Whacked Out on Blackberrys in Depositions

DEFENSE NEWS
F i gh ti n g for Just ic e and B alanc e in Civil Cour t s
Whacked Out on
Blackberrys in Depositions
By Jerold S. Solovy and Robert L. Byman, Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL
Summer 2008
IN THIS ISSUE
The JAMS Commitment
to Improving Our
Communities
5
New Members
7
Meet Your New
Board Members
8
And the Defense Wins
9
You have seen this guy. Maybe you are this guy. Driving down the highway at
65 miles per hour, steadying the steering wheel with the backs of his hands so
that he can thumb in the answer to that e-mail he just got, his wife screaming
at him to stop texting while driving, he weaves just a tad into your lane as his
attention is 90 percent on BlackBerry®, 8 percent on driving, 2 percent on distractions like his suffering wife. You honk to get him back into his own lane.
He doesn’t hear you. He is in the zone. He is whacked out on a BlackBerry
high — high on CrackBerry.
“CrackBerry” was the 2006 Webster’s New World College Dictionary “New
Word of the Year.” We are addicted to these devices. Yeah, we say, but we are
addicted to air and water and food; this is a natural addiction, a good addiction. Our BlackBerrys keep us connected. We are in a service business and
these wonderful devices let us render service to our clients in real time, every
waking moment. But here is a caution — when we use them at a deposition to
check and return and compose e-mails, we may be violating ethical rules.
Blackberry Addiction May Impact Our Diligence
President’s Column:
Riding Off Into
the Sunset...
11
Current Officers
14
WDTL Membership
Application
15
Upcoming Events
16
We did not come to this view on our own; we were too busy sending and receiving messages on our BlackBerrys. We were provoked to thought by David
Schott of Alton, Ill., who, in the May 2008 Illinois State Bar Association Trial
Briefs suggests — well, no, he more than suggests, he flat out opines — that
the use of a BlackBerry during a deposition is a violation of an attorney’s duties
to use reasonable diligence and charge reasonable fees. And with David’s wakeup call, we have temporarily sobered up from our BlackBerry stupor to think
this through. Join us. Come on, we know how hard it is. Put your BlackBerry
down and rest your thumbs, just for a minute. Read on and think with us.
Now, part of the problem is not ethics but manners. We don’t belong to
country clubs, but we understand that most of them ban BlackBerrys and cell
phones. (That isn’t the reason we don’t belong — we just don’t play the game.)
But why? Cell phones we easily understand — an untimely ring or conversation could actually distract a golfer. But silent thumbing?
Well, these devices are banned because it is bad form, it is rude, to attend to
business when one ought to be enjoying one’s time in a sand trap. And if it is
rude on a golf course, how about in a courtroom? How many judges will perContinued on Page 2
Editor: Grant Lingg
Editor: Jody K. Reich
T. 206.689.8500 | F. 206.689.8501 [email protected]
T. 425.275.0551 | F. 425.776.2467 [email protected]
www.wdtl.org
Blackberrys From Page 1
DEFENSE NEWS
Editors
Grant Lingg
Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S.
206.689.8500
206.689.8501
900 4th Avenue,
Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98164-1039
[email protected]
Jody K. Reich
Dethlefs Sparwasser, PLLC
(425) 275-0551 (direct)
(425) 776-2467 (fax)
115 Second Avenue North,
Suite 100
Edmonds, WA 98020
[email protected]
Editorial Board
Manish Borde
Williams, Kastner &
Gibbs PLLC
Suite 4100
601 Union St
Seattle WA 98101
[email protected]
William L. Cameron
Lee Smart, P.S., Inc.
1800 One Convention Place
701 Pike Street
Seattle WA 98101-3929
[email protected]
Melody D. Farance
Stamper, Rubens,
Stocker & Smith
Post Place, Suite 200
720 W Boone
Spokane WA 99201
[email protected]
Nathan L. Furman
Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S.
Ste 1700
901 Fifth Ave
Seattle WA 98164
[email protected]
Melissa Kay Habeck
Forsberg & Umlauf
Suite 1700
901 5th Ave
Seattle WA 98164-2050
[email protected]
Carol Sue Janes
Bennett Bigelow Leedom, P.S.
