WSBA brought formal charges against attorney Gauthier for alleged violations of CR 11 in an estate matter. How can a lawyer be disciplined for obtaining an Order to Show Cause? the actions of The WSBA in this instance caused the ABA to conduct an audit or review.
WSBA brought formal charges against attorney Gauthier for alleged violations of CR 11 in an estate matter. How can a lawyer be disciplined for obtaining an Order to Show Cause? the actions of The WSBA in this instance caused the ABA to conduct an audit or review.
WSBA brought formal charges against attorney Gauthier for alleged violations of CR 11 in an estate matter. How can a lawyer be disciplined for obtaining an Order to Show Cause? the actions of The WSBA in this instance caused the ABA to conduct an audit or review.
TO: MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
RE: THE BROKEN SYSTEM OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE IN WASHINGTON
Several matters of vital importance need to be brought to the attention of members of the Washington State Bar Association:
WSBA vs. MADELI NE GAUTHI ER, Public No. 01#00017 The WSBA brought formal charges against attorney Gauthier for alleged violations of CR 11 in an estate matter and sought to suspend her license to practice law. Ms. Gauthier had alleged that the attorney for an estate creditor had threatened to threatened to coach his client to give false testimony and for threatening to use that false testimony to sabotage the deceaseds wrongful death claim. The act of obtaining an Order to Show Cause requiring the attorney for the estate creditor and the estate creditor to appear in Court was alleged to be a matter subjecting Ms. Gauthier to discipline from the Bar. The Court entered the Order to Show Cause.
Orders to Show Cause are entered on an ex parte basis, without notice to opposing counsel, all the time. They are specifically authorized by the Supreme Court. (See WPF DR 04.0150 (MEXRSC)) Orders to Show Cause are used to obtain jurisdiction over a person who is not yet a party. A creditor in an estate case is not a party. How can a lawyer be disciplined for obtaining such an Order when a Superior Court Judge has determined that there is enough of a basis to enter such an Order to Show Cause? Courts enter orders finding violations of CR 11 all the time. Why did the WSBA choose to pursue Ms. Gauthier for alleged ethical violations in this instance while failing to pursue hundreds of other attorneys in instances where they were found to have committed CR 11 violations? Proportionality? The actions of the WSBA in this case caused the ABA to conduct an audit or review of the WSBAs conduct. How did this ABA involvement occur? What were the findings of the ABA audit or review? Why have the findings of the ABA not been disclosed to the WSBA membership? The disciplinary proceedings against attorney Gauthier were eventually dismissed. What precipitated this dismissal?
WSBA vs. KAREN UNGER, Public No. 06#00071 In the Unger case, the Washington State Supreme Court authorized the payment of something between $60,000 and $100,000 in WSBA funds to partially compensate an attorney, Karen Unger, for her attorney fees spent in defending what the Bars Hearing Officer found to be a frivolous WSBA Disciplinary Proceeding. The WSBA also used false, untrue and misleading information in its case. The underlying complaint against Ms. Unger involved her representation of a client in a criminal matter. Before becoming Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Douglas J. Ende, specialized in criminal appellate work. Why did Mr. Ende pursue a frivolous disciplinary proceeding? Does anyone have an idea about the legality of this expenditure of Bar funds? Why did the WSBA use false, untrue and misleading information to make a case against Ms. Unger? In I n ReGauthier, described above, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Disciplinary Board clearly demonstrated that they considered bringing a frivolous action to be a violation of the ethical rules justifying a suspension from the practice of law. Of course, no disciplinary action or adverse employment action was taken against the ODC attorneys (or the Disciplinary Board staff attorneys or the members of the Disciplinary Board) involved in bringing the frivolous Unger disciplinary proceedings and in using false, untrue and misleading information against Ms. Unger, even though the harm to Ms. Unger was far greater than any harm to the opposing party and counsel in Gauthier Ms. Ungers disciplinary proceedings went on for three years and cost her $100,000 in attorney fees.
