Fighting for Justice and Balance in Civil Courts



Fighting for Justice and Balance in Civil Courts
S u m m e r 2 015 - I n T h i s I s s u e
Wrestling Law
The “No Contact” Rule
WDTL Volunteers
Book Review:
The Widow Wave9
Reed McClure
New Members14
WDTL Officers
WDTL Membership
Fighting for Justice and Balance in Civil Courts •
WDTL Leads Successful Defense Against
Legislation to Increase Dollar Amount for
Matters Subject to MAR
By Melvin N. Sorenson, Principal at Carney Badley Spellman
Association suggesting that a disproportionate number of
arbitrators come from the plaintiff side of the bar.
WDTL leaders made successive visits to Olympia in the
last three weeks to argue against the passage of legislation
that would have increased the dollar amount for matters
subject to mandatory arbitration. These efforts were
successful, as the bill was killed in the Senate Ways and
Means Committee when it was not brought to a vote
before the April 7 cutoff for committee approval.
The bill at issue was HB 1248—a measure that was
introduced by Rep. Matt Shea (R, 4th Legislative District.
Embedded in an otherwise uncontroversial measure raising
the jurisdictional limit for District Courts was a section that
proposed to increase the dollar level for matters subject
to mandatory arbitration from $50,000 to $100,000. The
WDTL quickly flagged the issue, and helped to organize a
coalition of stakeholders opposed to the bill.
Together with insurers and the Liability Reform Coalition,
the WDTL expressed opposition to the MAR proposal,
noting that a 100% increase in the dollar amount of matters
subject to MAR would likely result in more trials de novo
and increase the value of claims. The WDTL pointed to a
recent survey from the King County Superior Court Judges
When the bill was heard before the Senate Law and Justice
Committee, WDTL President Melissa Roeder and WDTL
Executive Director Maggie Sweeney testified in opposition
to the measure, specifically noting the concern about
increased trials de novo and the disproportionate number
of arbitrators whose practices are largely on the plaintiff
side of the bar.
On Wednesday, March 25 WDTL leaders came to
Olympia for the annual WDTL “Day on the Hill” event.
WDTL President Melissa Roeder together with several
WDTL Board Members met with key legislators including
the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Law and
Justice Committee, key members from other committees,
and Legislative Leaders in both the Senate and House.
Although a number of issues were discussed, HB 1248
and the MAR issues were a top tier priority. When HB
1248 was brought to a vote in the Senate Law and Justice
Committee, an amendment was adopted to reduce the
increase in the MAR level from $100,000 to $75,000. The
WDTL and others asked Senate leaders to refer the bill
to the Senate Ways and Means Committee for review of
the bill’s cost impact on the State. The bill was ultimately
referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee
where it was not considered before the April 7 cutoff
for committee approval. Direct and timely involvement
from WDTL leadership significantly contributed to this
result—a solid win for the WDTL, other defense-oriented
stakeholders, and civil defendants.
Kent N. Doll, Jr.
Ewing Anderson PS
522 W. Riverside Avenue
Spokane, WA 99201-0580
[email protected]
Michael K. Rhodes
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP
2101 4th Ave., Suite 700
Seattle, WA 98121
[email protected]
The Defense News is published bi-monthly by the Washington Defense
Trial Lawyers, c/o WDTL, 800 5th Ave., Suite 4141, Seattle, WA 98104.
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] ADVERTISING: All
advertising inquiries should be directed to: Maggie Sweeney, 800 5th Ave.,
Suite 4141, Seattle, WA 98104, (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.
Summer 2015
Member Services
David Penrose
4141 Agate Road
Bellingham WA 98226-8745
Phone: (206) 529-4128
Fax: (206) 202-3776
Email: [email protected]
Stephanie Ray Solum
2144 Westlake Ave N Suite F
Seattle WA 98109
Phone: (206) 551-6288
Email: [email protected]
Executive Director
Maggie Sweeney
800 Fifth Ave., Suite 4141
Seattle WA 98104
Phone: (206) 749-0319
Fax: (206) 260-2798
Email: [email protected]
Summer 2015
Professional Wrestling Law
By Brian C. Augenthaler
Professional wrestling has been
around in one form or another since
the 1800s. It started in Europe.
