March 2009

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 no more than 250 words in length, 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.

UW keeper of historic Nuremberg material

I enjoyed Chief Justice Alexander’s article about the Nuremberg Trials in the January Bar News (“The Nuremberg Trials: A Washington Connection”). The Chief Justice provided a helpful introduction to a complex series of trials, highlighting the work of the two judges from Washington state. Because of Justice Walter Beals’s role in the Nuremberg Trials, the University of Washington Law Library was one of the recipients of the original mimeographed copies of the Nuremberg trial proceedings distributed by the Office of the U.S. Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, Document Division. (Other recipients include Harvard University, Columbia University Law Library, and the Library of Congress.) The Beals family also donated the chair Judge Beals used during the trial.

Our research guide to the Nuremberg Trials is at http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/nuremberg.html. In addition to describing print resources, it links to online resources — for instance, Harvard’s digitized materials from the Doctors’ Trial, the trial over which Judge Beals presided.

Mary Whisner, reference librarian, Gallagher Law Library, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle

Making ends meet

I am becoming concerned for the financial difficulties of our Bar News editor (“Champagne Wishes and Cold Duck Dreams,” The Bar Beat, January 2009 Bar News). However, I am not sure during this disaster of economic times there has been much inquiry into the financial plight of the lawyers who actually protect the justice system in this state: the attorneys who graduated from law school in the last 5–7 years, work in the public interest law areas (prosecution and public defense), are required to pay over $300 a year for license fees, and are also trying to maintain/start families and carry on normal non-lawyer lives outside of work. Some perspective from our esteemed monthly magazine might be needed. From my sideline, those lawyers with years of experience and who are maintaining their own law firms do not fall into the category of people that need help ... or sympathy. For most of my clients (who reflect directly in my pay), the change in the glove box is usually the difference between their kids having diapers or a full bottle of milk — not a Big Mac when a peanut butter and jelly sandwich will do.

Darrin L. Hall, Coupeville

Pro se discipline dilemma

“The Pro Se Dilemma” in last month’s issue ( “The Pro Se Dilemma: Washington Courts and Vexatious Pro Se Litigation,” January 2009 Bar News) stressed the need to raise awareness about the growing problem of vexatious civil litigants. The problem is worse in the discipline process. The easiest and safest way to make a lawyer’s life miserable is to use the lawyer discipline process to harass. This can happen to any lawyer. Dealing with such grievances can be tremendously burdensome. If in private practice, usually the lawyer has to report all grievances when seeking malpractice coverage, affecting cost and availability.

Unlike civil litigation, under the ELCs filing a grievance is “absolutely privileged” and a respondent lawyer cannot recover costs for responding to a grievance. This allows a vexatious grievant to act with impunity. With no statute of limitations, something from years ago can be alleged. Nor is a dismissal really final. If the same grievance is filed again and dismissed, the grievant has the right to another appeal. The process usually consumes months.

The WSBA is essentially indifferent to the problem, perhaps because when bar counsel is pursued by such a grievant, the WSBA can get an order from the Supreme Court to protect them, something the WSBA tries to deny any other lawyer facing a similar problem.

The membership needs to be aware of this problem and demand the WSBA and the Washington Supreme Court recognize the problem and do something about it. At a minimum, the WSBA needs a process to deal with vexatious grievants and should consider the approaches used by the courts.

Thomas Fitzpatrick, Tukwila

WSBA Governor and ELC Task Force Chair Geoff Gibbs responds: In our profession, we have the privilege of being self-regulating, unique among all other professions in the state. That is accompanied by a great responsibility to our clients individually and to the public to ensure our integrity and professionalism. That being said, as part of its ongoing review of the state of Washington’s lawyer discipline system, the WSBA Board of Governors has chartered a task force which is beginning a broad review of the disciplinary “procedural” rules, known as the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC). The ELC Task Force is mandated to review and evaluate the entirety of the ELCs and determine if amendments are warranted and the form that should be recommended to the Supreme Court. Among the issues the Task Force is planning to take up is the handling of so-called vexatious grievances. The Task Force is broadly soliciting and welcomes suggestions relating to the ELCs. Any comments or proposed changes should be immediately directed to Governor Geoff Gibbs or to WSBA staff liaison Scott Busby. Information on the work of the Task Force and contact information is available on the WSBA website at www.wsba.org/lawyers/groups/elctaskforce.htm.

Studied to death

I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Kenneth H. Davidson’s article “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty” (December 2008 Bar News). That is, except his conclusion that the Legislature should conduct another “in-depth study.” With all due respect, everything that needs to be said on the subject, except religious views, was said in your article. Why spend one dollar more to study a subject that has been studied to death and, when all else is said and done, facts have had very little to do with one’s view on the subject? Nevertheless, I think the people of the state of Washington are ready to eliminate this anathema. It’s time to do it! And please spend some of our outrageous bar dues advocating for its abolishment.

Blair Paul, Seattle

Correction: In the February 2009 Bar News, it was stated that Bob Ferguson “is now a litigation associate at K&L Gates” in Mr. Ferguson’s biographical notes following his article “County Budgets and the Crisis in Our Courts.” It should have stated that he was a litigation associate with K&L Gates, prior to 2003, when he left that position upon election to the King County Council.