Suite 1900
1700 Seventh Ave
Seattle WA 98101
[email protected]
Marc A. Johnston
Prange Law Group
Suite 2120
111 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland WA 97204
[email protected]
Laurie D. Kohli
Porter, Kohli & LeMaster, P.S.
Suite 2600
1301 Fifth Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2622
[email protected]
Bert W Markovich
Schwabe Williamson &
Wyatt, P.C.
Suite 3010
1420 5th Ave
Seattle WA 98101-3944
[email protected]
Michelle Menely
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell,
Malanca, Peterson &
Daheim LLP
Suite 2100
600 University St
Seattle WA 98101-1176
[email protected]
Peter E. Meyers
Durham & Meyers, P.C.
1524 Alaskan Way, Suite 100
Seattle WA 98101-3531
[email protected]
mit you to whip out your BlackBerry during live testimony at a trial? Most
judges ban BlackBerrys not out of concern for ethical considerations, but
because their use is an affront to the decorum of the court.
And since a deposition is essentially an extension of the courtroom, are the
rules any different? Well, yes. There’s no one wearing a robe at the deposition. So is it rude to use a BlackBerry at a deposition? Maybe. Probably. But
so what? Get over it. But is it unethical?
You have seen this guy. Maybe you are this guy. The guy who interrupts
the deposition to have a question and answer re-read because he didn’t hear
it. Everyone there knows he didn’t hear it because he was distracted by the
e-mails he was reading and sending — a self-created distraction because he
chose to text rather than listen.
OK, you ask reasonably, what’s the big deal? Multitasking is a virtue. Depositions move at a glacial
pace­— 99 percent of the time you can pay reasonably full Continued
attention
on while
Next Page
Stacy J. Plotkin-Wolff
George W. McLean, Jr
& Associates
Suite 1600
720 Olive Way
Seattle WA 98101-1890
Stacy.Plotkin-wolff.L6PH@
statefarm.com
Jeremy H. Rogers
Forsberg & Umlauf, PS
Suite 1700
901 Fifth Avenue
Seattle WA 98164
[email protected]
Michael H. Runyan
Lane Powell PC
Suite 4100
1420 Fifth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101-2338
[email protected]
Margaret Sundberg
Williams Kastner & Gibbs
601 Union St., Ste 4100
Seattle WA 98111-3926
[email protected]
Thomas D. Underbrink
Enumclaw Insurance Group
1460 Wells St
Enumclaw WA 98022
[email protected]
Christopher M. Veley
Jordan Schrader Ramis PC
Suite 380
1498 SE Tech Center Place
Vancouver WA 98683
[email protected]
Coreen R. Wilson
Allstate & Encompass
Staff Counsel
Ste 830
901 Fifth Ave
Seattle WA 98164
[email protected]
The Defense News is published bi-monthly by the Washington Defense Trial
Lawyers, c/o WDTL, 701 Pike St., Ste 2200, Seattle WA 98101. All rights
reserved. Reproduction of any material appearing herein without permission
is prohibited. SUBSCRIPTION: Included in dues of all active members.
EDITORIAL POLICY: Defense News is edited for members of the Washington
Defense Trial Lawyers. Publishing and editorial decisions are based on the
editors’ judgment of the quality of the writing, the timeliness of the article,
and the potential interest to Defense News readers. The views expressed in the
Defense News are those of the authors and may not reflect the official policy or
position of WDTL or Defense News. SUBMISSIONS: All submissions must
be typewritten, double-spaced (including citations). Include with the article
an electronic format – either by email or disk. Articles may be submitted to
[email protected] or [email protected]. ADVERTISING: All
advertising inquiries should be directed to: Kristin Lewis, 701 Pike St.,
Suite 2200, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 749-0319 or e-mail: [email protected]
Defense News does not screen its advertisers/advertisements and does not vouch for
the quality of the services offered for sale herein.