Roving carnivals featured professional
wrestling matches as part of a
broader selection of attractions.
Professional wrestling gradually
transitioned into its own thing. Today,
professional wrestling is broadcast to
nearly 36 million viewers in more than
150 countries. The sport is dominated
by publicly traded juggernaut World
Wrestling Entertainment or WWE for
short. Outcomes in pro-wrestling are
predetermined but the legal bouts
surrounding the business are not.
Before we begin, a brief overview
of pro-wrestling is in order for the
unaffiliated. Professional wrestling
is scripted. Pro-wrestlers are told
who will win the match before it
begins. The person in charge of
determining the outcomes of matches
is called a “booker.” The wrestlers
have varying degrees of control over
what actually occurs in the match
but cannot stray from the booker’s
orders. In the early years of wrestling,
pro-wrestlers strived to keep the
predetermined nature of wrestling
a secret. The word “kayfabe” is a
code word used by pro-wrestlers to
reference the practice of maintaining
that illusion. A spectator that fails to
see through that façade is called a
“mark.” A “jobber” is a pro-wrestler
that loses a majority of his matches
to build up other marquee talent. A
“stable” is a group of three or more
like-minded wrestlers that watch
each other’s backs. A suplex is a
wrestling move (which exists to some
degree in amateur wrestling) in which
one wrestler lifts his opponent and
bridges the opponent over his or her
back all the way to the mat below.
A “superplex” is that same move
performed from the top turnbuckle
of the wrestling ring onto the mat. In
kayfabe, a superplex is a devastating
maneuver, but only a fool of a
booker would have a match end on a
superplex (unless the opponent was
a real jobber) and only a mark would
believe the wrestler on the wrong
end of the superplex was not equally
responsible for carrying out the move.
The first recorded mention of
a professional wrestler in the
U.S.—at least as far as Westlaw is
concerned—was in a case called
Fleming v. State, 174 Ind. 264, 91
N.E. 1085, 1087 (1910). Fleming was
a classic “bunko-steering” case.
The bunko-steering statute is the
model of precision you’d expect
from early 1900s Indiana. The gist
Summer 2015
of the case is that Fleming (and his
stable), duped a mark named Bill
Springborn into betting on a fixed
wrestling match. Fleming said to the
mark, “Why I know all about them
[wrestling matches],” and then said
to Springborn: “If you will just stay
and help us in the arrangement and
act as clerk or recorder for us, why,
we will take care of the rest.” The
match ended after one wrestler threw
the other to the mat and fell heavily
upon him. Some kind of a fluid that
looked like blood, and had been
prepared for the occasion, ran from
the squashed wrestler’s mouth. He
writhed and twitched and pretended
to be unconscious, and every one
present appeared to be very much
excited and rushed to his assistance.
The match ended. Flemming assured
Continued on Next Page
Wrestling From Page 4
the mark that the injured wrestler
would be “taken to some private
sanitarium.” Flemming took off with
the mark’s money. This case stands
generally for the proposition that
you should never trust anyone that
sporadically interjects “why” into
sentences that are not questions.
Flemming also appears to have
established the basic format that
every professional wrestling match
would follow from that point to
the present.
The 1980s was a kayfabe glasnost
period. Most everyone was wise to
the notion that wrestling was predetermined and that 300 pound men
could not exchange repeated, ungloved haymakers without immediate
and irreparable brain damage. The
last person to catch on was 20/20
reporter John Stossel. Stossel
interviewed a pro-wrestler named
Dr. D (a jobber, albeit a huge one).
Stossel told Dr. D, “I think it’s fake.”
Dr. D slapped Stossel on both sides
of his head. Each slap knocked
Stossel to the floor. Stossel sued
the WWE (WWF at the time, but
that’s a legal tussle for another day)
and the case reportedly settled for
$425,000. Stossel later wrote that
he regretted the lawsuit because
lawsuits harm innocent people. Dr.
D maintained that the WWE told
him to slap Stossel. Dr. D was fired,
not for slapping Stossel, but for
challenging Mr. T to a non-kayfabe
fight backstage.
More recent pro-wrestling case
law leaves kayfabe in the rearview.
