Steve Eugster | home
WSBA v. Eugster
Current Events and Time Schedule
The hearing on the Bar Association's Petition to suspend me while the case is under appeal to the Washington Supreme Court took place on May 15, 2008 in the Temple of Justice, Olympia, Washington.The Court will render a decision on the suspension in the near future.Chief Justice, Gerry Alexander, wants to hear the case in September or October.My lawyers Shawn Newman (Olympia) and Kris Sundberg (Mercer Island) will file the next brief, the last brief -- the Reply to the Bar's Response -- by the 16th of June. TVW has posted the video of the argument at: http://www.tvw.org/search/siteSearch.cfm.My lawyers did a great job. They were vigorous, prepared, knowledgeable and responsive to the Justices.
The Supreme Court unanimously denied the Bar Association's Petition to Suspend me while my appeal is moving though the Court. You can find the order here or below. Comments on the Interim Suspension Hearing
The Court showed interest in the case. And, several people came to the Court and sat with me in support.
The Bar Association argued that I should be immediately suspended because:
(1) I am strong-willed,
(2) Some lawyers in Spokane responding to a " judicial bar poll" in 2002 (really a popularity contest) did not want me as a Superior Court Judge, and
(3) Judge Dennis Sweeney (Tri-Cities) of the Court of Appeals, Division Three, said two actions I had brought as a plaintiff were frivolous. [1] (I disagree, vigorously. I do not think Judge Sweeney knew what he was talking about and he was certainly wrong on the law in several respects. But that's for later.)
I have been thinking about the Bar Association's reasons for immediately suspending me. Perhaps they are also the real reasons why the Bar seeks my disbarment. Perhaps my so-called wrongdoing regarding in trying to protect my client and her family is merely a pretext to oust me from the Bar, from the practice of law.
The "reasons" given for my suspension are not reasons at all. They are merely rationalizations for a blackball process. Perhaps the Washington State Bar Association has come to the point where it has the power to blackball members of the "fraternity" it no longer likes. Blackball them even after they have been members in good standing of the fraternity for over 38 years. Blackball them for reasons of personality, like-ability, unwanted political expression, and so on.
The last "reason" -- political expression is the standout. The Bar does not like the cases I have brought. It especially does not like two cases I brought as a plaintiff. Does the Bar think it can silence one trained in law from acting pro se? Judging from the arguments of the Bar Association lawyer one would have to say "yes."
Times have changed. Years ago it seemed lawyers understood they had a positive and active role to play in society. They were to be leaders. They were supposed to take on difficult cases and public trust and public interest issues. They were supposed to advance the dialogue of the law. But times have obvously changed. Maybe we should get rid of people like that or people who try to be like that.
Perhaps I am a danger to today's Bar Association.
I wonder whether other lawyers are aware of this evolution of the character and integrity of the Bar Association.
Another thought: "Unless it is happening to you, you would not believe it."
_________________
1. One case (Reid and Eugster v. Dalton) contested the constitutionality of the Washington Blanket Primary in the context of a specific election, a case which had been invited by the Washington Supreme Court in the 1980's. A case contesting the Washington blanket primary brought by Charles Goldmark. The case was dismissed because the Court did not have specific facts to understand how the blanket primary actually violated constitutional rights. Chuck Goldmark and his clients were in essence invited to come back another day with the challenge to the blanket primary in the context of specific facts. That case was Reid and Eugster v. Dalton. The case was inspired by my friend Chuck Goldmark, deceased, and the conduct of County Commissioner Phil Harris, who was desirous of keeping me from being the candidate who would challenge him in the general election that fall of 2000.
Another, (Eugster v. City of Spokane) was a taxpayer action seeking to cause the City of Spokane to allocate part of the River Park Square Settlement to the City's Parking Facilities Fund -- the City had violated the state local government accounting act and had wrongfully refused to reimburse the Fund for part of the cost of the settlement it had contributed to the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
These, and some of the other cases I have been involved in over the years, can be found here.
Pleadings before the Washington State Supreme Court -- the AppealThis filing was probably not proper. Statements of additional authority under the Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure as understood by those who practice appellate law are for new cases which come down after the filing of a brief. And, one is only to cite a case in relation to an issue. Here, the cases cited were not new and the Bar included argument as to each case cited.
Pleadings relating to Bar's Petition for Immediate SuspensionThe Record on Appeal