VOL. 30 NO. 1

FALL 2008

FBA-WDWA NEWS

2

To be more accountable, the FBA-WDWA has taken steps to clarify andenhance membership experience.Through the hard work of the officersand the Membership and Website/Com-munications Committee co-chairs, wewrote new membership letters; made ad-ditional points of contact with new andprior members throughout the year; au-tomated our membership services so thatall FBA-WDWA registrations (includingmembership renewals, reminders, in-voices and CLE registrations) can behandled on-line; conducted a swearing-in ceremony for new bar admittees inSeattle and Tacoma; published this news-letter; and, our piece de resistance, pro-fessionally redesigned our website. Wehope that the technological facelift willimprove our members’ experience. Ourgoals were to make your interaction withthe FBA-WDWA easier and more dy-namic, and to ensure that the FBA-WDWA remains current, useful and rel-

evant. Along with making these mem-bership improvements, we updated ourmembership database and reached outto new and long-time members. In sodoing, we both increased our numbersand made our membership more diversein terms of geography, practice area,ethnicity and age. We hope that by mak-ing ourselves more accountable, you willretain your membership, we will attractnew members with fresh ideas, and wewill create a community that makespeople want to volunteer their time.

The face of our court changed this year,as well. With the untimely passing ofretired Magistrate Judge Philip K.Sweigert in May, we lost one of our fin-est jurists and a great friend. In addi-tion, Magistrate Judge Monica J. Bentonleft the bench, taking a position at theKing County Superior Court. At thesame time, our District had the good for-tune to witness the elevation of Judge

Richard A. Jones from the King CountySuperior Court bench to the U.S. Dis-trict Court. And Judge Benton’s vacancywas officially filled by our first AssistantFederal Public Defender to take the fed-eral bench, Judge Brian A. Tsuchida.

In the midst of these many changes, wecontinued our tradition of presenting avast array of quality continuing legal edu-cation programs. This year’s topics ranthe gamut from a brown bag lunch withNinth Circuit mediator Christopher A.Goelz regarding the process for mediat-ing cases pending before the Ninth Cir-cuit, to a four-day, fifteen-hour, CR 39.1training program. And, for the first time,the Criminal Law Committee presenteda comprehensive look at white collarcriminal legal issues, followed up by theEthics and Practice Committee’s half-day session on ways for civil lawyers toavoid violating criminal laws. With theparticipation of several FBA Officers, theNinth Circuit Lawyer Representativesalso presented a stellar program about

Continued on page 9

1

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE:THE CHANGING FACE

OF THE FBA-WDWABy Tracy M. Morris

One reason many of us become involved withthe Federal Bar Association of the Western Dis-trict of Washington, and stay so involved, is that it pro-

vides a positive place for us to contribute to our legal community.When I think about the FBA-WDWA in this District, I think aboutcooperation and camaraderie – the bench and the bar working to-gether to improve the practice of law and to serve the public. Whattroubled me as I began my presidency last year was that many ofmy contemporaries did not share this view. They did not see thebenefit of joining the FBA-WDWA and they did not feel connectedto this community. In an effort to change this, we worked this yearon two key initiatives: increasing accountability to members and thecourts, and increasing membership diversity.

FALL 2008

In this issue:President’s Message: The Changing Face of the FBA-WDWA ............... 1

In Memoriam: U.S. Magistrate Judge Philip K. Sweigert ..........................3

Reminiscences: Judge Sweigert .................................................................4

FBA-WDWA Celebrates Another Successful Yearat 2007 Annual Dinner and CLE .................................................................5

ADR Committee Presents ADR Neutral Training Program ..................... 12

Western District Magistrate Judges HostFMJA Annual Meeting and FJC Workshop ..............................................13

Profile of Judge Brian A. Tsuchida...........................................................14

Criminal Law Committee Co-SponsorsWide-Ranging White Collar Crime CLE ..................................................16

Profile of Judge Richard A. Jones ............................................................20

Reciprocal Discipline and Changes to the Local Federal Rules ...............24

Military History Meets Current Eventsin Powerful Annual District Meeting and CLE..........................................27

Lawyers and Judges Gather in Sun Valleyfor Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference .......................................................29

AnnouncementsAppellate ECF Training .............................................................................................. 19FBA-WDWA Slate of Officers and Trustees ............................................................ 26Reappointment of Magistrate Judge Brett ................................................................. 282008 Annual Dinner and CLE .................................................................................... 30

33

The Federal Bar Association News is a publication of the Federal Bar Association of theWestern District of Washington. Comments and proposed articles should be addressed to:

Duncan Manville Joanna Plichta BoisenSavitt & Bruce LLP Foster Pepper PLLCPuget Sound Plaza 1111 Third Avenue1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1410 Suite 3400Seattle, WA 98101-2509 Seattle, WA 98101-3299(206) 749-0500 (206) 447-5144dmanville@jetcitylaw.com boisj@foster.com

On the cover:U.S. Courthouse in Seattle© Frank Ooms, courtesy of NBBJ

2

FBA-WDWA NEWS

4

IN MEMORIAM: U.S. MAGISTRATEJUDGE PHILIP K. SWEIGERT

The Honorable Philip K. Sweigert, who served this District asa U.S. Magistrate Judge for over 20 years, passed away onMay 23, 2008. He was 74 years of age.

[The following are major excerptsfrom an article distributed at thememorial service for Judge Sweigertat the Faith Lutheran Church.These excerpts are reproduced herewith the permission of his familyand the Church.]

Philip Kerner Sweigert was born andraised in San Francisco. He attendedparochial schools both there and inSacramento, receiving a classical edu-cation including Greek and Latin,which would serve him well in his ca-reer. He graduated from the JesuitSt. Ignatius High School in San Fran-cisco.

At Stanford University he received hisB.A. in History in 1955. He then spenttwo years in the Army at Fort Lewis,serving in a clerical position, develop-ing a taste for creamed tuna on toast,and visiting his future wife’s parentsin Seattle. In 1958 he married hisStanford sweetheart, Alice Hanson. Inorder to marry Alice he chose to beconfirmed in the Lutheran Church, andwas a faithful church member for therest of his life. He attended the Uni-versity of California Hastings Collegeof Law at Berkeley from 1958 to 1961,graduating summa cum laude, and wasa member of the Order of the Coifand President of the Thurston HonorSociety.

Upon graduation from law school, hejoined the law firm of Kindel & Ander-son in Los Angeles. In 1963, he and

Alice and their daughter Elizabethmoved to Seattle where he became thelaw clerk for U.S. District Judge Will-iam T. Beeks. In 1965 Phil joined thelaw firm of Bogle & Gates. He wasappointed U.S. Magistrate Judge in Se-attle in 1977, and held this position untilhe retired in 1998. He was recalled toserve in a part-time capacity, and con-tinued to do so until the date of hisdeath. Phil loved his work as a judge,and was highly regarded for all aspectsof his work. He particularly enjoyedconducting settlement conferences, andwas very skilled in assisting the partiesin reaching agreed resolutions withoutthe delays, uncertainties and costswhich accompany trials and appeals.

Phil and Alice raised four children:Elizabeth, Jonathan, Jennifer and Amy.Phil was a husband and father aheadof his time, actively involved in raisinghis children and helping around thehome. It was his job to give the chil-dren their baths and he told wonderfulbedtime stories. He cleaned house, didthe dishes every night, and later learnedto cook, becoming an expert at variousdelicacies ranging from enchiladas topizza to Christmas cookies and candy.He was particularly proud of his almondroca and loved discovering new reci-pes such as microwave peanut brittle.Phil leaves five grandchildren: Elsa,Alexander and Thea Lund, and Nicho-las and Miranda Sweigert.

Although Phil didn’t have the opportu-nity to travel overseas until his fifties,

he developed a love for travel in Eu-rope, and made many trips there withAlice and with others in the family. Healso loved their annual trips to Maui,where he spent time with friends fromSeattle and elsewhere, enjoying a re-spite from the cold and wet Seattle win-ters.

Another beloved place for Phil was thefamily’s summer home on Guemes Is-land. When he was there, he rarelystopped working on the upkeep of thefamily properties, catching and cook-ing crab, taking care of his motor boat,giving rides to his grandchildren andothers, and keeping in shape by cyclingaround the island. He also enjoyed re-laxing on the beach with a book. Hewas known for putting on one of thebest fireworks displays on North Beachon the Fourth of July.

Music was a joy to him. He sang inthe barbershop quartet “What Four” atStanford, was active in church choirsat both Phinney Ridge and Faith

3

Continued on page 12

FALL 2008

5

REMINISCENCES: JUDGE SWEIGERT

By Judge John L. WeinbergU.S. Magistrate Judge (Ret.)U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

It was my privilege and pleasure to serve with Phil Sweigertthroughout his distinguished career as a Magistrate Judge withour Court. He was held in the highest respect by those who

appeared before him. All of us at the courthouse, who worked withhim for almost twenty-one years, had the highest respect and deep-est affection for Phil.

I first met Phil in 1966 when I came towork as a law clerk for U.S. DistrictJudge William T. Beeks. Phil had servedin that same job three years earlier. Hewas a very tough act to follow.

But it was in 1977, when Phil came backto our court as a U.S. Magistrate Judgein Seattle, that we became the closest ofprofessional colleagues and personalfriends.

Phil’s father was the Honorable WilliamT. Sweigert, who served as a U.S. Dis-trict Judge in San Francisco. He was alongtime close colleague of Chief Jus-tice Earl Warren, when Warren was gov-ernor of California. I met Phil’s fatherwhen he came to Seattle for Phil’s in-vestiture ceremony. He was so proudand excited he could hardly hold still. Atthe ceremony, he joined all of our districtjudges on the bench in the eighth floorceremonial courtroom of the old court-house. The trouble was, there wasbarely room for all those judges, andPhil’s father was seated on the far left,right next to the precipitous set of stairsby which the judges entered and left thebench. In his enthusiasm, JudgeSweigert was rolling that big chairaround, and I could just envision him roll-ing too far to one side and plummeting,chair and robe flying, down four steps toan uncertain fate. Fortunately it neverhappened, but I remember those mo-

ments of terror more vividly than any-thing else at the ceremony.

As a new judge, Phil was eager to learneverything he needed to know about howto perform his responsibilities. So forseveral months we would meet in theearly mornings, long before court opened,to discuss selected areas of court pro-cedure and of the applicable statutes andrules. His conscientious nature was im-mediately obvious to me. I also soondiscovered that Phil was one of thebrightest people and “quickest studies” Ihad ever met. These morning meetingsalone were not enough for him; he alsorequested reading assignments for thesubjects we were covering. With all thisstudy and discussion, and with his insight-ful questions, I was soon learning asmuch as he was from our meetings.

The same theme continued throughoutPhil’s twenty-one years on the bench.A lawyer who practiced frequently be-fore him, and who came to know himwell, put it this way:

I always think of Phil as a verygood judge. He worked hardand was well prepared on everyoccasion. He never assumedthat a proceeding over which hewas presiding was about him. Hewas fair, attentive and courteousto those appearing before him.As a lawyer, I never felt uncom-

fortable appearing before him, orfelt that I had entered a venuewhere the judge’s personalviews might have presented mewith an uphill path. Phil on thebench was like posting a sign,“Justice will be dispensed herethis day.” To me, that’s the high-est performance of judicial dutywhich any lawyer can expect.

Because Phil was so sharp and quick,he sometimes had limited patience for alawyer who went on and on, or who pre-sented arguments which could not passthe “straight face test.” Sometimes whenthis happened, Phil’s courtroom staffwould hear the sound of a ballpoint penclicking. Phil had stopped taking notes,and was running his pen so fast it soundedsomething like his outboard motor atGuemes Island. The staff would imme-diately know that this lawyer – or at leastthis argument – was in deep trouble.Eventually, the more perceptive lawyerscaught on, and would say something like,“Yes, well, moving right along….”

Phil and I both learned from Judge Beeksto insist that lawyers be fully prepared,and that they “do it right.” But we alsolearned that cases and issues must bedecided according to what the law andjustice require – not as a report card forthe lawyers.

Phil and I were the closest of friends atthe courthouse. One or the other of uswould come down the internal corridorbetween our chambers many times eachday to brainstorm as to what had justoccurred, or what was about to occur.Frequently when Phil came in he wantedsome ideas as to how to tackle a prob-lem he had not seen before. But I quicklylearned that sometimes he was not look-ing for advice – mostly he just wanted todecompress or to vent a little. In thosesituations my best contribution was to say,“Really? Did he really do that? It musthave made it tough for you.”