Modern pro-wrestling litigation
features all the components of
complex civil litigation one would
expect from a multi-billion-dollar
industry. Two relatively recent
decisions have grappled with issues
Continued on Next Page
Summer 2015
Wrestling From Page 5
of whether pro-wrestlers have a
legitimate publicity-rights claim after
they leave the business. Ray v. ESPN,
Inc., No. 13-1179-CV-W-SOW, 2014
WL 2766187, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 8,
2014); Somerson v. McMahon, 956
F.Supp.2d 1345 (N.D.Ga.2012). In
both of these cases, professional
wrestlers –“Pretty Boy” Doug Somers
and Steve “Wild Thing” Ray—
challenged the rebroadcast of their
wrestling performances, contending
that such rebroadcast violated their
state-law rights of publicity. Both
courts determined that the Copyright
Act preempted the plaintiffs’
publicity-rights claims.
Intellectual property issues also
abound. Most wrestlers own their
original intellectual property (i.e., that
property—or character—which was
owned by the professional wrestler
upon entry into the contract) and
forego rights to intellectual property
that was created during the course
of the parties’ relationship (i.e., a new
stage name, likeness, personality,
character, voice, signature move,
gimmicks, gestures, etc.). For this
reason, the WWE generally insists
on rebranding wrestlers upon entry
into the business relationship. If the
pro-wrestler makes it big (“gets over”)
in the WWE, he’s not going to be
able to leave and take the intellectual
property/character created during his
tenure with the WWE.
and fractured both femurs. The
match took place at a middle school.
He sued under a host of negligence
theories, including the failure to install
mats outside the wrestling ring. The
pro-wrestler named as defendants
the gym, the owner and installer of
the wrestling ring (Jeffey Hahn a/k/a
“Rocky Shore”), the town of Fairfield,
and the board of education. A default
judgment was entered against the
man known as Rocky Shore for failing
to file a notice of appearance. The
town was dismissed on summary
judgment. The case went on for
years against the gym and the board
of education. The records runs
cold after the trial court denied the
remaining defendants’ summary
judgment motion on a waiver the prowrestler may or may not have signed
prior to the match.
Continued on Page 13
Of course, personal injury is a fact
of wrestling. In an unpublished
case called Mangles v. Yale, No.
CV020389790S, 2007 WL 2035049, at
*1 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 22, 2007),
the pro-wrestler plaintiff was injured
while attempting a wrestling move
from the top turnbuckle of the ring
onto his opponent lying on the ground
outside of the ring. Specifically, the
plaintiff landed directly on his knees
Marks can also get a little too close to
the action. In Sladowski-Casolaro v.
World Championship Wrestling, Inc.,
21 Misc. 3d 1146(A), 880 N.Y.S.2d
227 (Sup. Ct. 2007) aff’d, 47 A.D.3d
803, 850 N.Y.S.2d 176 (2008), the
plaintiff claimed was a spectator at a
pro-wrestling event, and was injured
when professional wrestler Scott
Carl Rechsteiner, a/k/a Scott Steiner,
a/k/a Big Poppa Pump jumped over
a fence into the spectator area, and
attacked a professional football
player, John “Jumbo” Elliot, who was
seated near the plaintiff. The case
was the subject of some heated
discovery disputes before settling
for $365,000. A legal malpractice
action followed. The plaintiff said her
attorneys committed malpractice by,
among other things, failing to name
Summer 2015
The “No Contact” Rule and LLLTs
By Mark J. Fucile
The “no contact” rule—RPC 4.2—
is a professional rule that defense
lawyers encounter regularly as we
investigate cases. Under the rule, we
are prohibited from directly contacting
a person we know is represented in the
matter involved—whether as a party or
a witness. Although the rule uses an
actual knowledge standard, knowledge
can be inferred from the circumstances
under RPC 1.0(f). “Guessing wrong”
can result in both regulatory discipline
(see, e.g., In re Carmick, 146 Wn.2d
582, 48 P.3d 311 (2002)) and exclusion
of any resulting evidence (see, e.g.,
Engstrom v. Goodman, 166 Wn. App.
905, 271 P.3d 959 (2012)).