2
Summer 2008
Blackberrys From Page 2
simultaneously editing a brief or
practicing piano etudes. But let’s look
at the Rule. Rule 1.3 of the ABA
Model Rules of Professional Conduct
requires that “A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” If you
aren’t listening to the deposition, are
you being diligent? If you are listening with one ear but your brain and
thumbs are engrossed in other pursuits, are you being diligent?
Well, maybe. Multitasking — on
task — is not a bad thing. Using
technology during a deposition is
not merely permissible — it may be
a necessary component of diligent
representation. Surely, no one would
fault you if you listened with one ear
while you used your laptop to search
for other testimony or documents
that you need to use to rehabilitate or
cross-examine the witness in light of
an answer just given. No one could
fault you if you used your BlackBerry
to e-mail your partner back at the
office to ask him to feed you information you need in light of what you
just heard in the deposition. Diligence might require that you use the
tools available to you to find materials
you need for an effective examination.
So let’s say that during the deposition
of your client, Dee Fendant, you need
the question and answer repeated
because you were distracted by the
e-mails you were sending. “Bob —
Dee just shown draft agreement dated
5/5/07 w/o Bates nos — bad language re price issue. Did they produce
in discovery? Can we explain?”...
“Jerry — no, haven’t seen it. But we
have a later 5/7/07 signed term sheet
with price language we like; will
messenger copies to U for use during cross.” Did you fail in your duty
WDTL STAFF
of diligence by letting your attention
slip in order to BlackBerry? Of course
not. You were the duke of diligence,
the count of competence — you used
the BlackBerry to serve your client
and enhance his testimony.
What? Sorry, where were we? We were
just responding to an e-mail. Oh, yes,
we were talking about intramultitasking. We were talking about the risk
of distraction from the task at hand
in order to address the big picture for
that same client. But the issue is different for intermultitasking.
When you distract yourself from
representing the client at the deposition in order to serve a different
client — or if you distract yourself in
order to check the Cubs score or the
stock market, what then? Well, then,
there may be a real problem.
Why? Well, two reasons. First, if
you daydream on your own, who’s
to know? But when you use your
BlackBerry to daydream, you have
made a public expression of your lack
of attention to the deposition, and
you have created an electronic record
of your dalliance. Second, if you use
your BlackBerry to attend to the work
of a different client, you have created
an ethical minefield when you bill
your time.
You arrive at the deposition at 9
a.m.; you break at noon and resume
at 1 p.m.; the deposition adjourns
at 4 p.m. How much do you bill for
attending the deposition? Well, duh.
Six hours. No one will fault you for
billing the full number of hours without deduction for the few minutes
for restroom breaks and coffee refills
and, yes, a few random daydreams
about how maybe this is the year for
the Cubs.
Member Services
David Penrose
4141 Agate Road
Bellingham WA 98226-8745
Phone: (206) 529-4128
Fax: (206) 202-3776
Email: [email protected]
Accounting
Jackie Mintz
PO Box 27644
Seattle WA 98125-2644
Phone: (206) 522-6496
Email: [email protected]
Executive Director
Kristin Lewis
701 Pike Street, Suite 2200
Seattle WA 98101
Phone: (206) 749-0319
Fax: (206) 749-0321
Email: [email protected]
But now let’s throw in BlackBerry
reality. During the deposition, you
receive 80 e-mails. Fifty of these offer
you mortgage refinancing or bedroom-performance-enhancing drugs;
you delete them based on their mere
headers. Twenty of these are routine
firm memos, conflict checks and the
like; you quickly read and delete them
except for a small few you make a
quick response to. Ten are substantive for a variety of different clients;
you respond to each. Now, how many
hours do you bill for the deposition?
If your answer is still six, think again.
No Fee Deduction for E-Mail Time?
Is That Reasonable?
Rule 1.5 of the ABA Model Rules
of Professional Conduct requires
that a lawyer’s fees be reasonable. It
might — it might — be reasonable to
include a provision in a fee agreement
that the client will pay a reasonable
Continued on Page 4
Summer 2008
3
Blackberrys From Page 3
per-hour amount for time substantially devoted to the client without
deduction for incidental distractions
such as e-mails.