I contacted former Supreme Court Justices Richard Sanders, Talmadge, Bridge and Enyeart by email about this Unger matter. Only Justice Sanders responded to my emails. Some of the emails are attached below. Justice Sanders stated that he was outraged about the Unger matter and that the ODC attorney involved was still employed by the WSBA. The details of this matter were withheld from Justice Sanders and presumably the other Justices. How can this be? The Supreme Court is in charge of attorney discipline. The Supreme Court is the boss of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. How can the details of this matter be withheld from the WSBA membership? Isnt this ethical misconduct on the part of the ODC? Does the Disciplinary Board do its job and evaluate disciplinary cases before it issues a Statement of Charges against an attorney? Why shouldnt the actions of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Disciplinary Board, in pursuing Ms. Unger on frivolous charges, subject them to disciplinary action or removal from office in the same way they pursued Ms. Gauthier? Why shouldnt the attorneys in the Office of Disciplinary Counsel be subjected to disciplinary charges for their conduct? Why are they still employed by the WSBA? Why is this any different from the Duke Lacrosse Team prosecutor, Mike Nifong, who was disbarred for the same conduct? Why hasnt this been disclosed the membership of the WSBA? Why has this matter been covered up? Where did the $60,000 to $100,000 the WSBA used to compensate Ms. Unger come from? What authority was used to pay this money? Why didnt Ms. Unger receive full compensation? Why did the WSBA refuse to provide me with the information I requested? Why was I retaliated against for blowing the whistle on this matter? I was threatened by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (in writing) for contacting the former Justices listed above about this matter.
The emails exchanged with former Justice Sanders:
From: Rbsanders [mailto:rbsanders@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:19 AM To: Paul E. Simmerly Subject: Re: In Re Unger and In Re Gauthier
Yes Paul, I have heard this. If I were still on the court I would try to get you all the details, but I think that might be difficult. But I'll try if you can't get satisfaction. I suggest you call Justice Owens. Karen Unger is her friend and she (Owens) recused from her case for that reason. She knows the details or could get them. Let me know what you find out. While I was on the court I tried mightly to change the rule which says if the lawyer loses he pays the bar's reasonable attorney fees, but if he wins the bar doesn't pay anything. You also might call Karen's lawyer. Like I said if you strike out I'll try to help myself. Great to hear from you. Richard
In a message dated 7/27/2011 4:39:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, psimmerly@hermanrecor.com writes: Justice Sanders: Well, I have struck out. I have been trying for three years to obtain this information. The ODC is free to take Membership money at any time? Why is this a secret? Is there misconduct going on that the Bar wants to remain secret? Why else wouldnt this information be readily available? The ODC is retaliating against me and my clients. Please do not contact Justice Owens or any other sitting Justice. The ODC is claiming that this would be ex parte contact. Their reasoning escapes me.
PAUL E. SIMMERLY Attorney at Law (425) 451-1400
From: Rbsanders [mailto:rbsanders@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 1:57 PM To: Paul E. Simmerly Subject: Re: In Re Unger and In Re Gauthier
When I first heard about this, a long time before you contacted me, I was outraged. Still am. I was also told the same attorney at fault is still employed by the bar. See my last message for further action.
Richard
WSBA vs. ROBERT GRUNDSTEI N, Public No.07-02058 and 10-00097
Background The Cleveland, Ohio judicial, court and law enforcement systems have an incredible, and possibly unprecedented, history of corruption. Robert Grundstein, a resident of Vermont, was a member of the WSBA on inactive status and had never had a client in Washington State. In 2007, Robert Grundstein wrote an editorial critical of ex-judge Peter Junkin of Cleveland, Ohio (later removed from office during the FBI raids on Cleveland for racketeering with connections to LA Mob and prostitution activities). Six months later, the County Sheriff (since arrested and convicted) had his detectives present evidence to the Grand Jury that on April 28, 2003, Mr. Grundstein altered an original document in the exclusive possession and control of a suburban Cleveland municipal court. The Grand Jury refused to give an indictment and returned a "No Bill". Only four percent of presentments to the Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Grand Juries get a "No Bill". It is illegal to re-present. See the Ohio Supreme Court case of Froehlich v Ohio Board of Mental Health, August 20, 2007). Most importantly, Mr. Grundstein was not in Ohio during 2003 and had the ATM receipts to prove it.
Mr. Grundsteins case was illegally re-presented to the Grand Jury and this time a True Bill was returned based upon false information. He had to fight this matter.
The judge would not bring the case to trial. Mr. Grundstein moved to dismiss. The judge, Michael Russo, refused to rule on Mr. Grundsteins motions. The prosecutor would not drop the case. Trial was scheduled three times. Mr. Grundstein refused to take a plea. Every time Mr. Grundstein came in to Cleveland from his home in Vermont for trial, he found out only upon his arrival in Ohio that the trial had been cancelled. The prosecutor scheduled eight (8) pre-trials for which Mr. Grundstein had to drive in to Ohio from Vermont. Nothing was ever discussed at them. The Criminal Clerk of Courts falsified the docket to say Mr. Grundstein kept asking for continuances. The Criminal Clerk of Courts, Mark Lime, is now in jail on 76 counts of altering records and theft.