4

Continued on page 13

FBA-WDWA NEWS

FBA-WDWA CELEBRATESANOTHER SUCCESSFUL YEAR

AT 2007 ANNUAL DINNER AND CLE

By Tracy M. Morris and Duncan Manville1

The Federal Bar Association of the Western District ofWashington’s 24th Annual Federal Practice CLE and Din-ner, held on December 5, 2007, welcomed many esteemed

guests and members. The day began with a packed house as CLEChair and current FBA-WDWA Secretary, Jim Savitt, introducedthree timely subjects for discussion – the evolving legal landscapefor use and control of the Internet; the decision in Parents Involvedin Community Schools v. Seattle School District, et al. (a.k.a. theSeattle School District decision); and the much-talked-about deci-sion in Bell Atlantic. Panelists included Judges M. MargaretMcKeown, Marsha J. Pechman, Benjamin H. Settle, Thomas S.Zilly and Mary Alice Theiler; and Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik.Seasoned local practitioners also contributed to the lively discus-sion, opening up many topics to debate.

The Spanish Ballroom at the FairmontOlympic Hotel supported the time-hon-ored tradition of a savory salmon dinneramongst great colleagues and friends.Newly appointed President Tracy M.Morris welcomed a bustling room, bid-ding farewell to outgoing President SteveKoh. Mr. Koh’s leadership supportednumerous CLEs and special courtprojects, including commencement ofrevisions to our local and patent rules,and the taking of oral histories of oursenior judges. Prior to being relinquishedof his duties, Mr. Koh presented theAssociation’s Pro Bono Service Awardto pro bono attorneys from the Pro BonoPanel and the Federal Civil Rights LegalClinic, and attorneys who have agreedin advance to handle pro bono cases inthis District.

The Association also welcomed backnow-former Chief Ninth Circuit Courtof Appeals Judge Mary M. Schroeder.Chief Judge Lasnik eloquently expressedthe Association’s and the U.S. DistrictCourt’s sincere gratitude to JudgeSchroeder for her unwavering support.As her last “official duty” as Chief,Judge Schroeder discussed her years atthe helm of the largest Circuit in the coun-try and her continued interest in support-ing our District.

In appreciation of both Chief JudgeSchroeder’s and Mr. Koh’s service,President Morris presented each with apiece of art from Seattle’s oldest glass-blowing studio. She also promised tocontinue with ongoing court projects,while updating the Association’s use oftechnology and improving diversity withinthe FBA-WDWA.

The evening’s judicial honoree was U.S.Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton, wholeft the federal bench after eight years

5

The pre-dinner reception in the Spanish Ballroom of the Fairmont Olympic Hotel

FALL 2008

to become a King County Superior CourtJudge. Newly appointed Judge RichardA. Jones, Senior Judge John C.Coughenour, and President Morris bidher farewell, highlighting the compassionand good humor that she brought to thebench. The Association made a $500contribution in Judge Benton’s name tothe University of Washington School ofLaw’s pilot program aimed at support-ing women and diversity students duringtheir first year.

Wrapping up an eventful evening wasthe keynote speaker, former UnitedStates Attorney John McKay. Now aVisiting Professor of Law at SeattleUniversity, Professor McKay candidlyshared his thoughts regarding the De-partment of Justice’s decision to termi-nate him along with eight other U.S. At-torneys. He noted with sincere appre-ciation the high-caliber colleagues andjudges that he had been forced to leave

behind. A riveted audience hung on Pro-fessor McKay’s words as he gracefullyaddressed the ever-evolving political cli-mate in Washington, D.C. It was a pow-erful end to an eventful evening.

1 Tracy M. Morris is the President of theFederal Bar Association of the Western Dis-trict of Washington. Duncan Manville is ofcounsel at Savitt & Bruce LLP, and co-chairsthe Website/Communications Committee ofthe Federal Bar Association of the WesternDistrict of Washington

6

Mark M. Hough, Jerry R. McNaul Judge James P. Donohue, Kevin D. Swan

Judge Richard A. Jones, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein

Mark E. Johnson, Judge Mary Alice Theiler

FBA-WDWA NEWS

7

Mark E. Johnson, John McKay

John S. Congalton,Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick

Steve Secrest, Karen F. Jones

James F. Williams, Juli E. Farris

Marco J. Magnano, Peter M. Vial, Mary Vial David C. Martin, Anthony L. Rafel, Steven A. Reisler

Judge Benjamin H. Settle, Judge Philip H. Brandt

FALL 2008

8

Brett A. Purtzer, J. Richard Creatura, Judge Charles W. JohnsonCynthia B. Jones, David C. Martin, Aviva Kamm

Philip S. McCune, William R. Sherman

James R. Hennessey, J.J. Leary Jr., John McKay

Michael K. Ryan, Rodrick Dembowski, Miles A. Yanick

Marlys S. Palumbo, Ralph H. Palumbo, Timothy G. Leyh

FBA-WDWA NEWS

military and criminal justice at their An-nual District Meeting. On December 10,2008, our most anticipated CLE willshowcase a timely program addressingpatent and immigration law, and presi-dential efforts to mold the judiciary.Alongside our esteemed federal judges

President’s MessageContinued from page 1

9

and local practitioners will be LindaGreenhouse, Pulitzer Prize-winning jour-nalist, formerly of the New York Timesand now at Yale Law School, who willalso be our keynote speaker for our An-nual Dinner that evening.

The year would not have been completewithout our special court projects andevents. The FBA-WDWA was honoredto have been asked by the District Courtto propose revisions to the federal oath

James F. Williams, J. David Andrews, Stanley A. Bastian J. Kirkham (Kirk) Johns, Judge J. Kelley Arnold

Judge Monica J. Benton, Charles Fulcher, Margaret Martinez,Judge Ricardo S. Martinez, Norman B. Rice, Constance W. Rice

David L. Garrison, Philip E. Cutler

Blake E. Marks-Dias, William P. Brewer

FALL 2008

10

of office, Local Rule 5(g) and the patentrules; and to continue an oral historyproject involving our most senior federaljudges. In addition, the Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals asked us to assist itwith two projects at the newly remod-eled Nakamura Courthouse – adorningits walls with art and resolving a disabil-ity access issue. Finally, we were hon-ored to attend the William L. Dwyer JuryProject Award Ceremony at the Univer-

sity of Washington, the Annual Meetingof the national Federal Magistrate JudgesAssociation in Seattle, and the Ninth Cir-cuit Judicial Conference in Sun Valley,Idaho; and to have submitted an articlefor the updated United States DistrictCourt’s History Book due out next year.

Fall is the perfect time to reflect uponthe year’s accomplishments, as the ma-jority of our ambitious goals have been

reached and we now work to completethe balance of them. With unprecedentedtechnological improvements and mem-bership outreach and diversification, wehave set a new standard. It has beenboth a privilege and a pleasure to serveyou and our community. I extend aheartfelt thanks to my fellow officers, tothe FBA-WDWA’s dedicated committeechairs, and to the district and appellatejudges whose support enabled us to ac-complish so much this year.

Judge Thomas S. Zilly, Judge Benjamin H. Settle,Judge James L. Robart, Charles R. Ekberg

Patrick J. Preston, Kathryn C. Pineda, Krista K. Bush Dana Dimmick Scarp, Bradley P. Scarp, Judge Richard A. Jones

Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick,Daniel F. Johnson

FBA-WDWA NEWS

11

Judge Monica J. Benton Judge John C. Coughenour John McKay

Judge Mary M. Schroeder

Judge Benjamin H. Settle,Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik

Steve Y. Koh Judge Richard A. Jones

Tracy M. Morris Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik

FALL 2008

ADR COMMITTEE PRESENTS ADRNEUTRAL TRAINING PROGRAM

By J. Kirkham (Kirk) Johns1

In January and February of this year, the Alternative DisputeResolution (ADR) Committee of the Federal Bar Associationof the Western District of Washington presented an ADR neu-

tral training program. The program was presented as a service tothe Court and to attorneys interested in becoming a certified ADRneutral under Local Civil Rule 39.1. It provided attendees with thefifteen hours of training necessary to be included in the WesternDistrict’s register of neutrals.2

The ADR Committee assists the Courtin the administration of CR 39.1.2 Thisassistance includes the processing ofattorney applications for inclusion onthe Court’s register of neutrals, includ-ing attorney certifications that theyhave the training and experience re-quired by the Rule.4

The training program was developedover a six-month period by an ADRCommittee planning group consistingof Committee Co-Chairs Spencer Halland Kirk Johns, Committee membersJudge Robert H. Alsdorf (Ret.) ,Carolyn Cairns, Philip E. Cutler, Den-nis George and Edward W. Pettigrew,and Magistrate Judge Mary AliceTheiler. The four-day program con-sisted of three half days of panel pre-sentations and one full day of mockmediation exercises. The panel pre-sentations covered such topics as “TheOverall Spectrum of ADR Proce-dures,” “Variations & Hybrid Proce-dures,” “CR 39.1,” “The Benefits ofADR,” “The Dynamics of ADR –People, Processes and Perspectives,”“Attributes of Effective Party Repre-sentatives,” “Mediation – the Funda-mentals,” and “Ethics.”

The program was well-attended and well-received. Over 160 attorneys attended.The success of the program was attrib-utable to the generous support, effort andprofessionalism of many people: First,the ADR Committee planning group.Second, the Court and the Western Dis-trict judges and ADR neutrals whoserved as faculty members (in additionto Chief Judge Robert Lasnik, JudgeRicardo Martinez and Magistrate JudgesJ. Kelley Arnold and Mary Alice Theiler,twenty-eight Western District neutralsserved as faculty, and twelve additionalWestern District attorneys participatedin the mock mediation sessions). Third,staff from the Clerk’s Office (BruceRifkin, Janet Bubnis and Sharon Haas).And finally, the law firm of StokesLawrence, which duplicated the programmaterials at no cost to the FBA-WDWA.

In addition, Prolumina Technologies vid-eotaped the training program for theFBA-WDWA at a reduced rate. Thisenabled the ADR Committee to sched-ule a video repeat of the program forthose who attempted to enroll in the pro-gram but were unable to attend due tospace constraints. The video repeat waspresented in October and November on

the same four-day schedule as the liveprogram.

1 J. Kirkham Johns is of counsel at StaffordFrey Cooper, and serves as the Treasurer ofthe Federal Bar Association of the WesternDistrict of Washington.2 See CR 39.1(b)(2) and the Court’s GeneralOrder of January 17, 1997.3 See CR 39.1(a)(2).4 See CR 39.1(b)(1) and (b)(4).

In Memoriam: Judge SweigertContinued from page 3

Lutheran Churches, and picked up theguitar in the John Denver era and theukulele in Hawaii. He sang in the Se-attle Symphony Chorale and the Se-attle Back Choir. Many remember hispure, clear tenor.

Phil enjoyed playing golf, though he didn’thave much time for it until his childrenwere grown. He was a long-time mem-ber of the Washington Athletic Club,working out faithfully during his adult-hood. He continued his workout routineduring his retirement, starting his day bydoing both crossword puzzles in the Se-attle Times and then heading down tothe WAC. He was also a big sports fan,rooting for the Stanford Cardinal and theHusky football and basketball teams, andboth rooting for and castigating the Mari-ners, depending on the quality of theirplay. He enjoyed many varied socialactivities with good friends and family.

Phil lived his life to the fullest. He was ablessing to his friends, his family and hiscolleagues. He will be greatly missed.

Remembrances may be made to theParkinson’s Disease Foundation(www.pdf.org) or to Faith LutheranChurch (www.faithseattle.org).

12

FBA-WDWA NEWS

WESTERN DISTRICT MAGISTRATEJUDGES HOST FMJA ANNUAL

MEETING AND FJC WORKSHOP

By Judge J. Kelley ArnoldChief U.S. Magistrate JudgeU.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Under cloudless blue skies with soft summer breezes and 75degree sunshine, the Magistrate Judges of the Western District of Washington hosted the national FMJA (Federal Mag-

istrate Judges Association) annual meeting and FJC (Federal Judi-cial Center) workshop the week of July 7th. Judge James Donohue,with the assistance of Judge Mary Alice Theiler, pulled the laboringoars rowing the event to an overwhelmingly acclaimed success.

Over 150 judges and their families gath-ered in the Emerald City. The Judges’Workshop included updates on a multi-tude of issues including, but not limitedto, Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Prod-uct, Multi-District Litigation, and Elec-tronic Discovery in Civil Litigation.