But the typical fee arrangement simply recites that the client will be billed
an agreed hourly rate for time actually
expended.
So if you bill six hours — without
deducting the time it took for you to
address those 80 e-mails — are you
being reasonable? Well, maybe, if you
were able to do all of that while not
missing a single word of the deposition. But if you did miss
something — in fact if the deposition was prolonged to repeat stuff you
missed, is it reasonable to bill for the
full six hours?
4
And what if you bill those other
clients for whom you exchanged
substantive e-mails? Now you may
have a real problem, unless you give
a corresponding deduction to your
deposition client. In In the Matter
of Hall Adams III, Commission, No.
05 CH 30, 2006 Ill. Atty. Reg. Disc.
Lexis 74 (2006), Adams represented
three separate clients whose cases were
consolidated.
Each time he appeared in court, he
billed each of the three clients for the
same, full amount of court time. Each
client received an hour’s worth of value
for each hour charged, but the Disciplinary Commission found it unreasonable to bill threefold for the same hour.
Adams was suspended from the practice
of law for 5 1/2 months.
Summer 2008
We don’t intend to stop using our
BlackBerrys during intimate moments
with our wives.
But we are going to try to use them
more judiciously at depositions, and
we are going to be very careful about
our billing.
We have to go now. We have dozens
of e-mails to attend to that backed up
while we wrote this article and our
restless thumbs can idle no longer.
Reprinted with permission from the
June 19 edition of the National Law
Journal © 2008 ALM Properties, Inc.
All rights reserved. Further duplication
without permission is prohibited.
Jerold S. Solovy and Robert L. Byman
are fellows of the American College of
Trial Lawyers and partners at Chicago’s
Jenner & Block.
The JAMS Commitment to Improving Our Communities
The non-profit JAMS Foundation is
proud to have provided grants to the
CRU Institute of Seattle. Last year,
the Institute released a training DVD
aimed at teaching America’s inner city
youth how to resolve peer conflict. The
DVD, produced by award-winning
filmmaker Roy Campanella, is the third
in a series of peer mediation training
DVDs funded by JAMS Foundation
grants and released nationwide by CRU
Institute.
CRU Institute (www.cruinstitute.org)
provides school-wide conflict resolution and peer mediation programs
for faculty, students, and parents at
elementary, middle and high schools.
It is these types of projects that the
JAMS Foundation funds in order
to promote conflict prevention and
resolution. Grants such as these have
local, national, and international
impact.
For nearly thirty years, JAMS has
played a leading role in the evolution of alternative dispute resolution.
Since opening for business in 1979,
the company has been committed to
developing constructive approaches to
preventing, managing, and resolving
disputes.
through court programs, pro bono
service agencies, and for the general
public.
As their collective effort to share their
success and expertise in the public
interest spread among JAMS neutrals,
the company responded by creating
the JAMS Foundation, which provides financial assistance for innovative conflict resolution initiatives.
The non-profit JAMS Foundation
is funded entirely by contributions
from JAMS Panelists and employee
Associates, a reflection of the company’s commitment to maintaining
neutrality in all of its efforts, including its public service. The Foundation
currently has over 160 contributors,
most of whom donate at least 1%
of their JAMS income to support its
efforts.
Since 2002, the Foundation has
granted more than $1.8 million to
non-profit organizations throughout
the U.S. engaged in conflict resolution education and ADR-based
community service. The grants,
typically ranging from $5,000 to
$50,000, have supported a wide range
of worthwhile initiatives, including
ADR education at all levels, from
peer mediation for elementary and
middle school students to advanced
training for court officers and public
policymakers. The Foundation has
also funded efforts to increase the
number of ADR practitioners from
under-represented groups and to expand access to ADR services for indigent and low-income parties. Other
Foundation-funded efforts include
specialized mediation and training
programs and curricula for special
education students, seniors, at-risk
youth, Native American tribal leaders,
and National Guard and Reservist
troops returning home from war.
The JAMS Foundation has also
stepped up in times of national crises,
offering assistance and financial support to victims of 9/11 and Hurricane
Katrina.