After eleven trips to Ohio over the course of a year, Mr. Grundstein realized that Ohio was not going to give him a trial, rule on his motions or drop the case. Finally, he was forced to settle for a $50.00 fine.
The prosecutor, Bill Mason, was forced to resign as a result of the FBI raids, shortly after Mr. Grundsteins case was resolved. Another prosecutor involved in the case, Joe O'Malley, was sent to federal prison for case fixing, bribery and perjury.
WSBA Action Senior Disciplinary Counsel Douglas Ende called Mr. Grundstein in February of 2008 to discuss the matter. Mr. Grundstein told them everything and he advised them that he wanted the WSBA to know all about the case. Someone from Ohio had sent the WSBA an anonymous letter about Mr. Grundstein in October of 2007. Mr. Grundstein didn't hear from the WSBA for another three years when the WSBA sent him a Formal Complaint. In I n re Ressa, 94 Wn 2d 882, 621 P.2d 153 (1980), the Supreme Court found a delay of three years in a disciplinary case to be unreasonable.
During Mr. Grundsteins disciplinary proceeding, the WSBA amended the Statement of Charges against him a total of eight times, including an amendment that requested his disbarment when the original Statement of Charges only requested probation. All of these amendments were allowed by Hearing Office Lisa Hammel. The WSBA sought to enforce what it thought were problems with motions Mr. Grundstein had filed in an unrelated legal matter in Vermont. Vermont had found no problem with those motions and had taken no disciplinary action against Mr. Grundstein. What authority does the WSBA have to enforce what an attorney does in another state?
Mr. Grundstein was disbarred. One of the reasons was that he committed a felony in Ohio. The only problem was that he had never been convicted of a felony. This was of no concern to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, who continuously misrepresented the facts or to the Hearing Officer, Lisa Hammel, who disregarded Mr. Grundsteins affirmative defenses in this regard and the WSBAs failure to prove the commission of a felony.
Mr. Grundstein was also charged by the WSBA with a violation of RPC 8.4, alteration of a court document. Mr. Grundstein had taken a faxed copy of the court document, which had been typed in black ink, and wrote on it in blue ink, in his own handwriting, the (c) after Lakewood, Ohio Municipal Code 549.04. All of 549.04, including subsection (c), deals with misdemeanors. Lakewood, Ohio Municipal Court only deals with misdemeanors. It has no jurisdiction over felonies. Mr. Grundstein had needed to explain the matter to the FBI in order to be able to buy a gun. He had to explain that he had never been convicted of a felony so he wrote the FBI a letter explaining that he had not been convicted of a felony, including in it the court document which had his added subsection (c). There was no alteration and no intent to deceive anyone. He wrote on a faxed copy of a court document and never tried to pass his writing off as part of the court document.
In her Findings of Fact and Law, Hearing Officer Lisa Hammel incorrectly found that Mr. Grundstein had changed the record on a 2002 conviction for Improper Storage of Firearm, from a Felony to a Misdemeanor. But Mr. Grundstein in fact had never been convicted of such a felony or any other felony. She was referring to a charge under Lakewood, Ohio Municipal Code 549.04(c). Lakewood Municipal Court is a suburban Cleveland court. It only has misdemeanor jurisdiction. It can't hear or charge felonies. The charge under 549.04 was a misdemeanor of the 4th degree, the lowest in Ohio. It didn't get sent to Cuyahoga Common Pleas where felonies are heard. It was completely resolved as a minor matter in Lakewood. Mr. Grundstein had to come to Cleveland to defend his mother from people who embezzled from her. He neglected to leave his .22 pistol in Vermont. His car was towed during a rush hour violation. The police impounded his vehicle, unlocked it, went through everything and found his pistol.
Three weeks after his Disciplinary Hearing, Mr. Grundstein received a copy of the Hearing record that he had requested. All of his 42 Exhibits which had been admitted by Hearing Officer Hammel at the Hearing were gone. All of his documentary proof had been removed from the record. The 80 pages of transcripts of the disciplinary proceeding bear this out. The WSBA had stolen every one of Mr. Grundsteins exhibits that irrefutably proved his innocence and the state of the law in Ohio. These exhibits proved that Mr. Grundstein was not in Ohio at the times alleged, he never altered a court document, he was never convicted of a felony, he never changed the record of a felony into a misdemeanor and that he never issued a subpoena illegally. The WSBA hid all Mr. Grundsteins evidence of innocence. Why doesnt this conduct constitute violations of RPC 3.2, 3.3 and 3.8 (duty to acknowledge exculpatory evidence at all times), the requirements of Brady v Maryland, obstruction of justice and spoliation of evidence?
