UPDATE: Washington State Bar attorney Linda Eide EXPOSED for gross civil rights violations of persons over 40 and disabled.
Linda Eide sued under RICO, 1983 and Anti Trust violations
COMES NOW Appellant ALAN F. HALL, by and through ALAN F. HALL, Pro Se and submits this Pro Se brief pursuant to the Supreme Court’s Sui Generis Jurisdiction.
My name is Alan F. Hall. I am the Petitioner in the captioned matter. I am also a lawyer who has been practicing law in Washington State since 1974. I am 70 years old.
The first 25 years of my practice centered in litigation. As a litigator I have approximately 40 trials to my credit. Most of those trials occurred in King County Superior Court and Snohomish County Superior Court. The cases in those courts of general jurisdiction were before juries. I also have four reported cases at the appellate level the most notable of which established the current ruling on landlord/tenant law in Washington State. (Muci v. Graoch)
As a litigator in Washington State’s Superior Courts I experienced the importance of court rules, how they apply to both sides of a case and the consequences of when a participant does not follow those rules. A litigator can do damage to himself, his client and our system of jurisprudence without strict compliance.
I respected this system very much and found I could successfully operate within it.
Then, around 2002, I was confronted with a grievance against me and I became intimate with the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules relating to lawyer discipline. That is not to say I was not familiar with them before this event. It is that a grievance makes you want to reexamine them. I also reviewed the oath I took upon being admitted to the practice of law.
I did a little more digging on these issues and found that the Washington State Supreme Court is the branch of our State government that is responsible for enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules of Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct and indirectly our oath as attorneys. Those rules were created by the Supreme Court pursuant to legislative authority from another branch of our government, the Washington State Legislature.
I also learned that the scheme of jurisdictional procedure that the Supreme Court imposes on the discipline of lawyers is called Sui Generis. Black’s Law Dictionary (1968 edition) defines Sui Generis: “Of its own kind or class, i.e., the only one of its own kind, peculiar.”
At this stage of my quest to learn more about the process of disciplining lawyers in Washington state, I felt comfortable with the system. After all, doctors are regulated; dentists are regulated, as are the police.
But then an interesting thing happened. I learned how the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), the enforcement arm of the Supreme Court, defines sui generis and I did not like it. If fact I found it frightening as a threat to our democracy, disingenuous, unfair and likely to promote a cadre of minions capable of staffing potential governmental enforcement agencies capable of doing great harm to our democracy.
Respectfully, the history of enforcement agencies is replete with similar phenomenon of Sui Generis at various stages of development that compare with the stage of development that our Sui Generis system is now in. One has to look no further than pre WW II Germany. If you want to see how a fifth stage Sui Generis system operates watch the Movie Sophie Scholl one of the most famous members of the German World War II anti Nazi resistance movement, The White Rose. Pay close attention to how the lawyers behave in that movie.
Very harsh words, but they are carefully chosen particularly after my substantial observations stemming from two Washington State Bar Association ODC hearings on grievances filed against me. In fact I would say the referenced post 1933 Weimar Republic Germany model only differs from the Washington State’s Supreme Court’s Sui Generis system in that the Washington State’s Sui Generis system does not allow for torture and execution. Yet.
I make these bold statements on observed verifiable and well documented facts.
The first hearing in which I was involved the Grievant was represented by her personal attorney Elizabeth Turner Smith. The problem was that Ms. Smith was either applying for employment with the ODC or working for the ODC at the same time she was representing the Grievant. I learned about this half way through the hearing and did not know what to make of it at the time. Then I thought about it after the fact and believed it to be a clear violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine and the RPCs relating to conflict of interest and candor to the Court. If Ms. Smith was applying for a job with the ODC, then how could she possibly make impartial decisions relating to her client?
It occurred to me she was using her representation of the grievant as part of her job application with the ODC. And the ODC was condoning her violation of rules relating to conflict of interest. She should have told the hearing officer of her status with the ODC.