Internationally, the Foundation has
supported constructive engagement
between Israeli and Palestinian communities, and has promoted efforts
to spread the understanding and
practice of ADR in both developed
and developing countries. With the
Continued on Page 6
In 1999, a group of 45 neutrals and
managers purchased the company
from institutional investors. In doing
so, they developed a business model
that better reflected their own values
and their commitment to ADR.
Among their first initiatives upon
acquiring the company was to pledge
$1 million annually in pro bono
service, with JAMS Panelists encouraged to participate in a wide range of
ADR-related pro bono activities—as
teachers, trainers, and mediators—
Summer 2008
5
JAMS
From Page 5
recent $1 million pledge from JAMS
neutral Hon. Daniel Weinstein (Ret.),
the Foundation has established the
Weinstein International Fellowship
program, providing $25,000 each for
up to two Fellows annually to come
to the U.S. to study ADR and to
pursue a project of their own design, with the aim of developing and
expanding the use of ADR in their
home countries.
organizations, Educators for Social
Responsibility and Creative Response to Conflict. The initiative will
dramatically increase the number of
pre-service and in-service teachers and
school administrators provided conflict resolution training, the goal of
which is to develop a school culture
in which all students will be exposed
to constructive approaches for avoiding and resolving conflict.
Judge Weinstein’s substantial donation provided the Foundation with an
opportunity to extend and deepen its
impact on the development of ADR
in the U.S. Beginning in 2008, the
Foundation will provide a two-year,
$300,000 grant to a consortium
comprised of Temple University
and two nationally respected ADR
JAMS efforts to give back to its local
and national communities are not
limited to the JAMS Foundation and
the contributions of JAMS neutrals.
Through the JAMS Society, JAMS
employee Associates in Seattle and
around the country are encouraged to serve their communities in a
variety of ways. Their activities have
6
Summer 2008
included Walkathons, Marathons,
blood, clothing, food, and toy-drives,
volunteer work with Habitat for
Humanity, Meals on Wheels, Children’s Hospital, local food banks, and
environmental projects including tree
plantings and beach clean-ups.
Collectively, JAMS Society members
have contributed thousands of hours
and immeasurable goodwill serving the communities in which they
live. And as the number and size of
JAMS Resolution Centers nationwide
continues to grow, we look forward
to seeing the positive contributions
of the JAMS Foundation and JAMS
Society grow with them.
Welcome New Members
WDTL welcomes the following members who have recently joined our organization.
A big THANK YOU to our members who referred these individuals to WDTL.
Robert Michael Crowley
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Referred by Jim Howard
Victor M. Minjares
Office of the Attorney General
Referred by Suzanne Parisien
Eryn Y. Deblois
Barrett & Worden, P.S.
Referred by M. Colleen Barrett
Michael David Myers
Myers & Company
Referred by Richard Jolley
Jacob M. Downs
Williams Kastner
Referred by Rodney Umberger
Wade N. Neal
Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick
Scott E. Hildebrand
Master Builders Association of King
and Snohomish Counties
Referred by Greg Clark
Ramona N. Hunter
Cozen O’Connor
Referred by John J. Soltys
Karen Adell Kalzer
Patterson Buchanan Fobes
Leitch & Kalzer
Kelly M. Madigan
Preg O’Donnell & Gillett
Lauren M. Ransford
Scheer & Zehnder LLP
Referred by Mark Scheer
William W. Simmons
Murray, Dunham & Murray
Anita J. Star
Law Offices of Deborah Severson
Thomas Stotts
Strategic Intelligence Services LLC
Referred by Tito Rodriguez
Jennifer A.Valenta
Geonerco Management Inc
Greg A. Marbett
West Coast Forensics,
Engineering and Design, LLC
Summer 2008
7
Meet Your New Board Members
The following were voted into office
at the Annual Convention to take
place July 17-19. Voting took place
during the Saturday award dinner and
membership meeting.