Tours of the sites and sounds of Seattlewere available to our guests. Includedin the registration fee was a buffet din-

ner at the Mu-seum of Flightand an ArgosyCruise to KianaLodge on theKitsap Penin-sula. TracyMorris, Presi-dent of the Fed-eral Bar Asso-ciation of theWestern Districtof Washington,greeted ourguests at theMuseum ofFlight. Officersand board mem-bers attended as

Phil and I also went to lunch most days,at the Washington Athletic Club or else-where. In fact, one day when I washeaded toward the WAC by myself,Judge Walter T. McGovern saw me andsaid, “Where’s your consort today?” Iguess Wally picked up that term fromhis days as a Navy officer.

The magistrate judges and our staffs areclose-knit families, operating as a unitwithin the federal court. Several times,over the years, Phil and his wife Alicehosted summer picnics for all of us attheir beautiful place on Guemes Island.Frequently Phil and I shared law clerksand courtroom deputies. I know every-one who has worked with Phil enjoyedthe chance to do so, learned a great dealfrom the experience, and joins in offer-ing the best wishes to Phil’s family.

My wife Sherry and I have many happymemories of times we spent with Philand Alice at judicial conferences in Ha-waii and elsewhere. We also shared thework and the fun of hosting in Seattletwo national conventions of our FederalMagistrate Judges Association.

When a federal judge retires, he or sheis entitled to keep his desk chair. I re-member the day Phil retired, in 1998. Wesat him down in his desk chair, handedhim his gavel, and all of us – magistratejudges and staff – wheeled him to theelevator, to the Sixth Avenue entranceto the old courthouse, and out the door,where we helped him load the chair intohis beloved little pickup truck.

I will miss Phil as a very good friend andhighly esteemed colleague. The courtand community will remember him, andmiss him, as a very fine judge. We whoremain can do no better than to followhis example.

Reminiscences: Judge SweigertContinued from page 4

13

well. The Kiana Lodge cruise beganwith an escort by the Seattle Fire Boatfeaturing giant sprays and a vivid rain-bow, backdropped by the Seattle skyline.Mt. Rainier also made a cameo appear-ance.

Our thanks to the FBA-WDWA and theU.S. District Court for their support inthis most successful event.

U.S. Magistrate Judges James P. Donohue, Karen L. Strombom,J. Kelley Arnold, Mary Alice Theiler, Brian A. Tsuchida

FALL 2008

PROFILE OF JUDGE BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA

By Jennifer E. Wellman1

“Lucky” is the word Judge Brian A. Tsuchida claims bestdescribes his legal career. Judge Tsuchida attributeshis successes and ascendancy to the federal bench to

having had the good fortune of working with a series of inspira-tional lawyers. “Nonsense,” counter lawyers who have workedwith the Judge. While his view of himself reveals Judge Tsuchida’sunassuming and humble side, his colleagues attribute the Judge’sprofessional achievements largely to his unflagging commitment tothe fundamental principle that justice should be the same, in sub-stance and availability, for everyone.

Judge Tsuchida was born and raised inHawaii, the second of four children. In1976, he left Hawaii’s sandy beaches andtropical weather to attend Grinnell Col-lege in Grinnell, Iowa. He earned hisbachelor’s degree in 1980.

From that small town in Iowa, JudgeTsuchida went on to law school at theUniversity of Oregon. He graduated in1983, and passed the Oregon bar exami-nation that year and the Washington barexamination in 1984. He is a member ofthe United States District Courts for theWestern and Eastern Districts of Wash-ington, the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap-peals, and the United States SupremeCourt.

Judge Tsuchida began his legal career in1984 at The Defender Association in Se-attle. Over the next four years or so, heworked in the juvenile, misdemeanor andfelony divisions. As a staff attorney, herepresented indigent clients throughoutKing County on charges ranging frompetty theft to aggravated first degreemurder.

His colleagues describe how, despite thestress of the practice, the volume of

cases, the complexity of the issues pre-sented, the lack of resources, and theneeds of difficult clients, Judge Tsuchidawas always cheerful. He was never flus-tered, panicked or discouraged by thetasks at hand. He quietly worked eachand every case to a just end. JudgeTsuchida recalls that he enjoyed the pres-sure and pure joy of litigating. He lovedtrials – presenting the case, bonding withthe jury, the focus. But despite havingspent countless hours in court, he alwaysentered the courtroom nervous becauseof the stakes involved and because hecared about what happened to his cli-ents.

In 1988, Judge Tsuchida decided it wastime for a new challenge. He acceptedan associate position with Schroeter,Goldmark and Bender, a personal injuryfirm known for its passion for its clientsand for justice. Thus, while he left pub-lic defense, he chose a law firm re-nowned for its commitment to equal jus-tice.

Judge Tsuchida’s practice at Schroeterfocused on representing plaintiffs in prod-ucts liability cases brought against com-panies that sold or manufactured items

containing asbestos. The litigation wascomplex, involving substantial prepara-tion and research, as well as lengthy tri-als. In one such trial, Judge Tsuchidarepresented an individual who had beena ship worker from the 1960s throughthe 1980s. His client had contractedmesothelioma, a rare cancer caused byexposure to asbestos. His client died priorto trial, but not before Judge Tsuchidahad obtained his deposition, literally fromthe confines of the hospital. JudgeTsuchida won a verdict for his clienteven though the resources of his corpo-rate opponent had created an unevenplaying field that was all too familiar tothe former public defender.

Judge Tsuchida also helped people withsocial security claims and appeals, help-ing these clients achieve financial secu-rity despite the obstacles of a complexprocess. Thus, in private practice JudgeTsuchida once again thrived when facedwith the challenge of helping people whocould not, for whatever reason, helpthemselves.

In 1992, finding that he missed public de-fense, Judge Tsuchida left private prac-

14

FBA-WDWA NEWS

tice and, in his words, the “great” attor-neys he had worked with, and returnedto The Defender Association. By virtueof his hard work and skill, Judge Tsuchidaquickly moved from felony attorney tofelony supervisor in 1994. As the divi-sion supervisor, Judge Tsuchida not onlyappeared in court on a wide variety ofmatters (including the representation of30 to 40 clients per year), but also as-sisted, advised and trained staff attor-neys, recruited and supervised legal in-terns and volunteers, and managed theassignment and staffing of over 3,500new felony cases per year.

What’s more, Judge Tsuchida took onany number of administrative tasks criti-cal to the operation and goals of the of-fice. He helped resolve personnel dis-putes, including disagreements involv-ing his lawyers or support staff. He de-veloped training and division resources,projected future felony caseloads andstaffing needs, and fought off fines andsanctions imposed by the court or theclerk’s office against staff attorneys. Healso worked with King County and stateofficials on systemic issues such as caseflow management, video-conferencingand jail population reduction.

During this time Judge Tsuchida workedclosely with his former supervisor, Rob-ert Boruchowitz, Director of The De-fender Association. Judge Tsuchidacredits Boruchowitz’s mentoring as hav-ing been the most influential of his ca-reer. As described by the Judge,Boruchowitz was a visionary, positiveand principled leader.

Judge Tsuchida witnessed howBoruchowitz successfully pushed forcase load limits for his lawyers in orderto enhance their ability to provide effec-tive assistance to their clients. He sawBoruchowitz fight for better salaries forhis lawyers, despite the political unpopu-larity of this public expenditure. He

watched Boruchowitz negotiate addi-tional funding for death penalty cases inorder to meet the particular demands ofthese representations. Judge Tsuchidaemphasizes that Boruchowitz acted with-out fanfare, guided only by solid principlesand the interests of justice.

Judge Tsuchida put the lessons learnedfrom Boruchowitz to use when video-conferencing was explored as an effi-cient, cost-effective means of conduct-ing some criminal proceedings. He andBoruchowitz argued that such “effi-ciency” would serve only the court andprosecutors, not the individuals whoseliberties and rights were at stake. JudgeTsuchida pointed out that in the civilarena, it was highly unlikely that any liti-gant (plaintiff or defendant) would agreeto appear at trial via closed-circuit tele-vision and thereby limit his or her abilityto interact with counsel. The video-conferencing idea never gained traction.“Lucky,” says Judge Tsuchida about thispart of his career.

In 1999, Judge Tsuchida left The De-fender Association and joined the officeof the Federal Public Defender for theWestern District of Washington. Com-paring his old and new caseloads, hiscolleagues at The Defender Associationjoked that his move amounted to “retire-ment.” But having interned with theFederal Public Defender in Denver,Colorado, Judge Tsuchida knew hewould be facing new and difficult chal-lenges. He looked forward to joining anoffice populated, according to the Judge,by seasoned, quality lawyers with a repu-tation for tenacious, compassionate rep-resentation of their clients’ interests.

For approximately nine years, JudgeTsuchida worked in the office of the Fed-eral Public Defender. His new supervi-sor, Thomas W. Hillier, II, set high stan-dards for his lawyers, and required ex-cellent litigation and writing skills. Fed-

eral defenders handle matters at both thetrial and appellate levels. Judge Tsuchidahelped his clients through all stages ofdistrict court proceedings, and soon mas-tered the craft of arguing before the NinthCircuit. He also represented individualschallenging the constitutionality of theirdetentions via habeas corpus petitions.These “last hope” cases required spe-cial skill and creativity.

In all these representations, JudgeTsuchida tended to the needs of his cli-ents – clients who were not just eco-nomically disadvantaged, but whooftentimes suffered from mental illnessesor miserable childhoods, addictions or dis-crimination. Judge Tsuchida believes itwas his contact with these individualsfacing some of the most important eventsof their lives that best prepared him forhis newest challenge.

Further evidence of Judge Tsuchida’scommitment to the principle of equalaccess to justice is his work with theWashington State Bar Association. Hisexperience with Bob Boruchowitz, TomHillier and others taught him that it is notenough to be a good public defender.Developing ties and partnerships withthose outside the legal profession is alsovery important. Thus, despite the de-mands of public defense, he volunteeredfor a host of committees, including theWSBA’s Opportunities for Minorities inthe Legal Profession Committee (1991to 1994), Lawyers Assistance Program(1997), and Continuing Legal EducationCommittee (1994 to 1996). He alsochaired the Washington Supreme CourtCapital Counsel Panel from 1998 to2008.

Judge Tsuchida and his wife, Barbara,have been married for twenty years.Their daughter, Holly, is fifteen. TheJudge likes to cook for the family – atime when he can clear his mind. He

15

FALL 2008

also enjoys running, which he describesas “pure movement.”

He ran the Portland Marathon in 2005,hoping to qualify for the Boston Mara-thon. He tore his calf muscle prior tothe race but decided to run it anyway.He was limping by the second mile.Most runners in Judge Tsuchida’s posi-tion would have stopped, but the Judgekept running until he finished – looking,he says, much the worse for the wear.He did not qualify for Boston that year,or in 2006 when another injury side-tracked him.

Undeterred, he lined up to race Portlandagain in 2007. This time he completedthe race and qualified for the 2008 and2009 Boston Marathons. Reaching hisgoal required the discipline to get up at5:00 a.m. every morning to run. He stillruns, and describes his athletic accom-plishments with characteristic humilityand humor.

Judge Tsuchida is the first person withsubstantial criminal defense experienceto serve on the bench in this District. Hewill be missed at the office of the Fed-eral Public Defender, where he was abrilliant lawyer, a good friend, and a skill-ful mediator of daily lunchroom world-saving bull sessions and banter. Despitetheir loss, the entire staff was elatedwhen Judge Tsuchida was selected tobe our new Magistrate Judge. As TomHillier noted, “Brian earned it, and hebrings something to the bench that it hasnever had. He has stood with our cli-ents. He knows how they feel, how theirfamilies feel, and how we feel. Ourbench will be better for what Brian bringsand because of who Brian is. He was agreat selection.”

1 Jennifer E. Wellman is an Assistant Fed-eral Public Defender, and serves as a Trusteeof the Federal Bar Association of the West-ern District of Washington.

CRIMINAL LAW COMMITTEECO-SPONSORS WIDE-RANGING

WHITE COLLAR CRIME CLE

By Kristine A. Costello1

This past February the Criminal Law Committee of the Fed-eral Bar Association of the Western District of Washingtonand the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney co-sponsored a CLE

at the federal courthouse in Seattle. The CLE, entitled “CurrentIssues in White Collar Litigation,” provided an overview of whitecollar issues of concern to both criminal and civil practitioners.Experienced practitioners spoke and participated in panel discus-sions. Below is a summary of the topics discussed and presented.

STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING CONCUR-RENT PROCEEDINGS

Attorney Jeffrey B. Coopersmith2 pre-sented strategies for managing concurrentproceedings. His presentation addressedthe most common substantive issues thatcounsel face in the white collar arena andprovided an excellent framework for theCLE.

Stock Option Backdating Litigation.Mr. Coopersmith used the example of anallegation of stock option backdating to il-lustrate the type and number of parallelproceedings that can be triggered when acorporation or its employees are suspectedor accused of wrongdoing. He noted thata single allegation that a company had im-properly awarded stock options could trig-ger at least five simultaneous and parallelinvestigations or proceedings:

1. A Department of Justice in-vestigation or indictment;

2. A U.S. Securities and Ex-change Commission (SEC)investigation and proceeding;

3. The company’s own internalinvestigation;

4. A class-action lawsuit; and5. Shareholder derivative litiga-

tion.

Mr. Coopersmith indicated that acompany’s duty, risks and objectives inthese instances are not always the sameand can often work at cross-purposes.

Cooperation with Enforcement Au-thorities. One of the first decisions a com-pany has to make when facing an allega-tion of wrongdoing is whether to cooper-ate with government enforcement entities.There are huge incentives built into boththe civil and criminal enforcement systemsfor companies to cooperate with the gov-ernment. Through cooperation, a companycan convince the government that therewas no wrongdoing. In instances wherethere have been violations or it is unclearwhether a violation occurred, the decisionto cooperate can be more complicated.However, companies still have a high in-centive to cooperate, as both the civil andcriminal enforcement entities have discre-tion to make a decision not to prosecutethe violations.3 These decisions will de-pend in large part on how the governmentjudges the company’s cooperation. Over

16

FBA-WDWA NEWS

the years, the Department of Justice hastried to standardize and outline how dis-cretion in this area ought to be applied byits attorneys when deciding whether to pros-ecute a business. A number of memorandahave been published over the years in anattempt to outline these standards.

The McNulty Memo. On December12, 2006, former Deputy Attorney GeneralPaul J. McNulty issued a memorandumentitled Principles of Federal Prosecu-tion of Business Organizations.4 Thememorandum is commonly referred to asthe “McNulty Memo.” (Subsequent to thetraining, on August 28, 2008 the Depart-ment of Justice issued a new memoran-dum.5) The McNulty Memo was issuedin response to a number of criticisms thathad been raised about the 2003 “Thomp-son Memo” on the same subject.6 TheMcNulty Memo was intended to super-sede and revise the Thompson Memo intwo significant areas, including: (i) the at-torney-client privilege waiver, and (ii) in-demnification for attorneys’ fees.

The Thompson Memo had required com-panies to waive the attorney-client privi-lege in order to be considered for the ben-efits associated with cooperation. Further,it directed counsel for the government toweigh the decision by a company to pay itsemployees’ attorneys’ fees against the com-pany in determining whether the companyhad cooperated. These two provisions andthe implementation of these policies causedgreat concern among the criminal defensebar, the American Bar Association,7 andultimately Congress8 and the courts.9

Attorney-Client Waiver. The McNultyMemo established new criteria and pro-cesses regarding the attorney-client privi-lege. Most significantly, the memo changedthe rules regarding how the governmentcan go about asking companies to waivethe privilege in order to be deemed to havecooperated. Under the McNulty Memo,there can be no waiver of privilege absent

a showing by the government of a “legiti-mate need” for the waiver.10 Also, coun-sel for the government must draw a dis-tinction between waivers relating to privi-leged factual information and waivers re-lating to materials reflecting the mental im-pressions of counsel.

Indemnification for Attorneys’ Fees.The McNulty Memo also changed thegovernment’s policy regarding indemnifi-cation for attorneys’ fees. Previously, thegovernment could consider as evidence ofnon-cooperation a company’s payment ofits employees’ attorneys’ fees. TheMcNulty Memo directed governmentcounsel to refrain from holding indemnifi-cation against companies unless it was doneto impede the investigation.

SEC Seaboard Factors. Mr.Coopersmith noted that the SEC has pro-mulgated guidelines for how it will weighcooperation in its investigation and enforce-ment actions. These guidelines are referredto as the “Seaboard Guidelines,” after anOctober 23, 2001 SEC report explainingwhy the SEC was not taking action againstSeaboard Corporation after an investiga-tion of accounting irregularities.11 The Sea-board Guidelines are a non-exhaustive listof thirteen factors (relating to self-policing,self-reporting, remediation and coopera-tion) that the SEC uses when decidingwhether to initiate enforcement proceed-ings. Some of the factors include whetherthe company has waived the attorney-cli-ent privilege, the company’s response tomisconduct, its cooperation with SEC staff,and the likelihood of future violations.12

Selective Attorney-Client Waivers.Mr. Coopersmith explained that waiving theattorney-client privilege incident to a gov-ernment investigation can negatively im-pact subsequent or parallel civil proceed-ings. He advised company counsel to seekconfidentiality agreements when disclos-ing privileged information to governmentenforcement agencies. However, he noted

the limits of such agreements and advisedcounsel that disclosure to the governmentcould constitute a complete waiver of theprivilege. Mr. Coopersmith pointed out asplit among the circuits as to whether dis-closure to the government waives the privi-lege. There may be different standardsfor waiver of attorney-client and work prod-uct protection. Most courts have held thatdisclosure to the government, even with aconfidentiality agreement in place, doesconstitute a waiver – although the law, par-ticularly in the Ninth Circuit, may be evolv-ing.13

Fifth Amendment Privilege vs. Nega-tive Inference in Civil Proceedings.Mr. Coopersmith discussed issues associ-ated with concurrent civil and criminal pro-ceedings – specifically whether and in whatcircumstances the privilege against self-incrimination should be invoked in the civilcase. From the perspective of criminaldefense counsel, the classic view is thateven when the criminal defendant is inno-cent, the defendant should be conserva-tive and invoke the right to remain silentguaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Butwhile this strategy may be wise when con-sidering the potential criminal ramificationsof testifying freely in the civil case, it couldadversely effect a corporation’s position inthe civil arena, since traditionally, when aparty asserts the Fifth Amendment in a civilproceeding, the opposing side can infer thenegative from these assertions in the pre-sentation of its case.

Mr. Coopersmith outlined a number of strat-egies for managing this troublesome di-lemma. Civil counsel can make legitimateefforts to delay testimony until the criminalcase has been resolved (for example, coun-sel can move for a protective order or astay of the civil proceeding). Dependingon the circumstances, counsel may be ableto cure the adverse inference by advisinghis or her client to invoke the privilege whileat risk of criminal liability, and then makethe client available after the risk has passed.

17

FALL 2008

In those instances, counsel should seek apre-trial ruling to limit the use of the asser-tion to support a negative inference. De-pending on the specifics of the matter,courts have granted relief in these circum-stances.14

INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS

Edward B. Magarian,15 Leslie J. Hagin16

and Kristin M. Cappel17 participated in apanel discussion analyzing the different is-sues and concerns that may arise when acompany, or its individual employees orexecutives, is accused of wrongdoing.Specifically, the panel addressed what todo when wrongdoing is detected or allegedat a company, either internally or by anoutside government agency. The panelalso provided advice on how to identify andmanage the different interests and dynam-ics in play, during a corporation’s internalinvestigation, between corporate counsel,counsel for individual executives and em-ployees, and investigators.

The panel’s excellent discussion touchedon the following specific issues: (i) Whatare the company’s duties with regard torequiring participation in the investigation?(ii) Must the company give its employees“Corporate Miranda” warnings?18 (iii)What are the potential consequences ofnot doing so? (iv) What can and shouldthe company say to its employees? (v)Should employees seek counsel to assist ininterviews? (vi) What, if any, other pro-tections are available to employees?

COMPUTER FRAUD

Nick Akerman19 presented on the Com-puter Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).20 Henoted that although the CFAA was origi-nally enacted as a criminal statute, it af-fords a private right of action to individualsor companies “who suffer damage or lossby reason of a violation of” the statute.21

Mr. Akerman provided a comprehensivereview of the statute and the circuit law

interpreting it. He discussed the possiblecauses of action authorized by the statute,and their legal requirements; and also ad-dressed recent decisions by the Fifth, Eighthand Tenth Circuits providing an expansiveview of the CFAA. He noted that thestatute’s expanded use could benefit civillitigants seeking relief for a variety ofwrongs, including theft of computer data,schemes to defraud, trafficking in computerpasswords, destruction of computer data,hacking, and creation and circulation ofcomputer viruses.

CURRENT TRENDS IN WHITE COLLAR

PROSECUTION AND POLICY

Tessa M. Gorman,22 Carl Blackstone,23 andAmanda E. Lee24 participated in a paneldiscussion on current trends in white collarprosecution and policy in the Western Dis-trict of Washington and on the national level.The panel was moderated by Kristine A.Costello. Mr. Blackstone and Ms. Gormandiscussed the U.S. Attorney’s current pros-ecution objectives and priorities for the Dis-trict. Their topics included a focus on pub-lic corruption, mortgage crimes, computercrimes, copyright and trademark infringe-ment, and procurement fraud.

The panel also discussed the implicationsof the Thomas Memo and McNulty Memofor this District. The panel specificallyaddressed the District’s practice of requir-ing the disclosure of internal investigations,and what weight is given to such disclo-sures. The AUSAs opined that the gov-ernment relies on its own investigative workand that the weight given to internal inves-tigations depends on the circumstances sur-rounding the investigation, as corporate in-ternal investigations are no substitute forthe government’s own investigative workand credibility determinations.

There was also some discussion about thenew and increasing trend of cooperationwith state law enforcement agencies. Thepanel discussed the increased use of state

18

entities in the investigation of federal crimes,and the trend toward more coordination withstate prosecuting authorities in bringingcriminal charges – including the use of “fed-eral leverage” letters (which are intendedto encourage defendants to dispose of theircases at the state level or face federalcharges).

ETHICAL ISSUES FOR THE FEDERAL WHITE

COLLAR PRACTITIONER

The day concluded with a valuable andengaging discussion of some of the ethicaldilemmas facing white collar practitioners.Irwin H. Schwartz25 and Robert C.Bundy26 discussed the ethical issues forcounsel that arise during a white collar in-vestigation, including internally-initiated in-vestigations and investigations initiated byenforcement actions. Mr. Schwartz andMr. Bundy presented a hypothetical thatposed a variety of ethical, and potentiallylegal, dilemmas that counsel for the corpo-ration (including in-house counsel) couldface in these circumstances. The hypo-thetical and the discussion touched on con-flict-of-interest issues that come up almostimmediately. Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Bundydiscussed how best to identify and man-age these issues. They also discussed cor-porate counsel’s duties in dealing with un-represented persons. The discussion pro-vided an excellent bookend for a very in-formative day.

1 Kristine A. Costello is a partner atCostello & Black, P.S., co-chairs theCriminal Law Committee of the Federal BarAssociation of the Western District ofWashington, and co-chaired this CLE. Shethanks the speakers and panel participantsfor their contributions to this article.2 Jeffrey B. Coopersmith is a partner at DLAPiper, and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney.3 See United States Attorneys’ Manual(USAM) 9-27.600(A) (available at http://w w w . u s d o j . g o v / u s a o / e o u s a /foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.

FBA-WDWA NEWS

htm#9-27.600) (“Except as hereafterprovided, the attorney for the governmentmay, with supervisory approval, enter into anon-prosecution agreement in exchange fora person’s cooperation when, in his/herjudgment, the person’s timely cooperationappears to be necessary to the public interestand other means of obtaining the desiredcooperation are unavailable or would not beeffective.”)4 Available at http://www.usdoj.gov/dag/speeches/2006/mcnulty_memo.pdf.5 See USAM 9-28.000 through 9-28.130; Jef-frey B. Coopersmith and Kevin D. Galbraith,New DOJ Guidelines: Fig Leaf To Avoid Leg-islation?, www.law360.com, September 2,2008.6 See January 20, 2003 memorandum fromDeputy Attorney General Larry D.Thompson entitled Principles of FederalProsecution of Business Organizations(available at http://www.usdoj.gov/dag/cftf/corporate_guidelines.htm). The purpose ofthe memorandum was to give prosecutors arevised set of principles to guide them asthey decided whether to file charges againstbusiness organizations.7 See Statement of Karen J. Mathis Presi-dent of the American Bar Association be-fore the Committee on the Judiciary of theUnited States Senate Concerning “The Th-ompson Memorandum’s Effect on the Rightto Counsel in Corporate Investigations”(Sept. 12, 2006).8 On March 7, 2006, a hearing was held onthis subject before the House Judiciary Sub-committee on Crime, Terrorism, and Home-land Security.9 See U.S. v. Stein, 435 F.Supp.2d 330(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (implementation of policyduring IRS investigation of KPMG resultedin interference with constitutional rights todue process and counsel).10 Legitimate need is established based on thelikelihood and degree to which the privilegedinformation will benefit the investigation, andwhether it can be obtained in a timely andcomplete fashion through alternative means.Possible collateral consequences and thecompleteness of voluntary disclosurespreviously provided may also be considered.See McNulty Memo at 8-9.

