficits have been disastrous for public education. The Bush administration has pursued enormous cuts in Pell Grants and Perkins Loans, which had helped in a modest way to open colleges to the poor. People don't choose to have bad jobs for lack of education.

3. College degrees today are themselves no guarantee of secure employment in a saturated job market and global competition. Ask the many people downsized in middle age who cannot find jobs employing their former skills.

4. Alcoholism and substance abuse are complex addictive diseases and as such by definition not amenable to simple choice. They reflect a society of desperation and pain.

5. Having children out of wedlock is a symptom of poor education and of youth's drives and immaturity, a problem beyond the "just say no" mentality that would claim to fix it.

6. Many people live in abusive relationships due to poor employment skills and fear of spousal abuse. Is this a matter of choice?

7.  Perhaps a little regulation of the credit card industry that panders its wares to human desire and lack of foresight would do more than bankruptcy legislation to address excessive spending which is less a cause of poverty than a result.

8. Today most Americans live in debt, have little savings, and no large assets beyond their home, which can be wiped out by a medical emergency. It's hard to own the means of production under such conditions. The so-called ownership society really means a subsidy for Wall Street brokers and mutual funds.

9. Ultimate responsibility for any situation is not due to choice alone but to the environment and opportunities and competition that surround any choice. Advertising and culture do much to beckon towards an American Dream that grows daily further beyond reach. That way of life was the product of strong unions and G.I. Bill education benefits in a growing and people-oriented economy. Those days are gone. To pretend otherwise is to deny the obvious.

That the 19th century nonsense of Mr. Evans' letter can be seriously entertained in the complex society and economy that we face today is a tribute to shortsightedness and lack of inquiry into the complex causes of poorly distributed income which includes huge tax cuts for the wealthy and unfair subsidies to industry and huge factory farms. (Will any dare to call it welfare for the rich?)

Opinions such as those that Mr. Evans expresses may have drawn a willing assent from John Jacob Astor or any of the robber barons whose successors are well on their way to undermining the very American dream Mr. Evans claims to celebrate but it is inappropriate for anyone living in the 21st century. I suggest four books that may be of some help to bring Mr. Evans up to date: The Working Poor: Invisible in America by David K. Shipler; Nickel and Dimed On (Not) Getting by in America by Barbara Ehrenreich; Shafted: Free Trade and America's Working Poor by Christine Ahn; The Betrayal of Work: How Low Wage Jobs Fail 30 Million Americans and Their Families by Beth Shulman.

Perhaps this will help if Mr. Evans cares to read them. That is a matter of choice.

Thomas Mengert, Keyport

Edit, Proofread, Fact-Check, Then Call the Courts

It was disappointing to see the February 2005 Bar News present an article advocating a position on an issue that presently is in litigation: "Anti-icers: Is It Time for Courts to Recognize Municipalities' Use of Anti-icers for Roadway Ice Control?," by Keith Kessler. In arguing that the courts should impose a duty on municipalities to use such agents, Mr. Kessler refers to Morehouse as a trial court ruling that supports his position. A motion for discretionary review is pending in that matter. As counsel for one of the parties in the Morehouse v. State case, I find use of the Bar News to advocate with respect to an issue in pending litigation inappropriate and disturbing.

Neither the article nor the information about Mr. Kessler notes his direct involvement in the litigation to which he refers, LeRoy v. State. He devotes a significant portion of his article to criticizing the court of appeals decision in LeRoy v. State because it rejects his position. Although the article does not mention it, Mr. Kessler was counsel for LeRoy. As counsel for one of the parties in LeRoy, I would hope that the Bar News is not going to become a vehicle for advocating litigation positions, as I believe such a use disserves the interests of the Bar. But, if the Bar News is going to publish articles of this nature — advocacy pieces on only one side of a legal issue — then at the very least, Bar News readers are entitled to be advised of the author's participation in litigating the issue.

Linda J. Dunn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief, Torts Division, Seattle

The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Rules Conflict

Help! I try to comply with the new rules as they come out — I really do. But I cannot understand, and do not know how to comply with the new General Rule 31. It snuck up on me, and I only found out about in The Hotsheet, the WSBA Family Law Section publication, in November. It was said to be "highly controversial," but I would suggest it is also non-understandable, and is apparently causing a great deal of conflict between the federal government and local government. I started trying to comply, and used only initials instead of full names for children in my family law order. Then, in The Hotsheet in January, I discovered that DCS took the position that the full name of minor children is required or "federal moneys" can be lost.

The rule apparently says you cannot use anything but the last four digits of account numbers. The most frequently used account number, of which, of course, is Social Security numbers. Did anyone bother to consider that banks and other financial institutions almost always, by default, assign the last four digits of Social Security numbers by default as "PIN" numbers by which anyone can assess information? If you have a copy of someone's bank statement, and you know the last four digits of their Social Security number, you can access by telephone all information relating to that account, including the bank balance, deposits made and checks and withdrawals taken — without once ever speaking to a live person or identifying yourself! Why on earth would you then disclose only the last four digits of someone's Social Security number in court records? How well thought out was that?

Secondly, it is totally confusing as to when you use the full names of minor children. It appears on first glance to prohibit the use of full names of minors, then gives exceptions that seem to cover everything in family law — child support orders, parenting plan, protection orders, etc. See above about what DCS expects — the full name.

And finally, in today's Snohomish County Bar News, I find another new local rule that totally befuddles me. Effective 3/14/05, "The complete name of minor children is necessary for the orderly administration of justice and shall be used in all cases except where prohibited by statute or court order . . . ." Aren't court rules adopted by Supreme Court orders? Does that now mean if I comply with the local rule, I am in violation of the Supreme Court's order?

Can someone please issue a bar opinion or write an article explaining when and where I am not supposed to be putting in a child's full name? I confess, I no longer know how to comply with the law on this issue. Who was responsible for sneaking in this rule and how are we as attorneys supposed to comply?

Paula McManus, Everett

Back to table of contents >>