Washington Appellate Practice

In today’s Johnston-Forbes v. Matsunaga decision, the Washington Supreme Court reiterated the rule that expert testimony is admissible if (1) the expert is qualified, (2) the expert relies on theories that are generally accepted in the scientific community, and (3) the testimony would be helpful to the trier of fact. The trial court has to

The Rules of Professional Conduct: A Basis For Civil Action Or Remedy?

The Washington Supreme Court’s recent decision in LK Operating, LLC v. The Collection Group, LLC calls into question the extent that a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPCs”) may be used as a basis for civil action. Ultimately, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the rescission of a contract based on a violation of RPC 1.8(a).

This case involved a joint venture transaction regarding a debt collection business. The parties to the joint venture included LK Operating, LLC (“LKO”) and The Collection Group, LLC (“TCG”). The members of LKO, Leslie Powers and Keith Therrien, are both Washington attorneys who worked for the same law firm (the “Law Firm”). One of the members of TCG, Brian Fair, initially asked Mr. Powers and Mr. Therrien if they, along with their Law Firm, would be interested in investing in TCG and operating a joint venture. The proposal involved each party to the joint venture contributing fifty percent of all required funds, Mr. Fair providing administrative and management services, and the Law Firm and Mr. Powers providing legal services.Continue Reading The Rules of Professional Conduct: A Basis for Civil Action or Remedy?

In State v. Hawkins, the Supreme Court reinstated a trial court’s grant of a new trial for newly discovered evidence after the Court of Appeals overturned that decision.  The decision is highly fact specific, and fascinating for mystery buffs, but the take away is clear: just as defendants can’t lightly disturb trial court rulings against

Washington has allowed people to be involuntarily detained if they are a risk to themselves or others or are gravely disabled under the Involuntary Treatment  Act (ITA) since 1977 – first for a short period of evaluation, then for treatment.   Close of observers of modern mental health trends will not be surprised to learn that

In SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt (No. 89317-9), the Washington Supreme Court unanimously held that a dissenting shareholder’s belief that the non-dissenting shareholders “concocted a plan” to force him out of the corporation and artificially diminish the value of his shares did not create a genuine issue of material fact precluding entry of summary judgment on the value of his shares, nor did counsel’s affidavit attaching “a true and accurate copy” of a valuation expert’s report do so.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Confirms What We Already Knew: Speculation, Hearsay, and Inadmissible Evidence Will Not Preclude Entry of Summary Judgment

In State v. Barton, the Washington Supreme Court examined the mandate found in Article I, section 20 of the Washington State Constitution that criminal defendants “shall be bailable by sufficient sureties.”  The Court interpreted the phrase to mean that a criminal defendant has the right to make bail by using a surety, i.e., a third

In Storti v. University of Washington, the Washington Supreme Court determined that the University’s faculty handbook had created a valid unilateral contract with its faculty that promised a 2% merit-based salary increase subject to “reevaulation” based on funding.  When University funding went south at the height of the recession in 2009-10, the University cancelled

Renters want to vindicate their rights without fear of retaliation.  Landlords want to know as much as they can about the people who seek to live in their property.  In Hundtofte v. Encarnacion a fractured Supreme Court resolved a conflict between those two impulses in favor of the landlords.  Renters can force their landlord to sue to evict them if they feel they are being unjustly ushered out of their apartment.  But renters will not be able to keep that lawsuit secret from future landlords who might be wary of renting to litigation-prone tenants.  In order to decide this issue, the Court gave something very much like standing to the county clerk who opposed a Superior Court order to amend county indices.
Continue Reading In Renters v. Landlords, the County Clerk Wins

Fall-out from Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme continues.  The Washington Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the reinstatement of an action brought by a group of Washington investors (FutureSelect) against an investment firm (Tremont) that pooled and fed money into Madoff “feeder funds.” Having lost all of the $195 million it invested with Tremont, FutureSelect also sued Tremont’s corporate parent (Oppenheimer), corporate grandparent (Massachusetts Mutual), and auditor (Ernst & Young), asserting claims for violation of the Washington State Securities Act (WSSA), and various torts.  The trial court dismissed the claims on the pleadings.  The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part; the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.


Continue Reading Washington’s Long Arm is Ready to Grab Madoff-Related Entity

In the denouement of a much-publicized case, the Washington Supreme Court ordered a trial court to dismiss charges against Douglas Bauer, a man who left a loaded gun accessible to his girlfriend’s six year old child.  The child took the gun to school, where it discharged and seriously injured a classmate.  Bauer was charged with third degree assault for “causing” the child’s injury directly and under a statute outlawing criminal complicity.  Bauer sought dismissal of the charges as a matter of law, which the trial court denied.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, keeping the charges alive. In State v. Bauer, the Supreme Court reversed.
Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Declines to Blame Gun Owner for Injuries Caused When a Child Took the Loaded Gun to School