In 2012, the Washington Supreme
Court approved the concept of limited
licensed legal technicians—or “LLLTs”
for short—in an effort to address unmet
legal needs of persons of modest
means. APR 28, which regulates
LLLTs, created an LLLT licensing board,
set minimum educational standards
for LLLTs and defined the kinds of
legal services that LLLTs can provide
independent of lawyers. Although
LLLTs are currently limited to family law
under APR 28 and its implementing
regulations, the LLLT program is
expected to expand over time to other
practice areas. With the first crop
of LLLTs set to enter practice this
year, the Washington Supreme Court
recently approved rules of professional
conduct for LLLTs and corresponding
amendments to the lawyer RPCs.
Like its lawyer counterpart, the LLLT
“no contact” rule uses an actual
knowledge standard—but, again,
actual knowledge can be inferred from
the circumstances under LLLT RPC
1.0A(f). Unlike its lawyer counterpart,
however, there are no exceptions—
such as consent. Accompanying
Comment 1 explains that the absolute
nature of the prohibition stems from
the relatively narrow scope of LLLT
services permitted by APR 28. An
LLLT is permitted to assist a client with
document preparation and similar work
but is not permitted under APR 28H(6)
to “[n]egotiate the client’s legal rights or
responsibilities, or communicate with
another person the client’s position
or convey to the client the position
of another party[.]” Similarly, under
APR 28H(5), LLLTs are prohibited
from representing clients in court
proceedings. Comment 1 to LLLT
RPC 4.2 reasons, therefore, that the
prohibition must be absolute because
direct communication with an opposing
party would exceed the authority to
practice granted by APR 28.
On the lawyer side, by contrast, a
lawyer may communicate directly
with a person being assisted by an
LLLT even if the lawyer is aware of
that assistance. New Comment
12 to RPC 4.2 explains: “A person
who is assisted by an LLLT is not
represented by a lawyer for purposes
of this Rule . . . Therefore, a lawyer
may communicate directly with a
person who is assisted by an LLLT.
Lawyer communication with a person
who is assisted by an LLLT instead is
governed by RPC 4.3”—which deals
with unrepresented persons.
As LLLTs become a more established
feature in Washington practice,
lawyers will no doubt adjust to the
dual licensing structure the LLLT
program has created within the
legal profession. For now, however,
practitioners will need to grapple with
some of the more unusual facets
of the LLLT program such as the
dichotomy created in key practical
areas like the “no contact” rule.
Mark J. Fucile is the co-founder of Fucile &
Reising LLP, located in Portland, Oregon.
Both the LLLT RPCs and the amended
lawyer RPCs address the interplay
between LLLTs and lawyers within the
context of parallel “no contact” rules.
On the LLLT side, LLLT RPC 4.2
prohibits an LLLT from contacting
a person “the LLLT knows to be
represented by a lawyer in the matter.”
Summer 2015
WDTL Volunteers Go Above and
Beyond for Union Gospel Mission
By Gauri Shrotriya Locker, Office of the Attorney General, Torts Division
In February, WDTL members and
guests volunteered at the Seattle
Union Gospel Mission Men’s Shelter
in downtown Seattle. Our group
served breakfast and lunch and
also assisted shelter staff with meal
preparation and cleanup. WDTL
volunteers served 780 meals that day.
The Union Gospel Mission was
very grateful for the assistance,
and our volunteers also enjoyed
the experience. Johna Shepherd
(Machaon Medical Evaluations),
served on the breakfast shift:
“Being able to volunteer at the
United Gospel Mission was a gift.
Giving back to the community
is one of […the] most important
aspects of our company as it
is an integral part of our culture.
I was able to be on the breakfast
line handing out eggs, alongside
Jennifer Campbell and Derek
Bishop. It was an experience that
was extremely humbling as it
put into perspective what is really
important in life: God, hot food,
and support from a fellow human
being. To have someone thank
you for your service and for hot
food in their bellies was unbelievable.
Hopefully I will have a chance
at going out in their rescue
van soon.”
most unfortunate in our city feel like
an honorable duty, it was a humbling
experience. Afterwards, I called
my college kids to give them a very
grateful, long-distance hug.”
I have previously chaired this
community service activity for
WDTL, but this year was different for
me. In the past, I primarily served
hot food from behind a counter,
cafeteria-style. However, that day, I
served fruit and pastries from a small
table in the middle of the dining
area, which allowed me to have
more interaction with the clientele.