I also learned that my insurance company would mediate the claim the grievant had but that if I pled guilty to the grievance I would lose coverage. So the Bar Association offered to mediate this case but Ms. Smith refused. Was she acting in the best interest of her client or was she continuing her job application?
I was found to have violated the rule relating to diligence. And in fact my diligence had cost my client $10,000. An honest mistake that I would have admitted to if I would not lose coverage. I was paying approximately $500 per month for coverage. I maintained coverage for my entire career. So, instead of settling this case, Ms. Smith choose to go thru three days of hearing with her client, use the resources of the Bar Association and waste my time.
My response to this was to file a complaint against Ms. Smith. She replied on Bar Association letter head. You can guess how that turned out.
I claimed she had violated the RPC rule requiring ODC lawyers to act in good faith. At one time there was a rule that stated ODC lawyers had to act in good faith. I learned that the ODC had that language removed from the rule without any hearing.
That event caused me great stress to think that a State Supreme Court authorized agency could violate their own rules like that and get away with it. Further it appears they can modify the RPC rules to suit their own behavior without a hearing.
One positive was that I began to learn what the Office of Defense Counsel’s definition of Sui Generis was.
But there was more.
A grievance was filed against me in 2010. The ODC sat on the issues for about 5 months. I called and asked for my files back. They had asked for the original documents when the grievance was filed and, in writing, promised to return them upon request.
I called up and asked for the files back and was told by Francesca D’Angelo, an attorney with the ODC, that I would be lucky if I got a copy of them back. At this point I had been paying dues into this organization for approximately 38 years. I expected more professionalism.
And so the definition of Sui Generis starts to flesh out.
The grievance that was filed against me is the subject of the captioned petition. By that point both of my clients had passed away and, interestingly, the ODC never statementized them.
During the first hearing I began to get an in depth observation of the ODC Sui Generis.
- The ODC has access to volunteer lawyers. I did not.
- The ODC has access to volunteer experts. I did not.
- I requested the hearing officer to allow me access to the volunteer experts so that I could find an expert. Denied.
- The Hearing Officer on oral spontaneous motion grated ODC’s motion to prevent any of my testimony of my relationship with the grievant based on the dead man’s statute. This was overturned in the second hearing.
- I tried to hire counsel. They all wanted $350 per hour. I could not afford that.
- Randolph Petgrave was the Hearing Officer. He should have recused himself because his father and I were friends from college. I asked him to do this in the first trial. He refused. In fact, Mr. Petgrave the elder coincidently was nominated to be the hearing officer in my first grievance. He recused himself.
Whatever Petgrave the younger is, he is not a jurist.
- The ODC has institutional knowledge as to the proclivity of the hearing officers. Are they plaintiff oriented or defense oriented? This is vitally important information. Lawyers do not have access to that information.
The whole sui generis thing was turning into a farce.
I learned that I could have a lawyer appointed for me if I could not represent myself. As that point what choice did I have?
Even then Sui Generis gets more farcical.
At the second hearing I had counsel. He was intimately tied to the Bar Association. In fact as far as I know the Bar Association is his only source of income
- My lawyer tells me that the volunteer expert for the state is lawyer Barbara Isenhower. He further tells me that her husband is John Strait an ethics professor at one of the local law schools. I also learn that Barbara and her ethics professor husband want to use my case, assuming I am found guilty, in Mr. Strait’s ethics class.
- The Will and the Trust agreement admitted into evidence name Nancy Caputo, the grievant’s niece as contingent beneficiary of an estate worth about $400,000. It also comes out that the client’s ex-wife, Linda Orf, the one who files the grievance, through the help of Jamie Clausen ends up with every penny of the estate pursuant to Jamie Clausen’s legal work. Ms. Clausen names herself as Trust Protector which is exactly what she claims I did in my documents.