Melissa Habeck is an associate with
Forsberg & Umlauf. Melissa practices
general civil litigation with a focus on
asbestos tort litigation. Melissa currently chairs the Washington Asbestos
Defense meetings and regularly organizes Asbestos Brown Bag Continuing Legal Education seminars. She
also is current member of the King
County Bar Association’s Membership Benefits Committee. Melissa has
been named a 2006 and 2007 Rising
Star Attorney in Washington Law and
Politics.
Erin Hammond, an associate at Fain
Sheldon Anderson & VanDerhoef,
PLLC has a practice that focuses on
defense of complex litigation, including medical malpractice, products
liability, and commercial claims. Erin
received her B.S., summa cum laude,
from Washington State University in
1995, where she was elected to Phi
Beta Kappa. She received her J.D.
from New York University School
of Law in 1998. Erin has instructed
trial advocacy, and is a CLE speaker
and author. She also serves on several
bar association committees, the Ninth
Circuit Pro Bono Panel, and as a
mentor lawyer for the WSBA. Erin is
very pleased to be joining the WDTL
Board of Trustees and looks forward
to the upcoming term.
Mr. Holt’s primary practice is in the
area of complex litigation involving
construction defect, contract and
business disputes, copyright and
trademark infringement, personal
injury, and professional and products
liability. Dirk is a member of the
American Trial Lawyers Association,
the Washington State Trial Lawyers
Association, the Washington Defense
Trial Lawyers, the American Bar
Association and the King County Bar
Association. Mr. Holt received his
J.D. from the University of Denver
College of Law in 1998 and was a
recipient of the Chancellor’s Scholarship. Mr. Holt received his B.S. from
the University of Oklahoma in 1992.
Prior to joining Scheer & Zehnder
LLP, Mr. Holt was an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Washington. From 1993 to 1995, Dirk
served as a United States Peace Corps
Volunteer in Papua New Guinea.
Jonathan Dirk Holt is a partner with
the law firm of Scheer & Zehnder
LLP. He is admitted to practice law
in both Federal and State court,
where he has tried a variety of cases.
8
Summer 2008
James B. “J. B.” Meade is a shareholder with Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S.
working in its Tacoma office and
has served as WDTL’s South Sound
representative for several years. His
defense litigation practice focuses
on personal injury, product liability,
construction defect, construction
site accident, homeowners’ association and general liability claims. J. B.
also defends a variety of professionals
against malpractice lawsuits, including physicians, dentists and attorneys.
He started practicing law in 1993 and
was a partner at Gordon, Thomas,
Honeywell before joining Forsberg
& Umlauf, P.S. in 2003. He holds a
B.S. from Whitworth College and a
J.D. from Seattle University School
of Law.
And the Defense Wins
On May 2, 2008, Steve Goldstein
of Betts, Patterson, Mines and
Jody Reich, formerly of Betts,
Patterson, Mines and now with
Dethlefs Sparwasser, and Diehl
Rettig of Rettig Osborne Forgette
prevailed on a motion to dismiss
on behalf of their clients, a domestic violence services shelter serving
Benton and Franklin Counties, after
establishing plaintiff fabricated critical evidence in her case in chief. The
claim involved a workplace sexual
harassment and retaliation claim.
Plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to sexual harassment by her
female co-workers and director, and
was fired in retaliation when she complained. Plaintiff was actually fired
when she was found to be falsifying
timesheets. To support her retaliation
claim, plaintiff relied upon an invoice
for work performed on her vehicle to
show that the vehicle observed by her
employer at her home during work
hours was actually in the shop being
detailed at the time. Upon defendants’ extensive investigation into the
document’s authenticity, which was
skillfully accomplished by co-defense
counsel Diehl Rettig, plaintiff tried to
avoid dismissal by moving to exclude
the evidence via motion in limine.
This attempt failed.
was indeed fraudulent, was created as
a favor, and that the work was never
contemplated, let alone completed.
The court concluded that the plaintiff attempted to defraud the court.
Judge Zagelow dismissed all claims,
and commented that he had never in
his time in practice, or on the bench,
witnessed such reprehensible behavior
by a party, and would not allow plaintiff access to the court system after
such a blatant attempt to perpetrate
a fraud.