A gentleman sat down at a nearby
table, and other diners noticed that
he was not wearing shoes. Before
he had finished his meal, the shelter
staff surprised him with a pair of
used sneakers in his size. He told me
that he showed up that day hoping
for nothing more than a hot meal on
Celeste Stokes (Office of the
Attorney General, Torts Division)
echoed that sentiment: “Serving with
other WDTL members at the Union
Gospel Mission was an enlightening
experience. Not only did serving the
Summer 2015
a cold day. The look of awe and
relief on his face will stay with me
for a long time.
Attorneys from Clement & Drotz,
Lee Smart, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith, Lorber Greenfield Polito,
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, and
Thenell Law Group also participated
that day.
For more information about the
Union Gospel Mission, includingvolunteer
and pro bono opportunities, please visit For more information
concerning WDTL community outreach
and pro bono opportunities, or to join the
WDTL’s Pro Bono/Community Outreach
Committee, please contact the committee
chair, Heather Proudfoot at [email protected] or Maggie Sweeney at [email protected]
Book Review By David Wade
The Widow Wave
“You probably had a few lectures about ‘full and fair discovery’ in law school.
That’s a nice topic for professors and legal theorists in the faculty lounge, but
not for a lawyer in trial. You keep in mind that when it comes to a trial you are
a gladiator, and your client’s interests come first, last, and always. It’s a sacred
trust. You and your client’s case converge, becoming inseparable.”
By Jay W. Jacobs
Quid Pro Books | $32.99
278 pages | 2014
Used with permission of the
Tennessee Bar Journal, a publication
of the Tennessee Bar Association
Jay W. Jacobs, the author of The
Widow Wave, is a trial lawyer who
salts his book with eye-brow-raising
nuggets like the above quoted advice
imparted to him by his Dad. This true
trial story by the man who tried the
case minces no words in describing
the agony, exhilaration, stress, and
utter exhaustion of trial work. If you
try lawsuits, you will run into yourself
on virtually every page of this book.
Jacobs’ narrative propels the reader
along the time line of a single trial that
originates in a catastrophic storm
northeast of Hawaii out of which
ocean swells pulsate 1,400 miles
toward San Francisco, arriving just
in time to meet the 34-foot private
fishing boat, Aloha, as it is entering
the Pacific Ocean through the Bonita
Channel on a Salmon fishing trip. The
vessel disappeared to the bottom
of the sea without a trace, and all
five aboard went with it. The Widow
Wave wraps up 263 pages later as
the courtroom door closes behind the
last verdict-rendering juror.
Mr. Jacobs’s prose nicely narrates the
developing events. It does not intrude
on the mind of the reader and never
once interferes with a solid telling
of the story. His writing style fits the
book very comfortably. I still read
books the old-fashioned way, and I
did not want to put this one down.
Never did I sense a lull in the action.
Turning each page was a compelling
search for what would happen next.
All the elements of a great trial story
are here, too. The solo practitioner
must face off with one of the most
renowned and successful advocates
at the California bar. The opposition’s
impeccably detailed preparation,
perfect knowledge of the rules of
evidence and disdain toward the
author sets the battleground for the
gladiators in the courtroom. Both
sides must face the ultimate fact of
the case that no one knows what
happened to the Aloha; no one knows
why it sank or, for that matter, where
it sank. With no eyewitnesses to what
actually occurred, the only reality for
the jury in determining whether the
deceased, highly experienced captain
negligently drove his vessel into an
angry sea that morning must come
from the opposing theories of the
parties told through circumstantial
evidence and expert testimony. The
courtroom in essence has to become
an alternate reality.
