September 2007

Bar News welcomes letters from readers. We do not run letters that have been printed in, or are pending before, other legal publications with overlapping readership. Letters must be 250 words in length or less, and e-mailed to letterstotheeditor@wsba.org or mailed to WSBA, Attn: Letters to the Editor, 1325 Fourth Ave., Ste. 600, Seattle, WA 98101-2539. Bar News reserves the right to edit letters. Bar News does not print anonymous letters, or more than one submission per month from the same contributor.

Damming the Columbia

The new court rule which would give "leftover" money from class actions to a foundation which gives the money to Columbia Legal services is unconstitutional ("Unclaimed Class-Action Funds Offer Hope for Equal Justice," July 2007 Bar News). The Supreme Court cannot enact a rule to give money to Columbia because only a legislature may appropriate money. The function of the legislature is to apportion tax money among competing demands. A court cannot do that. The doctrine of cy pres, offered as a rationale for this rule, means construing a document as nearly as possible in accordance with its author's intentions. It is unlikely that the victim of a class action intends to give more money to lawyers. The money should go back to the defendants. It is a very dangerous for a court to parlay large amounts of money among lawyers and interest groups. The court would be biased in favor of the plaintiffs from the start because the rule promises to give some of the largesse to causes and groups that the Supreme Court favors! It might be difficult for the Supreme Court to dismiss a class action if they believed some of the money from that class action was destined for Columbia Legal Services and similar agencies which promote political causes favored by the court.

Many quasi-legislative rules of court are unconstitutional. There is no way to challenge this rule except by going to the same court that enacted it. Legislature and court have coalesced into one. This is unconstitutional because every branch of government must be accountable in some way to the other branches. There is an irreconcilable conflict of interest because the court that enacts legislation and favors Columbia cannot fairly hear challenges to its own legislation or to its own protégé, Columbia. The same defects apply to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Supreme Court should decide cases instead of policy.

Roger Ley, Seattle

Collegial collages

I cannot endorse the suggestion ("Letters to the Editor," August 2007 Bar News) that Bar News showed bias against George W. Bush in not giving his collage photo prominence equal to that of Lyndon Johnson. Although Bush's administration may be compared to LBJ's, this leads to a line of thought not helpful to Bush's supporters. More importantly, nations in which lawyer organizations feel the need prominently to display the picture of Dear Leader on a regular basis tend not to be happy ones. Instead, I urge Bar News to display more pictures of Washington lawyers on its cover. I am embarrassed to know on sight only a tiny fraction of my bar colleagues; I may not be alone in this. The "Around the State" photos are delightful, but not enough. Topical collages, e.g. "The Barristers of Madison County," could be educational, attractive and fun.

Randy Winn, Mercer Island

APRopriate definition

When we became lawyers, we swore that we would "abstain from all offensive personalities." APR 5(e). I doubt that many lawyers know what this means. "Personality" is a term from parliamentary law. Black's Law Dictionary defines it as "an improper reference to a member by name or in his or her personal capacity." The concept was explained by Thomas Jefferson in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice: "The consequences of a measure may be reprobated in strong terms, but to arraign the motives of those who propose or advocate it, is a personality, and against order." So this provision of our oath means: "I will not engage in personal attacks against opposing counsel."
 
Seth Fine, Everett