Richard Roland of Forsberg &
Umlauf, P.S., recently obtained summary judgment dismissal of all claims
in a professional liability case against
his clients, an escrow company and
escrow closing agents. Plaintiff, a
commercial real property purchaser,
claimed that a deceased business partner had conspired with defendants to
require payments at closing to the deceased partner that were beyond the
property purchase price. Despite his
inclusion in the settlement documentation, the plaintiff denied knowledge of the payments to his partner.
Mr. Roland obtained the plaintiff ’s
admissions at deposition that before
closing he had been presented escrow
instructions and a HUD-1 statement
by the escrow agents. These documents disclosed the specific items in
controversy, and that the plaintiff had
voluntarily executed the settlement
documentation with knowledge of
the payments to the partner. Mr. Roland argued that under Washington
law a party voluntarily executing real
property closing documents is bound
by the party’s signature to the liabilities created. The court found that
no question of fact was presented for
trial, and dismissed all claims against
the closing agents with prejudice.
Please share your recent
successes with us for publication
by submitting them to Kristin Lewis
at [email protected].
After a hearing ordered by Walla
Walla Superior Court Judge Robert
L. Zagelow featuring live testimony
of witnesses from the shop, the court
dismissed all claims finding that
plaintiff was not only complicit in the
evidence fabrication, but that she was
actively involved in hiding the truth
of its creation from the court. The
shop owners testified that the invoice
Summer 2008
9
Patrick DeLangis
[email protected]
10
Summer 2008
President’s Column: Riding Off Into the Sunset...
By WDTL President, Rick Roberts, Law Office of Sharon J. Bitcon
As my term draws to a close, I am
fighting off the panic that time has
run out and a number of the ideas
that I wanted to work on during my
term either didn’t get started or are
not far enough along. Fortunately,
Kristin Lewis, our highly capable Executive Director, is there to remind
me that every President feels that
way, and that despite what I think, we do have a number
of accomplishments to be proud of. I want to share them
with you because as a volunteer organization, these are
your accomplishments too.
Increased Influence. One of our long-range goals is to
increase the visibility of WDTL. We have been building
on our relationship with the Washington State Medical Association and provided input on proposed changes with the
Medical Quality Assurance Commission. Past President
Steve Stocker, of Stocker, Smith, Luciani & Staub; Trustee
Mike Nicefaro of the Attorney General’s Office; Ryan
Beaudoin of Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport & Toole;
and John Schedler of Lee Smart, have been working on a
“rules of engagement” to help iron out some of the problems with deposing doctors. This is a work in progress and
has a way to go, but will hopefully reduce the number of
problems that arise when doctors are deposed.
the South Sound dinner meeting in Tacoma. There have
been two law school networking events at UW and Seattle
University, and a third is in the works with Gonzaga Law
School for the fall of 2008.
In the aftermath Referendum 67, four regional section
meetings were held, and there will likely be more as evolving issues continue to emerge with the passage of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act.
Membership. Under the leadership of Dan Johnson, of the
Law Offices of Shahin Karim, we exceeded all expectation
with over a 100% membership renewal, with several members actually renewing for the upcoming year in advance.
Membership renewal for 2008-2009 begins in August.
Please watch for notices and incentives for renewing early.
Continued on Page 12
In Olympia we have been very busy with the skillful guidance of our lobbyist, Mel Sorenson. Both Mel and Kristin
worked very hard to get a number of our members to
testify in front of the Legislature. In no small feat, Stew
Estes of Keating, Bucklin & McCormack was instrumental
in derailing the passage of HB 1873, which would have
greatly expanded the number of potential wrongful death
claimants.
On the national level, and unprecedented for WDTL, Past
President Jeff Frank of Foster, Pepper was awarded the DRI
Community Service Award for his work with votingforjudges.org, a highly acclaimed website that educates voters
about judicial candidates.