The author has a keen knack for
subtly drawing out the personalities
of the key players: the occasionally
irascible trial judge; the expert
witness who decides on the day of
trial to wear a shiny green polyester
suit; the lawyer whose witness has
just reassessed the facts and given
testimony from the stand never before
discussed with trial counsel; the lay
witnesses who go to great lengths to
avoid service of a trial subpoena and
Continued on Next Page
Summer 2015
The Widow Wave From Page 9
resent having to be at the courthouse;
the always conservatively attired
client who appears on the first day
of trial overly jeweled and sharply
dressed. Mr. Jacobs also expertly
draws the reader into the minds of
the experts, the facts on which they
rely, and the theories they develop. In
a fascinating way, he brings us along
with him as he learns from his experts
about how waves are formed, grow,
crest and disappear and how they are
affected by tides and the encounter
with sand bars that get in their way.
be considered the stuff of great
literary significance. Yet, a major
and recurring theme throughout
The Widow Wave builds on Mr.
Jacob’s trial strategy to subvert his
opponent’s quest to convince the
court to give a potentially game
changing jury instruction. Putting
aside whether he succeeds or fails
in achieving the goal as the story
moves to its climax, the wonder of it
all is that he pulled me along with an
unrelenting desire to know whether
the instruction would be given.
But at its heart, this is a story about
the anatomy of a trial: it is about
handling juries, stopping legal
grandstanding, reversing course
when a bad answer rings out from the
witness stand; turning exhibits that
hurt the case into winners at closing
argument; amplifying your opponent’s
mistakes and turning them into solid
gains; losing evidentiary battles;
trying to manage the presentation
of evidence to keep the attention of
the jurors; and applying the basic
rules of evidence to a gamut of
circumstances from how to convince
the judge to admit documentary
hearsay to how to keep the court
from striking your expert witness in
the face of a competency objection.
The amazing feat accomplished by
Mr. Jacobs is that this book never
turns pedantic when delving into
these trial maneuvers; they are tightly
packed into the wonderfully woven
tapestry of an exciting trial involving
real people engaged in a living
dramatic struggle.
From my perspective, this was a book
that ended way too soon. I wanted
some more things to happen in the
trial. It was fun second-guessing
the trial strategies. I wondered why
some objections were sustained
or overruled, and I was amazed at
why some objections were never
made. Just as importantly, this story
reconfirms for me the great principle
I have been taught to stand by: that
our adversary jury system is the best
in the world for resolving disputes.
The author’s skillful presentation
of mundane trial issues as part of
a dramatic and compelling story
caused me, more than once, to sit
back and admire the development of
his narrative. For example, arguments
over jury instructions can hardly
Summer 2015
In short, this book is a great
excursion into a real trial wrapped
into all the trappings of real trial
lawyers who, even though they are
at the height of their professional
acumen, still agonize over decisions
they must make during trial and the
impact they will have on the sacred
trust to protect the client’s interests.
No work of fiction can ever beat that.
DAVID WADE is a director and shareholder
with Martin Tate Morrow & Marston PC
in Memphis.
Reed McClure
a New
and Associate
SEATTLE, WA-Reed McClure is
pleased to announce that William H.P.
Fuld was promoted to Shareholder.
The firm has also added Stephanie J.
Christensen as an Associate.
William H.P. Fuld concentrates
his practice on insurance defense
litigation including motor vehicle
accidents, products liability, premises
liability, wrongful death, and
construction defect litigation. Mr. Fuld
earned his J.D. from the University of
Washington School of Law.
Stephanie J. Christensen
concentrates her practice on
insurance defense litigation including
personal injury, motor vehicle
accidents, and premises liability. Ms.
Christensen earned her J.D. from the
Seattle University School of Law.
Defending Lawyers for Over 20 Years
Claims • Lawsuits • Grievances
901 Fifth Ave., Suite 1400, Seattle, WA 98164 • (206) 689-8500
One North Tacoma Avenue, Suite 200, Tacoma, WA 98403 • (253) 572-4200
Together we will continue Reed
McClure’s strong tradition and long
history of providing the highest
quality legal services to our clients.
Reed McClure, one of Seattle’s oldest
law firms, was founded in 1890. We
provide litigation services including
appellate, construction, employment,
insurance, and premises, products,
and professional liability. We offer
our insurance clients extensive
experience in coverage advice and
defense of extra-contractual claims.
Summer 2015
Summer 2015
Wrestling From Page 6
Big Poppa Pump as a defendant. The
attorneys defended on the grounds
that the action was time-barred. They
prevailed on the statute of limitations
defense but they should have argued
that naming Big Poppa Pump in the
lawsuit would have resulted in the
(probably fatal) application of at least
one of Big Poppa Pump’s signature
finishing maneuvers, the Steiner
Recliner or the Franken-Steiner.
