Washington Courts

On Tuesday this week I observed a hearing before the Washington State Supreme Court.  Three of the justices asked questions of the attorney for the appellant — the appellant was a young woman lawyer who is said to be a lawyer who should be disciplined.  The Washington State Bar Association, says that the young woman should be suspended for some minor non-action in Superior Court. Suspended from practicing and making a living for three, hopefully they wish, six months. 

(The complaint against her was a complaint filed by her opposing counsel.  The Bar has taken sides in the dispute — a common occurrence these days.  The bar has lawyers it favors and other lawyers it does not favor — this is today’s WSBA Lawyer Discipline System.)

What impressed me was that the justices asking the questions seemed to be saying that they thought the young woman lawyer was a “bad person.”  That is to say, they were seemingly saying or implying that the lawyer in the dock was not just  a lawyer who may have made a mistake, not just a  lawyer who should have conducted herself otherwise, but a person who was “bad.”  That is to say, the demeanor of the justices and the tone of their questioning seemed to say “counsel, we think your client is a bad person.”  That certainly is what Justice Alexander and Justice Fairhurst were saying as far as I could tell.

Interesting.  That perhaps is what our system is becoming.  The people who are the Platonic Elite of our society have devolved into name calling and personal judgment making.  It seemed to me these questioners had no idea that what was before them was humanity in its variations and that there was no grand good and evil being displayed.  The situation before the court was a societal reality and the solution had nothing to do with name calling and the infliction of revenge and pain and economic and social distress. 

I feared for the lawyer in the dock and the lawyer representing the lawyer in the dock.   I feared for them because they were not only witnessing the devolution of our society, our polity, they were the subjects of  a devolution in our society,our polity —  our community, our history, the history of mankind.  They, in this drama, were the subjects of an historical retrogression.  

There is trouble afoot.  Some of our leaders, our “wise ones”,  are not what they should be, not what we need.  Not what the community needs. to be a community.  Where has reason and righteousness and justice gone these days? Or, perhaps not so grand a comment — where are the adults?

These two — the young woman and her lawyer — were the beneficiaries of ignorance and churlishness by some of our grand leaders.  What explains this?  Maybe it is a truth that community and the truths which make community  – compassion, understanding, love  – go backward rather than forward from time to time.

Thoughts about the Sandra Ferguson WSBA Disciplinary Action. The hearing officer in the Ferguson case was not qualified to act. He did not have jurisdiction.

At the time of the proceedings against Sandra Ferguson, Stanley Bastian was the president elect, president and/or past president of the Bar Association. Prior to that, Mr. Bastion was a member of the Bar Board of Governors. Mr. Bastian was also a member of firm of Jeffers - Danielson and a fellow shareholder and employee, of James M. Danielson.ELC 2.6 (e)(4)(a) “[h]earing officers should disqualify themselves in a proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, . . . ” Surely, Jeffers - Danielson and James M. Danielson’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and objectively so under the circumstances. They were disqualified. And any action of them or by them as chief hearing officer was without jurisdiction, even the discretionary appointment of a hearing officer from a list of hearing officers the chief hearing officer controlled and had duties with respect of. ELC 2.5(f).