The WSBA Disciplinary Board was fully informed, on multiple occasions, of what had occurred, but completely ignored the situation and refused to do anything. The WSBA, the ODC, the Disciplinary Board, Hearing Officer Hammel and the Washington State Supreme Court are unconcerned about this. Why arent WSBA Hearing Officers concerned about the integrity of the record in disciplinary proceedings that they control? Why arent WSBA Hearing Officers and the Disciplinary Board concerned about misrepresentations that are made to them? Compare this to the situation with the disbarred Duke Lacrosse team Prosecutor Mike Nifong.
The Washington Supreme Court refused to allow Mr. Grundstein to appeal his disbarment. He tried to file his appeal eighteen days after the Disciplinary Boards decision, thinking his filing was timely. The Supreme Court found that it was not even though there is authority for a longer deadline. Efforts to file motions to vacate his disbarment based upon CR 60 fraud and irregularities in obtaining a judgment were rejected by Clerks. He was not even allowed by the Clerks to file these documents to get them in front of the Disciplinary Board or the Supreme Court.
Mr. Grundstein has federal lawsuits pending in the 9 th Circuit and the federal District Court in Vermont. The Judge in the suit in Vermont has refused to grant the WSBAs motion to dismiss. John Scannell has a federal RICO case against the WSBA pending.
Mr. Grundstein filed Bar Grievances against all members of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel involved, but these were ignored and dismissed without any investigation or consideration. How can the Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigate Grievances against itself?
Mr. Grundsteins odyssey through the disciplinary process is further described in the book he has just written, Vendetta: Cleveland Ohio Vermont to Washington State Americas Archipelago of Legal Failure. The link to this book is:
Why shouldnt Mr. Grundstein be entitled to an immediate hearing before the Washington State Supreme Court to determine if his disbarment, due to the intentional use of false, untrue and misleading information, should be vacated?
WSBA vs. ANNE BLOCK, Public No. 14#00016 Anne Block is a reporter, blogger, citizen activist and whistleblower who runs the Gold Bar, Washington Reporter. She has investigated alleged on-going corruption in the highest levels of government in Snohomish County and the City of Gold Bar. Ms. Block was also a member of the Washington State Bar Association.
As part of her investigations, Ms. Block has made numerous requests as far back as 2008 for public records of Snohomish County and Gold Bar government under Washington States Public Records Act. Ms. Block pursued a recall vote against then-Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon. Mr. Reardons staff then responded by authoring a 2700 word attack page about Ms. Block in Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows users to collaboratively create content. The Wikipedia managers removed it. Some of Ms. Blocks activity contributed to Mr. Reardons resignation as Snohomish County Executive.
Government officials have reacted to Ms. Blocks requests with great hostility and retaliation, to put it mildly. Ms. Block has filed a federal civil rights suit against these officials. See Block v. Snohomish County, et al., U.S. District Court Cause No. 2:14-cv-00235.
One government official, John E. Pennington, has filed approximately 32 Grievances against Ms. Block with the Bar Association as part of an effort to derail her investigations and requests for public records. There has been an organized campaign within Snohomish County and Gold Bar government to file Bar Grievances against Ms. Block, alleging harassment. No attempt, however, has been made by any of these Grievants to obtain an anti-harassment order mind you. Why not? Perhaps it is because they know that they have no case against Ms. Block and that they would be subjecting themselves to an Anti-SLAPP suit motion. See Washingtons Anti- SLAPP Suit law, RCW 4.24.525, which allows the filing of a special motion to strike any claim filed that is based upon public statements made about an issue of public concern. Or perhaps it is because they would have to produce the records requested by Ms. Block in discovery to their anti-harassment action. Or perhaps they do not want to produce evidence of their wrongdoing or draw further attention to it. Since when do requests for documents made under our Public Records Act constitute harassment?
Ms. Block has never represented Mr. Pennington and Mr. Pennington has never been Ms. Blocks client. Despite all of this, the WSBA Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Senior Disciplinary Counsel Linda Eide have seen fit to file a formal Statement of Charges against Ms. Block in response to these complaints. The WSBA wants her reporter records in violation of the Media Shield laws and has attempted to issue a subpoena to obtain them. Ms. Eide is a friend of Mr.Pennington. Why is the Bar Association getting involved in this effort by government officials to cover-up alleged government corruption and Ms. Blocks attempts to exercise her rights under the First Amendment and Washingtons Public Records Act? Arent the actions of the WSBA also violations of Washingtons Anti-SLAPP suit law, R.C.W. 4.24.525, as well as federal civil rights laws?
