|
|
|
 |  |
 |
 |
WSBA Info | |
|
For Lawyers | |
|
For the Public |  |
 |
For the Media |  |
|
CLE |  |
| | Bench Bar Guidelines | News Releases | Publications | |
|
|
November 2008
Australian legal system less costly As a WSBA member who has been practicing in Sydney, Australia, since 1995, I noted Mr. Bastian’s comments [September 2008 Bar News, President’s Corner] regarding the cost of civil litigation and the discovery process. I spent several years practicing in Spokane and I am well aware of the discovery process, namely, depositions, interrogatories, etc. In Sydney, I commenced work in a law firm specializing in personal injury and was amazed to learn interrogatories are not permitted in personal injury matters. I now practice in the field of private insurance disputes and claims against trustees of retirement funds, and I still have not had to engage in the use of interrogatories. There is no such tool as depositions in the Australian legal system. The actual discovery process, which again is not permitted in personal injury claims, involves solely requesting a list of documents pertaining to various categories if ordered by the courts or by consent, and the party who receives the request must provide a list of these documents and whether any objection is taken to the production of said documents. In personal injury matters, all that is required is that the defendants request answers to particulars which are questions of fact and the plaintiff to provide answers. One of the questions might be the names and addresses of the plaintiff’s treating doctors. The defendants would then issue subpoenas on these doctors to produce these records. This is the totality of the discovery process in Australia in regards to personal injury. All in all, the Australian legal system works quite well and is not bogged down with depositions, interrogatories, and general discovery motions. I don’t see why Washington, as well as other American courts, finds a need for this very expensive process, whereas many other Common Law countries do not share the same need. Maybe it is time that the Washington courts consider doing away with these procedures unless there are exceptional circumstances. Carl J. Mickels, Sydney, Australia Board decision at odds with religious beliefs The Board of Governors’ ill-reasoned decision to unanimously adopt a resolution [to] support same gender marriage in the State of Washington is discriminatory against its members, who for religious beliefs, oppose laws adopting same gender marriages. Lest the Board of Governors has forgotten, the bar association is a mandatory association; those who wish to practice law in this state must be members of the WSBA. A Keller deduction does absolutely nothing to mitigate the effect of a resolution that will be perceived as being a statement by all of the members regardless of the deeply held religious beliefs of some of its members. In light of this vote, perhaps it is time to make membership in the bar association voluntary and turn attorney oversight over to a state board like every other profession in the state. Raymond V. Gessel, Kent Discipline decision is wrong Washington State Disciplinary Board: I strongly protest the Disciplinary decision to only suspend J. Burgess [September 2008 Bar News, Disciplinary Notices]. This action is both an insult to our profession and to the children he victimized. It matters not in the least that he pleaded guilty to these offenses. What matters is that the Bar Association, by its decision, has demonstrated, again, to the public why some lawyers are held in such contempt. This person should be disbarred. The Disciplinary Board wastes no time disbarring Bar members who mismanage their trust accounts, and rightly so. Yet, you have allowed a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER to retain the right to resume a legal practice in a mere three years. He followed and stalked young children. He exposed himself and he blocked children’s paths. Not to mention the emotional distress he caused each of them. Talk about moral turpitude? What he did will haunt each and every one of those little girls throughout their lives, and not just for three years. How dare this organization fail to take appropriate action according to the Rules that I, as an attorney, must abide by. And by the way, you might want to examine his billing and time ledgers and see which of his clients he billed for all the time he took stalking his victims. You might find he in fact did fiddle his trust account, then maybe you might consider disbarring him for that! I am disgusted and disheartened, as a parent and an attorney, by the decision of the Board.
|