11 See Report of Investigation Pursuant toSection 21(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and Commission Statement onthe Relationship of Cooperation to AgencyEnforcement Decisions (available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-44969.htm).12 The SEC recently published an enforce-ment manual that clarifies its policies, includ-ing bringing its policy on requests for privi-lege waiver more in line with DOJ policy. Seehttp://www.dlapiper.com/files/upload/White_Collar_Alert_Oct08.html.13 See U.S. v. Reyes, 239 F.R.D. 591 (N.D. Cal.2006).14 See SEC v. Dibella, 2007 WL 1395105 (D.Conn.); SEC v. Cassano, 2000 WL 1512617(S.D.N.Y.); SEC v. Herman, 2004 WL 964104(S.D.N.Y.); SEC v. Freiberg, 2007 WL2692041 (D. Utah). The SEC acknowledgedits support of selective waivers in the Sea-board Memo.15 Edward B. Magarian is a partner inDorsey & Whitney LLP’s Trial practicegroup, and co-chairs the firm’s internationalWhite Collar Crime and Civil Fraud prac-tice group.16 Leslie J. Hagin is a litigation partner atMcNaul Ebel Nawrot & Helgren.17 Kristin M. Cappel is a principal withSeabold Group, a professional investiga-tion and workplace consulting firm locatedin Seattle, and was formerly an AssistantU.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of NewYork.

18 “Corporate Miranda” warnings are givento employees during internal investigations.The information communicated typically in-cludes notification that the attorney repre-sents the corporation and not the employee,and that the corporation may decide to turnover anything told to its counsel during theinvestigation.19 Nick Akerman is a partner in Dorsey &Whitney LLP’s Trial practice group, and co-chairs the firm’s Computer Fraud and Abusepractice group.20 18 U.S.C. § 1030.21 See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g).22 Tessa M. Gorman is an Assistant U.S. At-torney for the Western District of Washing-ton assigned to the Complex Crime Unit.She co-chairs the FBA-WDWA’s CriminalLaw Committee.23 Carl Blackstone is an Assistant U.S. At-torney for the Western District of Washing-ton. He supervises the Complex Crime Unit.24 Amanda E. Lee is a partner at SchroeterGoldmark & Bender.25 Irwin H. Schwartz is a private criminallaw practitioner. He was formerly an Assis-tant U.S. Attorney and Executive AssistantU.S. Attorney, and served as Federal Pub-lic Defender for the Western District of Wash-ington from 1975 to 1981. He is a pastPresident of the FBA-WDWA.26 Robert C. Bundy is of counsel at Dorsey& Whitney LLP. He served as United StatesAttorney for the District of Alaska from 1994to 2001.

19

APPELLATE ECF TRAININGThe Ninth Circuit’s new Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system is up and running, and using itwill become mandatory for most filers on January 2, 2009. Bring your brown bag lunch, seea demo of the new system, and ask questions about opening cases, filing briefs and motions,and receiving court orders via email.

Dates: Monday, December 8, 2008 and Friday, January 9, 2009.Times: 12:00 noon, 1:00 p.m., and 2:00 p.m.Location: U.S. Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, 19th Floor Conference Room.

Details are posted on the Ninth Circuit’s Web site (www.ca9.uscourts.gov) and the Web siteof the Federal Bar Association of the Western District of Washington (www.fba-wdwash.org).

Questions? Contact Ninth Circuit Staff Attorney Liz Noteware at (415) 355-7972.

FALL 2008

PROFILE OF JUDGE RICHARD A. JONES

By Duncan Manville1

“E Every job I’ve had,” says U.S. District Judge RichardA. Jones, “I’ve always said was the best job I’ve everhad in my life.” Judge Jones feels the same way about

his new position, to which he was elevated last year from the KingCounty Superior Court bench – and not just because he now haslaw clerks.

It’s different in terms of how bigthese cases are. The volume ofcases. The variety of cases. Idon’t try as many cases here by along shot compared to what I triedin Superior Court. But in termsof the degree of complexity, we’vegot everything from securities vio-lations to patent infringement, §1983 actions, class action litiga-tion, and complex criminal pros-ecutions. It’s all over the place interms of the type of responsibili-ties that we have. And it’s at adifferent level of judging.

There is no question that Judge Jones willbe up to the task. Bucking recent trends,his March 2007 nomination by PresidentGeorge W. Bush was applauded by Demo-crats and Republicans alike. Senator PattyMurray, speaking on the U.S. Senate floorin October 2007, praised Judge Jones’“sensitivity, his professionalism, and hisoverall sense of fairness”; and noted thatthe Judge “enjoy[ed] broad bipartisan sup-port and … deserve[d] a seat on the fed-eral bench.” And John McKay, formerU.S. Attorney for the Western District ofWashington, called Judge Jones “a fantas-tic candidate” for the position. The U.S.Senate confirmed Judge Jones’ nominationon October 4, 2007, and he was sworn inon October 30, 2007 as WesternWashington’s newest U.S. District Judge.

Judge Jones was born in Seattle, and grewup in the Central District around the cor-ner from Garfield High School. He wasthe youngest of eight children (including hisbrother, musician and record producerQuincy Jones). The Judge’s parents, acarpenter and a maid, raised their family ina small two-bedroom house. Things were“slightly chaotic from time to time,” saysthe Judge. “But it worked. It worked.”His parents were tough because timeswere tough, and because they expectedmuch from their children. Judge Jones’“father particularly was always pressingin our minds the importance of education,the importance of being the very best atwhatever direction that you wanted totake.” “Once a task is once begun,” theJudge’s father used to say, “never leave it‘til it’s done. Be it a labor great or small,give the job your very best or not at all.”Judge Jones has followed that maximthroughout his life.

Judge Jones attended Saint Martin’s HighSchool, a Benedictine boarding school inLacey, Washington. The school presentedthe Judge with a “wonderful opportunity”to leave a rough neighborhood, avoidtrouble, “learn how to interact with differ-ent people from different backgrounds,”and develop a college mentality. He was ascholarship student, and worked in theschool’s cafeteria to help defray tuitioncosts. Other than work and academics,his high school interests included social pro-

grams, yell leading and athletics. He playedfootball, but “got knocked out” and real-ized that maybe there were better sportsfor a boy of his stature. So he threw him-self into track and field and wrestling, asport in which he particularly excelled, com-peting in the state meet. He remains anavid sports fan, and has been known tostop by the U.S. District Courthouse inSeattle on weekends in full WashingtonHuskies regalia.

After graduating from Saint Martin’s,Judge Jones enrolled at Seattle University,where he focused on academics and tu-toring inner-city kids. His tutoring workwas a paid position that helped him meethis college tuition obligations. “I had a goaland a mission, and that was to get a goodeducation. If you wanted it, you had to goout and fund it, because my parents didn’thave the financial resources to pay for it.”

The tutoring program in which Judge Jonesparticipated was called CARITAS, forCommunity Action Remedial InstructionTutoring Assistance Services. The Judge’sresponsibilities included recruiting college,

20

FBA-WDWA NEWS

junior college and high school students toserve as tutors, coordinating their sched-ules and those of the kids they were teach-ing, and testing the kids to make sure theirneeds were being met. The program be-came more of an “expanded social pro-gram,” Judge Jones recalls.

It got to a point where many kidsbecame dependent upon the pro-gram for their social outlet. Andso they came in to play. Theycame in to socialize, and for manyit served as an opportunity to geta free meal. They came immedi-ately after school. They came inon the weekends. And for manyof these kids, we turned out to besurrogate fathers.

Judge Jones grew close to many of thekids he worked with, and some still keep intouch. Although a few have passedthrough his courtroom over the years, oth-ers have charted a more positive course,and from time to time they let the Judgeknow what is going on in their lives andwith their families. Judge Jones enjoys re-ceiving these updates.

Judge Jones graduated from Seattle Uni-versity in 1972 with a degree in public af-fairs. He had become interested in attend-ing law school because he believed that asa lawyer he could be independent and con-trol his career path. His original passionhad been education, but the early 1970swere a period of frequent strikes and tre-mendous instability in the market for teach-ers, and the Judge wanted a more stableprofession. He also viewed becoming alawyer as a challenge, a response to themessage that he could not succeed as anattorney because he had no culture in thelaw – no lawyers in the family and no fam-ily connections to lawyers. “Somebody justsaid no,” Judge Jones explains. “And thatput up the target for me to pursue and goafter it.”

A lot of the coaching I receivedfrom so-called college counselorsand advisors was for me to pur-sue a career in the trades. Be-cause my father was a carpenter,that was supposed to be indica-tive of my only professional op-portunity. I always thought beinga carpenter would be a wonder-ful and great opportunity in life.But my dad kept pushing me, say-ing “Richard, you can do far morethan what I’m doing right here.”I remember seeing my dad comehome after working a graveyardor swing shift, and he’d have mudon his pants. And I’d see himhauling his tools inside the home.And I saw how hard his existencewas, and the hours that he had towork to take care of his family.He wanted me to do somethingbigger and better. He didn’t knowwhat it was. And I didn’t knowwhat it was. I just knew that thelaw looked like a way to gain thatfreedom and independence.

Judge Jones enrolled at the University ofWashington School of Law, where he againjuggled academics and work. For the firsttwo years of school he continued to workas a tutoring coordinator and bookkeeperfor CARITAS. He also took a position asa law clerk in the office of the U.S. Attor-ney for the Western District of Washing-ton, where he “did a little bit of everything”– including writing legal briefs, assisting withinvestigations, and preparing cases for trial.

I can remember a schedule whereI would perform my bookkeepingduties in the morning, then I wouldgo to class at law school. And Iwould get three or four classesout of the way. Then I had torush back and work at the U.S.Attorney’s Office, where I typi-cally worked from 1:30 until 5:30or 6:00. And I would go back to

the tutoring program and try tocatch the evening session from7:00 to 9:00, then I would do mystudies for class the next day. Iwas glad to graduate from school,so I could just concentrate on onething, that was practicing law.

Judge Jones earned his J.D. in 1975. Hisexperience working at the U.S. Attorney’sOffice had sparked an interest in litigation.He recalls that during his third year of lawschool one of Seattle’s largest law firmsrecruited him. He submitted an applica-tion, went through the interview process,and had his references checked. At theend of the process the person who had ini-tially contacted him set up lunch for thetwo of them at Rossellini’s 410, an upscaleItalian restaurant downtown. Judge Jonesexpected to receive an offer of employ-ment that day, but instead he was bluntlytold that although his lunch companion andothers at the firm had recommended thathe be hired, the firm would not extend himan offer due to concern that clients wouldreact negatively to being represented by ablack lawyer. Judge Jones was furious.He consulted with several attorneys (in-cluding Lembhard G. Howell and formerWashington State Supreme Court JusticeCharles Z. Smith, both longtime friends andmentors) about whether to sue, but decidedagainst litigation because he did not wantto undermine his chances of being hired byanother firm, and because “frankly, I didn’thave the financial resources to take on afirm that large.”

Judge Jones promptly sent out a flurry ofresumes, and within a week or two he re-ceived an offer from the King CountyProsecutor’s Office. That offer “tooksome of the sting away,” says the Judge.“And it actually proved to be probably abetter thing for me, because that’s what Iwanted to do in the first place, become agood trial lawyer.” He accepted the offerand became a Deputy Prosecutor for KingCounty.

21

FALL 2008

Judge Jones began working at the Shore-line District Court and the Federal WayDistrict Court. He had one week of train-ing, during which he spent a couple of dayswatching his mentor attorney, FrederickMendoza, handle a number of misde-meanor trials. After a few days Mendozatold Judge Jones, “Ok, this is your firstcase. Just go up there and try it.” “So Iwalked up,” Judge Jones recalls, “and Istruggled my way through my first speed-ing ticket.” He handled several more shorttrials, and Mendoza told him he had donejust fine.