- Jamie Clausen testifies. But there is no testimony from Lind Orf, or any affidavits from the clients. In fact the grievance is not even entered into evidence. That is because it was filed by Linda Orf.
- The Hearing Officer finds that my testimony is not credible even though the ODC never put my credibility in issue.
- ER Rule 608 governs the procedure for attacking credibility. It was not followed by the ODC or the Hearing Officer. In fact the highly respected research tool BING responds vary favorably to the query: “How to impeach witness’s credibility before an administrative agency?” The internet tome on impeaching credibility is found in
E-How and the article is “How to Challenge Witness Credibility before MSPB.” Therein lies the step by step process for impeaching credibility before any agency including the ODC. Again Mr. Petgrave’s reasoning is unsupported by any legally recognized rule relating to this issue.
In a word what I observed was a genetic mutation in the fabric of our democracy, our judicial system and our constitution. The Washington State Supreme Court’s Sui Generis system has the potential to spread into a very destructive cancer and apoptosis is in order.
There is a very compelling saying: “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.” Sui Generis as it is practiced by the Washington State Bar Association should be removed. But that is not enough.
Lawyers must organize. The police have a guild, why can’t lawyers? Right now they have the highest rate of suicides amongst any profession. They are easy targets for any malcontent client and of course sole practitioners are the low hanging fruit of choice for the ODC. Further, lawyers are losing ground in the fields that they can practice in.
As I mentioned I am 70 years old. I do not want to get suspended or disbarred. Yet at my age what the hell difference does it make?
What I am most concerned about is our democracy. I am equally concerned about the younger lawyers. In fact I think they have a good cause of action against their so called ethics professors for not teaching Sui Generis in law schools. I suspect if potential law students were told about Sui Generis they would not want to even go to law school.
I request that you think about it. Imagine yourself as a beginning lawyer, you are married and maybe have a child or two. Then you are confronted by Sui Generis. If you are reprimanded your reputation is ruined forever. It is just too easy for the ODC to win and bully you into submission.
Finally, it is noted I am on non-disciplinary suspension and have been for approximately three years even though the ODC stipulated I could continue to practice during the course of this Sui Generis process.
As soon as I went on non-disciplinary suspension the Bar Association stripped me of my Bar membership without any hearing. I no longer had access to the Bar News or research facilities that I had paid dues for 38 years to support. This greatly hindered my effort to do research and keep up on lawyer news that might have been helpful to my case.
Because of all this I believe that there should be an innocence project. I suggest that any lawyer either living or dead who as ever been admonished, reprimanded of disbarred have their case reviewed. If they were not afforded adequate representation or were subject to abuses spelled out herein, then the decision should be reversed.
One final observation: The ODC lawyer handling the opposition to my appeal, Scott Busby, continues to mislead the tribunal. He claims I was being paid to $2,000 per quarter to administer a Trust with only $49.00 dollars in it. This is totally false and misleading. All one has to do is read the Trust to find out what my very substantial duties were.
|RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS day of _______ 2014.|
Alan F. Hall JD
cc. Individual Members of the Board of Governors, WSBA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ___ day of February, 2015, I caused to be served a true copy of the foregoing petitioner’s pro se brief by the method indicated below, and addressed to each of the following:
|Allison Sato Clerk of the Disciplinary Board Washington State Bar Association 1325 Fourth Avenue – Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98101-2539||£ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail £ Telecopy|
Washington State Bar Association
1325 4th Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 90101-2539
|£ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail £ Telecopy|
|Scott G. Busby ( another piece of shit from WSBA ODC)
Washington State Bar Association
1325 4th Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101-2539
|£ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail: £ Telecopy: 206-682-2305|
|Randolph O. Petgrave Petgrave & Petgrave PLLC P.O. Box 4142 100 S King St Ste 405 Seattle, WA 98104-2817||£ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail: email@example.com £ Telecopy: 206-583-0422|
Stephen C. Smith