October 2008

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 should 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.

Professionalism issue inspires

Licensed in Oklahoma, Washington, Colorado, and Tennessee, I get to read a lot of journals. I’m also a member of the American Health Lawyers, the Association of Corporate Counsel, and the Society of Human Resource Management. I read as much as I can stomach, and much is left unread. Occasionally, however, I come across something that has such relevance to my life — especially as a lawyer — that I want to share with my wife, my kids, and anyone else who will sit still long enough to listen. This last Bar News [August 2008 Bar News — “The Professionalism Issue”] is in this category. You are to be congratulated for putting together a journal to keep in order to read it again and again. The thoughtful insights regarding professionalism should be shared by lawyers with lawyers across the country. I work in 35 states and intend to do as much of that as possible, having just gotten rejuvenated. The article written by Mark Mays, “Dealing with Difficult People,” should be on everyone’s must-read list. It isn’t easy to fire a client, but sometimes it is necessary. While in private practice, I found myself in the same chair as Mr. Mays’ friend sounding off like Donald Trump, “You’re fired.” The incredulous client should not be surprised, but always is. As Molly Kenny and Grace Healy said, it doesn’t always take two to tango, and if you don’t like the dance, get off the floor. Anyway, thank you. You provide the strength to tell people with honor when asked what I do for a living to say, “I am a lawyer.”

Jack Leebron, Brentwood, Tennessee

BOG speaks for all as mandatory bar

Membership in the WSBA is mandatory for those who wish to practice law. The WSBA exists to promote and enhance the practice of law. It does not exist to promote the social agendas of its members. That is why the proposed resolution on same gender marriage under consideration by the Board of Governors is so offensive.

The Board of Governors, in adopting a resolution, speaks for every member of this organization. Such a resolution can be a very powerful statement of influence. This is the very reason that its proponents have proposed it. It also happens to be the very reason why the Board of Governors should not consider it. If the BOG were to adopt the proposed resolution, members who oppose it will nevertheless be perceived by the general public as endorsing it by their mere membership in the Bar Association. For attorneys who hold deep religious or moral beliefs which oppose such marriages a Keller deduction from annual dues does nothing to mitigate the harm done by their inability to dissociate themselves with an organization that adopts a position which they find so reprehensible.

Because the WSBA is a mandatory professional organization for those who wish to practice law, it should promote tolerance for all beliefs of its members by adopting a position of neutrality on social issues such as same gender marriages. Attorneys who wish to promote social agendas should look for other avenues to promote those agendas rather than forcing their beliefs upon other attorneys. [Ed. Note: This letter was received before a scheduled vote on the topic by the Board in September.]

Raymond V. Gessel, Kent

Punishment too light

While perusing my September issue of the Bar News I was shocked at the “suspension” of an attorney who had pled guilty to two counts of indecent exposure, two counts of communication with a minor for immoral purposes and one count of stalking [Disciplinary Notices, page 55]. The attorney had admitted to attempting to expose himself on at least 30 occasions. The Bar News notice indicated he would engage in “cruising” behavior after school let out looking for young girls (victims) “with whom to converse and expose his penis and masturbate.” These girls, according to the suspension notice, ranged in age from 9 to 13 years.

Are you kidding me! This attorney has committed criminal acts against some of the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, and it is determined by the discipline committee that he should be able to return to practice law in three years! If this (admitted) behavior does not merit a disbarment then something is very, very wrong with the criteria. These little girls have had their innocence stolen, their sense of safety shattered and their world view will be altered forever. Shame on him, shame on us!
 
Deborah King, Spokane

Assessments not so bad in long run

Steve Tubbs’ letter [September 2008 Bar News, Letters to the Editor] about the Client Security Fund [Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection] is accurate about the rules governing the Fund, but his opposition to a special assessment to deal with Barry Hammer’s thefts is extremely shortsighted.

Many of Hammer’s victims are very sympathetic elderly clients who entrusted much of their retirement savings to him and thus are in serious financial peril. For the media, this would be a great story, with great visuals. Lawyer steals from elderly clients who trusted him with their life savings and now can’t pay their bills. The WSBA has a fund to protect the clients, but they say it’s a gift and they refuse to assess themselves to pay the full amount he stole. It would cost each lawyer in the state about $100 according to WSBA.

The Legislature picks up on the story and says, “How come we allow the lawyers to assess themselves whatever they want and give whatever they want? We require the escrow companies who hold other people’s money in trust to post a $200,000 fidelity bond, so why not the lawyers?” According to the Escrow Association of Washington, these fidelity bonds cost $4,000 to $5,000 per year. Unless you’re in a very large firm, the Client Security Fund is a terrific bargain compared to a fidelity bond, even with a special assessment. It’s also the best deal for our clients, because they are not limited to a recovery of $200,000 in a catastrophic loss case. Perhaps the special assessment and the payments to Hammer’s victims can be spread over several years. However this is resolved, we will be far better off to pay the special assessment.

Pat Sainsbury, Seattle