The following Monday, Deputy Prosecu-tor H. Duane Evans was supposed to comewith Judge Jones and supervise his han-dling of the calendar.

I remember turning around andlooking at Duane when they calledthe calendar at 9:00 a.m., andDuane was sitting in the front rowand he waived and he said,“You’re fine. Go ahead. Go forit!” And then we got into it, andabout the third or fourth trial thatmorning on the calendar, I turnedback to look at Duane and he wasgone. And I called back at lunch-time and said, “Duane, where areyou at?” And he said, “You didn’tneed me, you were doing fine.”So a couple of days later, I raninto an issue where lawyers raisedthe question of compromising mis-demeanors, and I’d never heardof this, and I thought somebodywas trying to pull a fast one onme to get a case dismissed. Andso I remember calling downtownand asking for assistance from mysupervisor, Fred Yeattes. I said,“Fred, I’ve got this problem.We’re in recess. The judge toldme I’ve got five minutes. Canyou give me a hand?” And hesaid, “You’re the prosecutor. Fig-ure it out.” And he hung up the

phone. That was the umbilicalcord getting cut. And that was mytrue beginning as a trial lawyer.

Judge Jones enjoyed the challenges ofworking for the King County Prosecutor’sOffice. Occasionally he would be handeda file in a case that was going to trial thatsame day, and would have to scramble toput the case on effectively. He generallyhad more time to prepare, though, and helearned how to conduct an investigation,find and call witnesses, put cases togetherand try them. He became comfortable inthe courtroom and honed his trial skills. Hehandled hundreds of misdemeanor trialsand at least 25 to 35 felony trials duringthis period.

After three years in the King CountyProsecutor’s Office, Judge Jones left in1978 to become the first staff attorney atthe Port of Seattle. In that capacity heprovided legal advice to all divisions of thePort – the Aviation Division, the Real Es-tate Division, the Port Police, and so on.He dealt with union issues, strikes and FirstAmendment claims. He worked with theWashington State Human Rights Commis-sion and the U.S. Equal Employment Op-portunity Commission. He used “every-thing he learned in law school,” and devel-oped an entirely new set of legal skills.

In 1983 he had the opportunity to partici-pate in an exchange program with one ofthe law firms that was serving as outsidecounsel for the Port, Bogle & Gates. Atthe end of the exchange period, the Boglefirm offered him a job and the Port ex-pressed a desire to keep him in a staff at-torney position and expand his role in man-agement. He had to decide whether hewanted to be a manager or whether hehad a greater passion for the practice oflaw. He took the Bogle job, and spent thenext five years at the firm practicing civilcommercial and labor litigation.

In 1988 Judge Jones moved on to the U.S.Attorney’s Office. The transition was for-

tuitous. He was in that office one day de-fending the deposition of a doctor whomhe was representing. At the end of thedeposition (and after his client had left),the prosecutor in the case took him aroundthe office to visit with former colleagues.Judge Jones said hello to some old friends,including U.S. Attorney Gene Anderson,who suggested that the Judge join his of-fice as an Assistant U.S. Attorney “and dosome real work.” Judge Jones applied forand got the job. He enjoyed the work im-mensely – largely because of the indepen-dence and responsibility that Assistant U.S.Attorneys have to direct investigations,build cases, present them at trial, and liti-gate matters on appeal.

After several years at the U.S. Attorney’sOffice, Judge Jones started to do some“soul-searching” about how long hewanted to be a litigator. He enjoyed thework, but found that fewer and fewer ofhis cases were going to trial. He appliedfor appointment to the King County Supe-rior Court, and was reviewed by variousbar committees. After King County Supe-rior Court Judge Frank L. Sullivan passedaway in July 1994, Judge Jones sent a re-quest to the Governor’s Office to be con-sidered to fill the vacancy. This was on aTuesday. Judge Jones received his appoint-ment three days later.

The following Monday, however, was thebeginning of filing week. Three other can-didates filed for the position, thinking it wasvacant, and Judge Jones found himself si-multaneously winding down his practice atthe U.S. Attorney’s Office, learning a newjob, assembling a campaign team, and cam-paigning for the seat to which he had justbeen appointed. He “campaigned likecrazy,” and won the election in the primary.He would not be challenged again.

On the Superior Court bench Judge Jonesfound himself surrounded by intense andbright colleagues with whom he quicklyestablished close friendships. The job was

22

FBA-WDWA NEWS

stimulating and demanding – particularlysince an enormous amount of paperworkcrosses a Superior Court Judge’s desk ev-ery week, and Judge Jones read every-thing that came in. “I’ve always main-tained that practice. If a pleading comesin before I go out on the bench, I will nevergo out on the bench without familiarizingmyself with the facts and the details of thecase and having enough information to talkto the lawyers.”

My typical approach now whenlawyers come in, even on sum-mary judgment motions, is beforethe lawyers say anything, I indi-cate to counsel there are severalquestions I want to make sure areanswered before we go any fur-ther. The lawyers know I’ve readthe briefings, I’ve read the plead-ings, and I’m comfortable with thefacts. That saves the lawyerstime, and they can focus on theirlegal arguments. And your court-room can be much more efficient.

Judge Jones presided over a number ofhigh-profile cases during his years on theKing County Superior Court bench. Themost famous of these was the murder trialof Gary Leon Ridgeway, the “Green RiverKiller.” Other memorable cases include atrial of six defendants charged with aggra-vated murder, one of whom overturned aheavy oak table during the trial and at-tempted to attack the Judge; and a moles-tation case in which a ten-year-old girl hadto testify against her father, who was thedefendant.

She was telling me that the onlyreason she had said anything wasbecause she didn’t want to havehappen to her little sister what hadhappened to her; but at the sametime, she felt bad because she feltit was her responsibility, and thatwas the reason why her fatherwas being sent away to prison.

This little girl cried uncontrollablyin court, and she had to go throughthe victimization process over andover and over again. That was ahorrible experience. And peopledon’t realize that, as trial judges,particularly in superior court, yousee that type of circumstance,those combinations of events, hap-pen all the time. And judges havethe responsibility of dealing withthose cases, trying to be fair, try-ing to be impartial. And at thesame time you have to walk awayand leave that at work and notcarry it with you. So those areexperiences that you remember,and it just makes you a little bitmore attentive the next time tomake sure that you’re compas-sionate.

Judge Jones approaches his new job withthe same civility and compassion that hedemonstrated on the King County Supe-rior Court bench. “The best thing aboutbeing a judge,” he says, “is having a realopportunity to have some involvement inchanging people’s lives. I can’t tell youover the years how many letters I’ve re-ceived from different individuals, whetherthey were jurors, defendants, litigants andlawyers or even witnesses, talking abouthow they were treated when they cameinto the courtroom.” Judge Jones worriesabout the erosion of judicial independence,believing that judges take their obligationsseriously and should be given the latitudeto take actions that they think are appro-priate in a given case. “Once you start totrample upon the independence of the judi-ciary to be able to make decisions,” opinesthe Judge, “I think that’s justice in jeop-ardy.”

Judge Jones’ passion for justice is reflectedin the leadership role he has played in amyriad of community organizations andprograms. Currently, he is a faculty mem-

ber at the National Judicial College and theNational Center for Courts and Media; andhe serves on the University of WashingtonLaw School Advisory Committee and theboard of directors of the YMCA of GreaterSeattle (he has held this position for almosttwenty years, and served as board presi-dent from 2000 to 2002). For the past sev-enteen years he has been a University ofWashington Law School mentor. He hasreceived numerous awards, including mostrecently the Loren Miller Bar AssociationProfessional Achievement Award (2001);the YMCA Volunteer of the Year Award(2003); the Seattle University School ofLaw Investment in Justice Award (2003);Outstanding Judge Awards from the Wash-ington State Bar Association, the Wash-ington State Trial Lawyers Association, theAsian Bar Association of Washington State,and the King County Bar Association (allin 2004); Seattle University’s Alumnus ofthe Year Award (2004); the YMCA’s A.K.Guy Award (2007); and an honorary doc-torate of humane letters from Saint Martin’sUniversity (2008).2

Judge Ricardo S. Martinez, Judge Jones’friend since law school and his new neigh-bor at the U.S. Courthouse in Seattle, ex-plains that Judge Jones is a leader in thetruest sense of the word:

Judge Jones has demonstrated anincredible commitment to thiscommunity and especially to itsyoung people. Real leadership isnot about the position one holds.It’s about the depth of one’s char-acter and commitment. JudgeJones is life tenured and will neverhave to run for election, yet hestill devotes an enormous amountof time towards helping youngpeople understand and try to real-ize their potential. The genuinepassion that he shows towards ourcommunity and its youth truly ex-emplifies leadership. I’m honored

23

FALL 2008

RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE AND CHANGESTO THE LOCAL FEDERAL RULES

By Felice P. Congalton, Joanna Plichta Boisen, and Alexander A. Baehr1

Reprinted with the permission of the Washington State Bar News

This article describes reciprocal discipline in Washington and,more specifically, its relationship to local rule changes in theUnited States District Court for the Western District of Wash-

ington. Lawyers should know that an order imposing discipline infederal district court can be the basis for the Washington StateSupreme Court to impose the same discipline, affecting a lawyer’sbroader ability to practice law in Washington state. Whether disci-pline is imposed in federal district court, or otherwise, a Washing-ton lawyer has a duty to report to disciplinary counsel the entry of adisciplinary order in another jurisdiction.

WHAT IS RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE?

Reciprocal discipline is a public proceed-ing against a lawyer who has been disci-plined in another jurisdiction to imposecorresponding discipline in Washington.Because reciprocal discipline is a publicproceeding, the record and nature of thediscipline in the other jurisdiction becomeavailable in Washington when the pro-ceeding is initiated. The rules governingreciprocal discipline make it unnecessaryto relitigate a complaint that has beenfully and finally litigated in another juris-diction.2

In Washington, Rule 9.2 of the Rules forEnforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC)provides that disciplinary counsel mustobtain a certified copy of a disciplinaryorder when notified from any source thata lawyer admitted in Washington wasdisciplined in another jurisdiction. Uponreceipt of the disciplinary order, disciplin-ary counsel must file the order with theWashington State Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court receives acertified copy of a disciplinary order, itorders the respondent lawyer to showcause why it should not impose the iden-tical discipline. With some exceptions, afinal adjudication in another jurisdictionthat a lawyer was guilty of misconductconclusively establishes the misconductfor the purposes of a disciplinary pro-ceeding. The Supreme Court will im-pose identical discipline against the law-yer unless the lawyer or disciplinarycounsel demonstrates, or the SupremeCourt finds, that there was a proceduralirregularity or infirmity in the underlyingproceeding, or other reason as describedin ELC 9.2(e)(1), that identical disciplinewould be inappropriate.

FEDERAL COURTS ARE “ANOTHER JU-RISDICTION” FOR PURPOSES OF RECIP-ROCAL DISCIPLINE

The Washington State Supreme Courthas imposed reciprocal discipline basedon disciplinary orders from a number ofstates (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colo-

to have him as a colleague on thefederal bench and even moreproud to call Richard Jones myfriend.

As a King County Superior Court Judgeand community leader, Judge Jones forgeda reputation for being smart, hard-work-ing, professional, compassionate and fair.Those qualities were instilled in him by hisparents, and nurtured by experiences thattaught him the value of hard work and theimportance of helping others overcomelife’s obstacles. They are qualities thathave earned him universal respect, and willundoubtedly make him an outstanding U.S.District Judge.

1 Duncan Manville is of counsel at Savitt &Bruce LLP, and co-chairs the Website/Communications Committee of the FederalBar Association of the Western District ofWashington.2 In addition: Judge Jones was previouslyan instructor at the United States AttorneyGeneral’s Advocacy Institute; the ExecutiveOffice of the United States Attorney inWashington, D.C.; and the WashingtonState Judicial College (where he served asdean in 1997 and 1998). He has served onthe KCBA Awards Committee, the KCBAMartin Luther King Jr. Celebration Commit-tee (which he co-chaired), the WashingtonState Minority Justice Commission, theNorthwest Minority Job Fair Committee, theKING-TV Community Advisory Forum, andthe Seattle University Board of Regents. Heco-chaired the Youth Law Forums in Yakimaand Tri-Cities. From 1987 to 1994 he chairedthe Loren Miller Bar Association Thanks-giving Food Drive. Additional awards in-clude the KCBA’s Affirmative Action Award(1991); the WSBA’s Special RecognitionAward for Furthering Equal Opportunity(1991); the U.S. Attorney’s Director’s Awardfor Superior Achievement in Furthering EqualEmployment Opportunity (1993); the SeattleUniversity Public Service Award (1995); andthe University of Washington Law SchoolAlumni Public Service Recognition Award(1995).