OTHER QUESTIONS The WSBA routinely resolves disciplinary cases by offering to accept a sum of money from the attorney in exchange for not proceeding with a formal disciplinary proceeding. Where is this procedure authorized? How often is it used? How much money is collected? Where does the money that is collected go?
Please forward this email to all attorneys and Judges.
Contact me if you wish to receive any of the pleadings verifying the facts which have been stated.
Please also contact the Justices of the Washington State Supreme Court and the members of the Board of Governors to request explanations of these matters and to voice your concerns:
Washington State Supreme Court Email: supreme@courts.wa.gov
Barbara A. Madsen, Chief Justice
360-357-2037 Charles W. Johnson, Justice
360-357-2020 Susan Owens, Justice
360-357-2041 Mary E. Fairhurst, Justice
360-357-2053 James M. Johnson, Justice
360-357-2033 Debra L. Stephens, Justice
360-357-2050 Charles K. Wiggins, Justice
360-357-2025 Steven C. Gonzlez, Justice
360-357-2030 Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Justice
360-357-2045
WSBA Board of Governors
Patrick A. Palace President patrick@palacelaw.com Anthony Gipe President-elect adgipe@shatzlaw.com Michele G. Radosevich Immediate Past-President micheleradosevich@dwt.com Kenneth W. Masters District 1 ken@appeal-law.com Bradford E. furlong District 2 bef@furlongbutler.com Brian J. Kelly District 3 bkelly@localaccess.com Jerry Moberg District 4 jmoberg@jmlawps.com Paul A. Bastine District 5 paulbastine@msn.com Vernon W. Harkins District 6 vharkins@rhhk.com Daniel G. Ford District 7 North dan.ford@columbialegal.org Barbara Rhoads-Weaver District 7 South barb@sustainablelawpllc.com Wilton S. Viall III District 8 billviall3@gmail.com Elijah Ford District 9 office@atlaslawps.com Philip Brady District 10 pbradyiv@gmail.com James W. Armstrong At-Large armstronglaw@comcast.net Karen Denise Wilson At-Large Not disclosed Robin Lynn Haynes At-Large rlh@witherspoonkelley.com
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. (10 Civ. 9647) (PKC) (JCF) -- Defendants' Letter to Judge Castel to Submit Motion for a Protective Order Against Mr. Washington [November 17, 2014]
John J. McKibben v. Walt Parsons, Matt Lindvall, Andrew McDonald Dana Delany, Terry Halford, Peter Michaelson, Janet Folsom, Joseph Bennett, Tim Mienert, Jay Trombetta Warren Humble, Carol Jenny, Weldon McDonald Carol McDonald Dan Rupp, Jr. James Farenholtz, Beth Krulewitch, Mrs. James Farenholtz, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, 120 F.3d 271, 10th Cir. (1997)
Notice: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) States That Opinions and Orders Which Are Designated as Not Citable as Precedent Shall Not Be Employed or Cited as Precedent. This Does Not Preclude Assertion of Issues of Claim Preclusion, Issue Preclusion, Judicial Estoppel, Law of the Case or the Like Based on a Decision of the Court Rendered in a Nonprecedential Opinion or Order. Richard R. Thompson and Marjorie Thompson v. Steven M. Kramer, Esq Kramer & Associates James T. Giles, Judge (Individually & in His Official Capacity) B-K Funding Inc. Cletus Lyman, Esq. Lyman & Ash Marvin Galfand Galfand & Galfand Edward Ellers, Esq. Morton Branzberg, Esq. Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzberg & Ellers Paul J. Burgoyne, Disciplinary Csl-In-Charge Pennsylvania Supreme Court Disciplinary Board Simon J. Rosen, Esq. Robert J. Vedatsky, Esq. Jeffrey Nowak, Esq. Casey & Nowak Judges Becker, Alito, Nygaard, Scirica, Cowen, Greenberg, Mansmann, Roth, Sloviter, Stapleton, Hutchinson, Lewis, and McKee Third Circ
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. (15A126) -- Petitioner's Application to Stay Extension to Submit Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending Resolution of July 18, 2015 Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP, or in the Alternative, Application to Exceed Word Limits Exhibits A thru F [September 10, 2015]
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company v. William B. Camp, Comptroller of The Currency of The United States, and First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina, 432 F.2d 481, 1st Cir. (1970)