Increased Member Benefits. This year, the website was
redesigned and a brief bank was added to help reduce some
of the repeated requests on the listserv; over 20 section or
committee meetings were held; nine CLEs and five practice
development brown bags were also held. Judicial receptions were held in Seattle and Spokane, in addition to
Summer 2008
11
Sunset
From Page 11
The most outstanding aspect of this
is that most of the people who tried
a first-time free membership last year
enjoyed it so much, they renewed as
full paying members. Members are
not content with just joining, attending a CLE or just reading the newsletter; members are getting more active,
especially through the listserv, and
discovering the value of their membership.
However, there is one thing that does
irk me about the listserv, the inquiry
that begin with “a colleague of mine is
looking for . . . “Rather than sending
out a query on behalf of a non-member colleague, why not ask that colleague to join? They obviously know
that the listserv is a great resource,
tapping into the collective wisdom
of WDTL. Why don’t they belong
too? Do they think they do not have
the time to be an active committee
member? There are many ways to
contribute and be a part of WDTL
and access to the listserv is just the beginning. Next time someone asks you
to post an inquiry, direct them to the
website to get an application, sign up
and then ask the question themself.
It’s quick, easy, and they will be glad
you did.
What’s on the Horizon. In July at
Harrison Hot Springs, the leadership of WDTL will be turned over
the capable hands of President Ted
Buck, President Elect Jillian Barron,
Continued on Next Page
12
Summer 2008
Sunset
From Page 12
Secretary Matt Wojcik, and Treasurer
Emilia Sweeney. They are a terrific
and energetic group that will provide
outstanding leadership for the coming
year. Fall 2008 will be a busy election
season with elections for judges at all
levels, legislative races and the governorship. The outcomes will obviously
influence the next legislative session
that begins in early January. Without
a doubt, WSTLA will continue to
press its agenda to expand the number of claimants and causes of action.
More than ever we will need members
who are willing to testify to lend their
expertise and provide guidance to the
Legislature.
We have made great progress in working with other professional and trade
groups and there will be more opportunities for our members to build on
these professional relationships. Our
strength lies in our numbers. By increasing our membership, we increase
the talent pool and resources that can
lead to new and more opportunities. Spread the word. Renew your
membership early and encourage your
colleagues to join.
INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
EVALUATIONS & CHART REVIEWS
The MACHAON team makes your job easier:
Scheduling of IMEs when you need them.
Communication with the patient or their legal representative to
arrange a convenient date and time, decreasing the occurrence of no shows
Recruiting the appropriate Physician specialties for your exams.
Quality Assurance of reports to make sure all your questions are answered.
We will, at your request, arrange Transportation, Interpreters, and Diagnostic tests.
“A Classic Return To Service”
MACHAON.org
MACHAON Medical Evaluations, Inc.
206-323-1999 ~ Toll Free 1-888-303-6224 ~ Fax 206-323-1188
Summer 2008
13
14
Summer 2008
Summer 2008
15
Proposed WDTL Events Calendar for 2008-2009
(register online at www.wdtl.org)
October
7
Judges’ Reception - K & L Gates
Conference Room – Seattle
22-26 DRI Annual Meeting – New Orleans
November
CLE - Hands on Motions Practice
14
CLE - Joint Idaho/Washington Seminar –
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
December
4
CLE - Ethics followed by WDTL Holiday
Party – Seattle Public Library
5
CLE - Cranes, Chains and Automobiles:
The Latest Trends in Product Liability –
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
12
CLE - Annual Tort Law Update –
Convention Center – Seattle
January
20
South Sound Judicial Dinner –
Courtyard Marriot, Tacoma CLE - Defense Paralegals Program
CLE - Bad Faith 1/2 Day
February
26
CLE - Annual Update on Construction
Law - Convention Center – Seattle
March
20
CLE - Annual Update on Construction
Law – Hotel Monaco, Portland
CLE - Yakima Seminar
April
8
CLE - Insurance Law Update –
Convention Center, Seattle
CLE - Judicial Reception – Spokane
May
CLE - Law Practice Management –
Puget Sound
June
CLE - Defending the Auto Case – Seattle
July
16-19 Annual Convention –
Sun Mountain, Washington
PRSRT STD
U.S. Postage
PAID
Seattle, WA
Permit No. 5544