24

FBA-WDWA NEWS

rado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts,Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire,New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island,Wyoming), from the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands, and fromBritish Columbia. The Supreme Courtalso reciprocated discipline based on anorder in a military tribunal.

In proceedings in 2005, the WashingtonState Supreme Court reciprocated dis-cipline based on a disciplinary order sus-pending a lawyer from practice in theUnited States District Court for theWestern District of Washington. Al-though the federal district court disciplin-ary order pre-dated more comprehen-sive local rule changes in the WesternDistrict for the handling of the investiga-tion and prosecution of disciplinary pro-ceedings (as discussed below), the or-der was sufficient basis for the SupremeCourt to reciprocate discipline from “an-other jurisdiction.” Recently, proceed-ings for reciprocal discipline were initi-ated in a second case based on a disci-plinary order in the Western District.

RECENT CHANGES TO GR 2(F) IN THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

The United States District Court for theWestern District of Washington’s Gen-eral Rule (GR) 2, entitled “Attorneys,”governs professional conduct, reportingobligations, procedures, and due processrights in disciplinary actions. Enacted in1992 and amended in 1994, 1997, 2002,and 2005, the rule has been reviewedand modified over the years, but GR 2(f)received its most significant facelift in2005.3 The changes to GR 2(f) includeseveral new explanatory categories(grounds, types of discipline) and spe-cifics on the handling of grievances andinitial investigations, appointment of spe-cial disciplinary counsel, immunity, no-tice and hearing, confidentiality, imposi-

tion of discipline, and reciprocal disci-pline.

Although the old rule briefly discussedthe consequences and rights of an attor-ney facing disciplinary action before thecourt, it did not expound on the variousgrounds for discipline and the attorney’srights in such proceedings. The 2005rule, however, plainly lists all of thegrounds on which an attorney may besubject to disciplinary actions and theattorney’s procedural rights. The attor-ney discipline section includes a list ofsanctions (disbarment, suspension, in-terim suspension, reprimand, admonition,probation, restitution, payment of fines/costs, referral to another appropriate dis-ciplinary authority) and Standards of Pro-fessional Conduct (the District’s LocalRules, the Rules of Professional Con-duct, Federal Rules of Civil and Crimi-nal Procedure, General Orders of theCourt). Grounds for discipline includeviolations of the Standards of Profes-sional Conduct, discipline by another au-thority, conviction of a felony or a mis-demeanor involving dishonesty or corrup-tion,4 and misrepresentation or conceal-ment of a material fact made in an appli-cation for admission to the court, or in apro hac vice or reinstatement applica-tion.

RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE: REPORTING

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ATTORNEYS

WHO PRACTICE IN THE WESTERN DIS-TRICT

Similar to ELC 9.2, GR 2(f) provides thata lawyer disciplined elsewhere can bedisciplined in the Western District. Thereciprocal discipline section of GR 2(f)incorporates discipline by any other ju-risdiction, which includes “any federal orstate court, bar association or other gov-erning authority of any state, territory,possession, or the District of Columbia,or any other governing authority or ad-

ministrative body which regulates thepractice of attorneys.” An attorney sub-ject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of thecourt in the Western District has an af-firmative obligation to provide the clerkof the court with a copy of the otherjurisdiction’s disciplinary letter, notice, ororder. For purposes of the reciprocaldiscipline section, discipline refers to dis-barment, suspension, or disciplinary ac-tion that temporarily or permanently de-prives an attorney of the right to prac-tice law. In addition, if an attorney re-signs from the bar of any other jurisdic-tion while disciplinary proceedings arepending in that jurisdiction, the attorneymust notify the clerk of the court.

CONDUCT IN FEDERAL COURT THAT

COULD LEAD TO DISCIPLINE AND RE-CIPROCAL DISCIPLINE

Among other things, GR 2(f) containsStandards of Professional Conduct thatmust be followed. There are a numberof unique aspects to federal practicewhich, if not understood, could lead toviolations of those standards, disciplinein federal district court, and subsequentreciprocal discipline by the WashingtonState Supreme Court. Two of these as-pects (involving local counsel assign-ments and declarant signatures) relatedto practice in the Western District ofWashington are highlighted below.

Local counsel practice has become anever-growing need as matters in theWestern District of Washington increasein complexity, size, and geography. Be-fore accepting a local counsel assign-ment, lawyers should be aware of theobligations imposed by the WesternDistrict’s Local Rules. GR 2 imposesspecific obligations on a lawyer whoagrees to act as local counsel for a for-eign non-admitted lawyer in a specificcase. GR 2(d) requires the local coun-sel (and not the pro hac vice admitted

25

FALL 2008

counsel) to “sign all pleadings” that arefiled with the court and to comply withCivil Rule (CR) 10(e).5 Because localcounsel is required to sign all filed plead-ings, it becomes local counsel’s respon-sibility to ensure compliance with ruleslike Federal Rule of Civil Procedure(Fed. R. Civ. P.) 11 and Local Civil Rule37.

An example of the importance of thisobligation on local counsel involves dis-covery of electronically stored informa-tion (ESI). Typically, the lawyer withthe primary client relationship managesthe discovery process. However, in alocal counsel setting, the ESI discoveryprocess might not be managed by thelocal counsel but by the pro hac vicecounsel who presumably has the primaryattorney-client relationship. Nonetheless,it is the local counsel’s responsibility un-der GR 2(d) to ensure that the pro hacvice counsel complies with the federalrules regarding ESI, and local practiceon discovery. In a recent case, a fed-eral district court imposed sanctions un-der Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) and 37 againsta lawyer and his client for failure to pro-duce ESI in a timely manner.6 The dis-trict court ordered the defendant eitherto produce certain documents or to sub-mit a sworn declaration that the recordsdid not exist. The defendant submitteda sworn declaration from a senior em-ployee stating that the specific documentsdid not exist, but the statement was in-accurate. If facts similar to R & R Sailsare presented in a matter in the WesternDistrict with local counsel representa-tion, local counsel could be accountableunder GR 2(d).

In another aspect of local federal prac-tice, pleadings are filed easily through theWestern District’s Electronic Case Fil-ing (ECF) system. It has now becomecommonplace to secure “electronic sig-natures” from declarants, which are

viewed as originals when filed with thecourt. However, under the court’s ECFguidelines, the filing party must keep thepaper document with “original” signa-tures for the duration of the case andany appeals. A responding party canobject to the authenticity of the declara-tion, or the authenticity of the signature,within 10 days of filing.7 Securing theoriginal signed declaration at the time offiling ensures that the lawyer submittingthe declaration has been candid with thecourt and opposing counsel in terms ofhaving an original signed declaration. Bycontrast, failure to secure the original sig-nature could lead to claims that a decla-ration was submitted without the author-ity of the declarant and could lead toaction against the lawyer, including dis-ciplinary action by the court.

CONCLUSION

The local federal rules concerning law-yer discipline have changed considerablyin recent years. Lawyers should beaware that misconduct in federal districtcourt may be treated for disciplinary pur-poses like misconduct committed by thelawyer in another state. In addition todiscipline in federal district court, themisconduct can lead to reciprocal disci-pline by the Washington State SupremeCourt.

1 Felice P. Congalton is senior disciplinarycounsel with the Washington State Bar As-sociation, and a member of the Ethics andPractice Committee of the Federal Bar As-sociation of the Western District of Wash-ington. Joanna Plichta Boisen is pro bonolegal counsel at Foster Pepper PLLC, amember of the Ethics and Practice Commit-tee, and Co-Chair of the FBA-WDWA’sWebsite/Communications Committee.Alexander A. Baehr is a partner at Dorsey& Whitney LLP, and co-chair of the Ethicsand Practice Committee.

2 See In re Disciplinary Proceeding AgainstDann, 136 Wn.2d 67, 85-86, 960 P.2d 416(1998) (quoting In re Disciplinary Proceed-ing Against Immelt, 119 Wn.2d 369, 371, 831P.2d 736 (1992)).3 The rule has increased from one-and-a-halfpages to more than five pages and containsmany more detailed explanations.4 This includes those matters listed in ELC7.1(a)(2)(B)–(C).5 CR 10(e) imposes formatting obligationsfor all pleadings submitted in the WesternDistrict, which are familiar to those lawyerswho practice regularly in the Western Dis-trict but possibly new to lawyers admittedpro hac vice. It remains the local counsel’sobligation to ensure compliance with thisrule, regardless of whether pro hac vice coun-sel files the at-issue pleading.6 See R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 2008WL 2232640 (S.D. Cal. April 18, 2008).7 See United States District Court, WesternDistrict of Washington ECF User’s Manualat 21–22.

26

FBA-WDWA ANNOUNCESSLATE OF OFFICERS

AND TRUSTEES

The Federal Bar Association of theWestern District of Washington hasannounced its proposed slate of of-ficers and trustees for 2008-2009.The slate is:

President:Stuart R. Dunwoody

Vice-President:J. Kirkham (Kirk) Johns

Treasurer:Jane E. Pearson

Secretary:Alexander A. Baehr

Trustees:Ivy D. AraiFrederick B. Rivera

FBA-WDWA NEWS

MILITARY HISTORY MEETS CURRENTEVENTS IN POWERFUL ANNUAL

DISTRICT MEETING AND CLE

By David B. Bukey and Judith H. Ramseyer1

PLENARY SESSION: ON AMERICAN SOIL

– A PANEL DISCUSSION

The opening session was moderated byHarry H. Schneider, Jr., who has beendeeply involved in current military jus-tice issues through his pro bono repre-sentation of Salim Hamdan, aGuantanamo Bay detainee. Panel par-ticipants included Mr. Hamann; ChiefJudge Robert S. Lasnik; Professor Eliza-beth Hillman, a scholar and expert onMilitary Law from UC Hastings College

A highlight of the year in the Western District of Washington wasthe Annual District Meeting that took place on May 9 at theUnited States Courthouse in Seattle. A packed house of over

120 people attended the meeting. An opening plenary session reviewedthe famous 1944 court martial of 43 African-American soldiers at FortLawton in Seattle following a riot in which an Italian prisoner of warhad been found hanged. The panel for the session was lead by JackHamann, a local journalist and author of the prize-winning book OnAmerican Soil: How Justice Became a Casualty of World War II.The book explores the themes of justice in times of war and stress,possible wrongful convictions, the limits of appropriate conduct byprosecutors and others, and reforms that followed what is generallyconsidered to be a low point in the annals of military law. Break-outpanel sessions pursued two of those themes in-depth. One panel dealtwith developments in military law, with particular emphasis on currentissues associated with the War on Terror and the conflict in Iraq, andthe other panel addressed the work of the Innocence Project, featuringas part of a distinguished panel Herman Atkins, an exoneree who spenttwelve years in prison for crimes he did not commit. Judges, lawyersand other attendees uniformly praised the event as perhaps the bestseminar presented at any District Meeting.

of the Law; and Howard D.E. Noyd,retired general counsel for Unigard In-surance, who served as one of the de-fense attorneys in the 1944 court mar-tial. Mr. Hamann described the eventsof the 1944 riot, the ensuing military trialand its participants, and his effort to un-earth and expose the injustices that hadoccurred – an effort that succeededthrough research, extensive personal in-terviews of participants and their rela-tives, and discovery of an InspectorGeneral’s report that had only been made

available to the prosecution during thetrial and had subsequently been buriedin the national Archives for four decades.

The lead prosecutor in the 1944 courtmartial was Leon Jaworski, who wenton to great fame and distinction, notablyas special prosecutor in the Watergatecase. The lead defense counsel wasWilliam T. Beeks, who later served formany years as a distinguished U.S. Dis-trict Judge for the Western District ofWashington. The defense had less thantwo weeks to prepare for trial. Mr. Noydconfirmed Mr. Hamann’s descriptions ofhis and Judge Beeks’ efforts to defend,in a very compressed time frame, forty-three clients (including three facing thedeath penalty) with frequently-conflict-ing defenses. Twenty-eight of the sol-diers charged in the case were convictedof offenses ranging from rioting to man-slaughter. The discussion traced thedefense’s successful efforts to save thelives of the three murder defendants, andthe eventual exoneration of all twenty-eight convicted soldiers. ProfessorHillman and Judge Lasnik provided in-sight about reforms to the Code of Mili-tary Justice that were implemented inpart as a result of this court martial, andthe overall changes that have occurredin the delivery of justice since 1944. Thesense of history, especially vignettes ofa segregated society that existed not toolong ago; the poignancy of the events,personified by Mr. Noyd, an actual par-ticipant; and Mr. Hamann’s relentless ef-forts to unearth the true story of this trialand its aftermath, created a stunning andpowerful presentation.