Wrestling in Washington
At least one case stands for the
proposition that professional
wrestling is, by its nature, so affected
with public interest as to be the
proper subject of total prohibition.
Ward v. Drennon, 201 Ga. 605,
605, 40 S.E.2d 549, 551 (1946).
But Washington legislators aren’t a
bunch of marks. While you do need
to register with the Department of
Licensing to be a pro-wrestler, the
requirements are not particularly
onerous. You must be at least 18 and
have a small photo of yourself before
you qualify. The license application
fee is $25. For comparison’s sake,
it’ll cost you $65 to apply to be a
judge. Further distancing themselves
from the mark contingent, the House
Business & Financial Services
committee unanimously passed Bill
2573, which would require the DOL
to “conduct a review of the need
for regulation of theatrical wrestling
events.” The bill recognizes that prowrestling shouldn’t be regulated like
boxing or mixed martial arts—as is
currently the case—because the
pro-wrestlers aren’t trying to hurt
each other. The bill is in the Senate
and as of March 13th was returned to
the House Rules Committee for
a third reading.
Professional wrestling is a serious
business. The world of wrestling
litigation involves many of the same
issues you’d expect from any other
major industry. But the silliness of
pro-wrestling persists despite highstakes litigation, making professional
wrestling law a fun and bizarre niche
area of the law.
Brian C. Augenthaler is an associate at
Keating, Bucklin & McCormack. He does
mostly civil rights work for the government
Summer 2015
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.
Lauren Garvin
Bendele & Mendel, PLLC
Referred by Levi Bendele
Stephen Farquhar
Smith Freed and Eberhard
Referred by Catherine A. Becker
Deborah Mitchell
Law Offices of Kenneth Scearce
Referred by Kenneth Scearce
Robin Haynes
Witherspoon Kelley
Referred by Ryan Beaudoin,
Brian Rekofke and Matt Wojcik
Claire Marshall
Michael & Alexander PLLC
Michael McAleenan
Smith Alling, PS
Denise Derricott
Allstate Staff Counsel
Referred by Vivienne Alpaugh
Allyson Zerba
King County Prosecuting
Attorney’s Office
Referred by Dan Kinerk
Luke Eaton
Tyler Whitney
Winston & Cashatt
Referred by Caitlin O’Brien
James Blankenship
Logan Bohman
Workland & Witherspoon
Referred by Rachel Reynolds
Jeremy Burke
Gonzaga School of Law
Michael Chan
Clinical Accident
Reconstruction Experts
Brooks Clemmons
Flynn Law Group
Karen Phu
Preg O’Donnell & Gillett
Brian Chan
Clinical Accident
Reconstruction Experts
Referred by Michael Chan
Omar Contreras
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
Referred by Maggie Sweeney
Scott Siekawitch
Perkins Coie LLP
Erin Earl
Perkins Coie LLP
Referred by Maggie Sweeney
Andrew Crowder
Perkins Coie LLP
Laura Hennessey
Perkins Coie LLP
Peter Nierman
McGaughey Bridges Dunlap PLLC
Kendra Comeau
Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson
Referred by Alfred Donohue
Aaron Young
Summer 2015
Jamie Valentine
Keating Jones Hughes, P.C.
Sara Cassidey
Keating Jones Hughes, P.C.
Owen Mooney
Bullivant Houser Bailey
Referred by Matt Wojcik
Geoffrey Palachuk
Paine Hamblen LLP
Referred by Gregory J. Arpin
Jenna Oates
Law Student - Seattle University
Referred by Jillian Hinman
Evelyn Winters
Bullivant Houser Bailey PC
Matthew Wood
Dynan & Associates, P.S.
Referred by Mark J. Dynan
Ghazal Sharifi
Seattle City Attorney’s Office
Summer 2015
Summer 2015
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 Medical Evaluations, Inc.
206-323-1999 ~ Toll Free 1-888-303-6224 ~ Fax 206-323-1188
Summer 2015
Summer 2015
Summer 2015
U.S. Postage
Seattle, WA
Permit No. 5544

Similar documents