BREAKOUT SESSION ON MILITARY LAW

The breakout session on military law wasmoderated by Jenny A. Durkan. It fea-tured former JAG officer and currentU.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle;Professor Hillman, author of the book

27

FALL 2008

Defending America: Military Cultureand the Cold War Court-Martial; andLt. Commander Brian Mizer of the U.S.Navy JAG Corps, who, along with Mr.Schneider, represented Mr. Hamdan.The panel captivated the audience witha discussion of the history of the courtsmartial system and its influence on anddifferences from the military tribunalsystem for “enemy combatants.” Thepanelists debated whether a separate tri-bunal system was needed when both thefederal courts and the courts martial sys-tem have been successfully employed toprosecute many high-profile cases in-volving classified information and nationalsecurity. The corrosive effects of politi-cal pressure to obtain convictions werediscussed, along with worrisome issuessurrounding the use of evidence alleg-edly obtained by torture.

BREAKOUT SESSION ON THE INNOCENCE

PROJECT

This breakout session was led by Tho-mas W. Hillier, II, Federal Defender forthe Western District of Washington. Join-ing the discussion were ProfessorJacqueline McMurtrie from the Univer-sity of Washington Law School, Mr.Atkins, and U.S. District Judge RobertJ. Bryan. Professor McMurtrie de-scribed the work of the InnocenceProject Northwest, which has obtainedthe exoneration of eleven people sent toprison for crimes they had not commit-ted. Professor McMurtrie outlined cer-tain factors – including some present inthe Fort Lawton trial – that research hasshown contribute to wrongful convictions.Mr. Atkins discussed his own situation(conviction for rapes he had not com-mitted and twelve years in prison beforehis release), the efforts of the InnocenceProject on his behalf, and his ultimateexoneration through the use of DNA evi-dence. He also described the LIFEFoundation, a group that he founded with

his wife to help exonerees with basic ne-cessities as they attempt to reintegrateinto their communities. Judge Bryan, atrial judge for almost 40 years, offeredhighly insightful observations about thebalances and tensions that exist in thedelivery of justice. He described hisexperiences with death penalty cases, in-cluding a case in which he granted ha-beas corpus relief to a petitioner undersentence of death.

DONATIONS TO THE 1944 FORT

LAWTON COURTS-MARTIAL TRIBUTE

AND THE LIFE FOUNDATION

Due to the powerful effect of the Dis-trict Meeting and in view of its great suc-cess, the Ninth Circuit Lawyer Repre-sentatives in attendance contributed$1,000 to the 1944 Fort Lawton Courts-Martial Tribute and $1,000 to the LIFE

Foundation. These sums were matchedby the Federal Bar Association of theWestern District of Washington, for atotal contribution of $2,000 to each group.Monies donated to the 1944 Fort LawtonCourts-Martial Tribute helped bring thefew surviving veterans of the court mar-tial and their family members to Seattlein July 2008 for a ceremony in which anArmy representative formally apologizedfor “a grievous wrong.”

1 David B. Bukey owns the Law Offices ofDavid B. Bukey, and serves as a Co-Chairof the Ninth Circuit Lawyer Representa-tives. Judith H. Ramseyer owns the LawOffices of Judith H. Ramseyer PLLC. Shealso serves as an At-Large Member of theNinth Circuit Conference Executive Com-mittee, and chairs the Pro Bono Committeeof the Federal Bar Association of the West-ern District of Washington.

28

PUBLIC NOTICEREGARDING REAPPOINTMENT OF INCUMBENT

PART-TIME U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAN BRETT IN THEWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT BELLINGHAM

The current four-year term of office of part-time U.S. Magistrate Judge Dean Brett is due toexpire on June 22, 2009. The U.S. District Court is required by law to establish a panel ofcitizens to consider the reappointment of the Magistrate Judge to a new four-year term.

The duties of the part-time Magistrate Judge position include the following: (1) trial anddisposition of petty and misdemeanor cases arising from Whidbey Island Naval Air Station;(2) conduct of regular calendars involving charges of traffic offenses and violations of parkregulations in Mt. Baker National Park, and in other areas within federal jurisdiction; (3)conduct of various preliminary proceedings in criminal cases. The jurisdiction of the Part-Time Magistrate Judge is specified in 28 U.S.C. 636(a).

Comments from members of the bar and the public are invited as to whether the incumbentMagistrate Judge should be recommended by the panel for reappointment by the court andshould be directed to:

Bruce Rifkin, District Court ExecutiveUnited States Courthouse

700 Stewart Street, Lobby LevelSeattle, Washington 98101

Or by e-mail at brett_reappoint@wawd.uscourts.gov

Comments must be received no later than December 31, 2008.

FBA-WDWA NEWS

LAWYERS AND JUDGES GATHER INSUN VALLEY FOR NINTH CIRCUIT

JUDICIAL CONFERENCEBy Paula T. Olson1

In the arid beauty of Idaho’s Sun Valley, Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski graciously hosted his firstNinth Circuit Judicial Conference in late July 2008.

This year’s conference had many high-lights. One was a review of the Ninth Cir-cuit cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Courtduring its 2007-2008 term. Although theSupreme Court reversed in eight of the tenNinth Circuit cases it reviewed, other cir-cuits’ statistics showed identical or higher

reversal rates. It was also reported that ofthe 71 cases the Supreme Court decidedin 2007-2008, Justice Clarence Thomaswrote the most opinions, and Chief JusticeJohn Roberts voted with the majority mostoften.

A session entitled “Executive Power: Doesthe President Have to Obey the Law?”included very interesting historical andmodern perspectives on the constitutionalpowers granted to the President. In an-other session, an extremely qualified panel

that trial skills and oral advocacy do notbecome lost arts.

A presentation on the nature of fires in thewestern United States was both comfort-ing and scary – comforting because fire isa necessary and curative natural process,and scary because overdevelopment hasradically changed how long and hot mod-ern fires burn and how dangerous fire fight-ing is today. The panel presentation in-cluded vivid descriptions of life on the fireline. During the presentation Judge Rich-ard R. Clifton was dressed in the multipleprotective layers of the average fire fighter.

One of the high points of the conferencewas a conversation with U.S. SupremeCourt Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Hegave attendees wonderful insights into his

of experts discussed the impact of televi-sion forensic shows (such as Crime SceneInvestigation, or CSI) on jurors in the court-room. Research suggests that good trialattorneys must be very aware of the hugeinfluence that television can have on ju-rors’ deliberations.

In the collaborative session, entitled “Break-fast with the Bench,” the participants dis-cussed whether experienced lawyers andjudicial officers are effectively training newlawyers in the skills of trial and argument.The question arises because alternativedispute resolution procedures have dramati-cally reduced the number of trials in fed-eral court, and because written motionseliminate most oral arguments. While noclear conclusions were drawn, explora-tion of the issues made attendees muchmore aware of their obligation to ensure

personal life, suggested a “must read” booklist for aspiring attorneys, and shared hisviews of current events and work on thecourt and abroad.

Finally, congratulations to Judith Ramseyerfor her election to a three-year term on theLawyer Representative Coordinating Com-mittee as an “at large” member.

1 Paula T. Olson is an associate with Burgess Fitzer P.S.,and serves as a Ninth Circuit Lawyer Representative.

29

Judge Marsha A. Pechman, Jenny A. Durkan,Judge Barbara J. Rothstein Tracy M. Morris, Judith H. Ramseyer, Judge Richard A. Jones

FALL 2008

ANNUAL DINNER AND CLE

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008The Fairmont Olympic Hotel, 411 University Street, Seattle, Washington

FEDERAL PRACTICE CLE1:00 P.M. TO 5:00 P.M.; $130 FBA members; $150 non-members ($100 public interest/government)

Promoting the Useful Arts: Invention, Innovation, and the Reformation of Patent Law and Policy. Article I, Section8, of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing exclusive rights to inventorsfor limited times. Congress is considering significant reforms to patent law, while the U.S. Supreme Court has been unusually active in the field,remaking patent law in a series of major decisions over the past three years. At the same time, new models and approaches for promoting inventionand innovation have emerged. How are the changes in the law affecting inventors and innovators? How do we strike the right balance to promotethe useful arts?

Ramsey Al-Salam, Perkins Coie LLPHon. James P. Donohue, U.S. Magistrate Judge

John J. Murphy, T-Mobile USA, Inc.Nathan Myhrvold, Intellectual Ventures, LLC (invited)

Brooke A. M. Taylor, Susman Godfrey LLP

Immigration Law and Enforcement in the Federal Courts: How Is It Working? Our immigration laws, policies, andpractices intersect with the federal courts in a variety of ways. On the criminal side, immigration enforcement focuses on the illegal reentry of alienswho have committed crimes and then been deported from the United States, although cases involving alien smuggling and the employment of illegalaliens capture a greater share of public attention. On the civil side, there have been notable challenges to the administrative aspects of ourimmigration laws, including lawsuits filed in this district challenging lengthy detentions and delays in the processing of citizenship applications.Since September 11, 2001, pressures on immigration law and enforcement have mounted. How are the courts handling these matters?

Rita V. Latsinova, Stoel Rives LLPHon. Ricardo S. Martinez, U.S. District Judge

Brian C. Kipnis, U.S. Attorney’s OfficeHon. Brian A. Tsuchida, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Shaping the Courts: Presidential Efforts to Mold the Judiciary. U.S. Presidents have taken varying approaches to their powerto nominate judges to serve on the federal courts. Some have sought to implement their own politics in the judicial branch, while others have takenless ideological approaches. What approaches have we seen in the past? What are we likely to see from our new President-Elect?

Jenny A. Durkan, Attorney at LawHon. Betty Binns Fletcher, U.S. Circuit Judge

Linda Greenhouse, Yale Law SchoolMichael D. McKay, McKay Chadwell, PLLC

Local Rules Update. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington is adopting revisions to the Local Rules. Judge Robart andMagistrate Judge Theiler will provide us with the highlights of those revisions, which include significant changes to the procedures for sealed filings.

Hon. James L. Robart, U.S. District JudgeHon. Mary Alice Theiler, U.S. Magistrate Judge

ANNUAL RECEPTION AND DINNERReception 5:30 p.m., Dinner 7:00 p.m.; $110 per person

Guest Speaker

Linda GreenhouseKnight Journalist-in-Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Senior Fellow in Law, Yale Law School,

Supreme Court correspondent, New York Times, 1978-2008

REGISTER AT www.fba-wdwash.org

30

FBA-WDWA NEWS

FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATIONof the Western District of Washington

OFFICERSPresident

Tracy M. Morris (206) 992-7594

Vice PresidentStuart R. Dunwoody (206) 757-8034

SecretaryJames P. Savitt (206) 749-0500

TreasurerJ. Kirkham (Kirk) Johns (206) 623-9900

Immediate Past-PresidentSteve Y. Koh (206) 359-8530

TRUSTEES Jennifer E. WellmanAnn Marie Bender

Spencer HallBrett A. Purtzer

Renee C. Warren

COMMITTEE CHAIRSAdmiralty

Scott E. Collins James R. WoeppelADR

Spencer Hall J. Kirkham JohnsAppellate Practice

Kathleen M. (Katie) O’SullivanBankruptcy

Jane E. PearsonCLE

Floyd G. ShortCourt Services and WSBA Liaison

Lish WhitsonCriminal Law

Kristine A. Costello Tessa M. GormanEthics and Practice

Alexander A. Baehr Merrilee A. MacLeanFederal Appointments

John S. CongaltonIntellectual Property

Robert A. MedvedLocal Rules

Mark M. Hough Karl J. QuackenbushMembership

Maria A. Milano Katriana L. (Katy) SamiljanNominationsBrian Kipnis

Pro BonoJudith H. Ramseyer

Website/CommunicationsDuncan Manville Joanna Plichta Boisen

FBA-WDWA NEWS

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDSEATTLE, WA

PERMIT NO. 3466