Meet the Judiciary 4 Don t be This Lawyer: 10 Early Winter 2011 - In This Issue WDTL Convention Flees to Whistler... 13 Ramifications of Anderson v. Akso Nobel Coatings, Inc. 14 WDTL Officers 18 WDTL Membership 19 Current Events 20 DEFENSENEWS Fighting for Justice and Balance in Civil Courts www.wdtl.org Six Major Flaws in Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluations By Elizabeth Ziegler, Ph.D., Neuropsychologist Neuropsychology is a specialty field within psychology dedicated to the understanding of brain-behavior relationships. The distinctive features of neuropsychological evaluations in assessing brain function include the use of objective neuropsychological tests, psychological tests, systematic behavioral observations, and interpretation of the findings based on knowledge of the neuropsychological manifestations of brain-related conditions. A plaintiff is typically evaluated by a neuropsychologist when their cognition, emotions and behaviors allegedly cause problems in employment, social, academic, and/or interpersonal functioning. A neuropsychological evaluation can ascertain if impairment exists and discern possible contributors to that impairment. Over the course of the last twenty years, neuropsychology expert witnesses have grown exponentially in the context of civil and criminal proceedings, primarily in cases of traumatic brain injury and toxic exposure. Given the adversarial nature of forensic work coupled with the financial benefits expert witnesses often reap, it becomes vital to retain qualified, objective, and unbiased expert witnesses. There can be a tendency for some experts to sway their opinions in the direction that favors the attorney who retained them; thus, a number of flaws have emerged in forensic neuropsychological work, which are becoming increasingly more common in plaintiff expert reports. These flaws will be addressed with the goal of educating civil defense attorneys about what constitutes an objective and thorough neuropsychological evaluation. Over the course of the last twenty years, neuropsychology expert witnesses have grown exponentially in the context of civil and criminal proceedings, primarily in cases of traumatic brain injury and toxic exposure Understanding of these factors will assist counsel with discovery, deposition, and testimony preparation. Failure to appropriately and continually assess for credibility of test performance (e.g., malingering). Given the financial incentives in personal injury cases, the temptation to feign or exaggerate cognitive and/or psychiatric impairment is not uncommon. The veracity of test data hinges on the premise that the examinee put forth credible effort throughout the evaluation; therefore, current practice standards in neuropsychology indicate that multiple symptom validity tests (SVTs) are to be interspersed throughout the evaluation. If validity of test performance is not assessed, the expert risks interpreting invalid data and misrepresenting the examinee s neuropsychological profile. It is not uncommon for biased or unqualified neuropsychology expert witnesses to either avoid administering SVTs or use SVTs that are insensitive in capturing feigned performance. Therefore, it is important to ensure that multiple, heterogeneous SVTs with sound psychometric properties are interspersed throughout the battery to ensure the trustworthiness of neuropsychological test data. Failure to draw conclusions consistent with empirical research and evidence-based practices. Some experts conclude that cognitive abnormalities seen on testing are due to the long-term effects of the claimed condition (e.g., mild traumatic Continued on Page 5
DEFENSENEWS Aric Newlon 206.973.3751 PO Box 12645 Seattle, WA 98111 aricnewlon@gmail.com Editors Erin H. Hammond 253.237.0587 P.O. Box 23251 Federal Way, WA 98093 erin@ehammondlaw.com Editorial Board William L. Cameron Lee Smart, P.S., Inc. 206.262.8301 1800 One Convention Place 701 Pike Street -3929 wlc@leesmart.com Nathan L. Furman Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. 206.346.3951 Ste 1400, 901 Fifth Ave Seattle, WA 98164 nfurman@forsberg-umlauf.com Karim A. Hamir 778.996.7508 2nd Flr, 1789 Lonsdale Ave N. Vancouver, BC V7M2J6 karim.a.hamir@rbc.com Erin H. Hammond 253.237.0587 P.O. Box 23251 Federal Way, WA 98093 erin@ehammondlaw.com Holly E. Hinterberger Watt Tieder Hoffar & Fitzgerald 206.204.5800 Suite 2210, 1215 Fourth Ave. Seattle, WA 98161 hhinterb@wthf.com Carol Sue Janes Bennett Bigelow Leedom, P.S. 206.622.5511 Suite 1900, 1700 Seventh Ave csjanes@bbllaw.com Laurie D. Kohli Porter, Kohli & LeMaster, P.S. 206.682.0224 Suite 2200, 1601 Fifth Ave -2622 lkohli@porterkohli.com A. Grant Lingg Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. 206.689.8500 Suite 1400, 901 Fifth Ave Seattle, WA 98164-1039 glingg@forsberg-umlauf.com Bert W. Markovich Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 206.622.1711 Suite 3010, 1420 5th Ave -3944 bmarkovich@schwabe.com Michelle Menely Gordon Thomas Honeywell LLP 206.676.7532 Suite 2100, 600 University St -1176 mmenely@gth-law.com Katrina Elsa Mulligan Stafford Frey Cooper PC 206.623.9900 Ste 3100, 601 Union St -1374 kmulligan@staffordfrey.com Aric Bradford Newlon 206.973.3751 PO Box 12645 Seattle, WA 98111 aricnewlon@gmail.com Michael Kazuo Rhodes Barrett & Worden, P.S. 206.436.2020 Ste 700, 2101 4th Ave Seattle, WA 98121 mrhodes@barrett-worden.com Aaron Paul Riensche Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC 206.447.7000 Ste 2100, 1601 5th Ave -1686 ariensche@omwlaw.com Melissa Kay Roeder Forsberg & Umlauf 206.689.8500 Suite 1400, 901 5th Ave Seattle, WA 98164-2050 mroeder@forsberg-umlauf.com Michael H. Runyan Lane Powell PC 206.223.7062 Suite 4100, 1420 Fifth Ave. -2338 runyanm@lanepowell.com Margaret Sundberg 206.595.1813 P.O. Box 99583 Seattle, WA 98139-0583 sundbergma@comcast.net Lydia A. Zakhari Carney Badley Spellman, P.S. 206.622.8020 Ste 3600, 701 Fifth Ave Seattle, WA 98104-7011 zakhari@carneylaw.com 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 kristin@wdtl.org or glingg@forsberg-umlauf.com. ADVERTISING: All advertising inquiries should be directed to: Kristin Baldwin, 800 5th Ave., Suite 4141, Seattle, WA 98104, (206) 749-0319 or e-mail: kristin@wdtl.org Defense News does not screen its advertisers/advertisements and does not vouch for the quality of the services offered for sale herein. 2 Early Winter 2011
WDTL STAFF Member Services David Penrose 4141 Agate Road Bellingham WA 98226-8745 Phone: (206) 529-4128 Fax: (206) 202-3776 Email: service@wdtl.org Accounting Stephanie Ray Solum 2144 Westlake Ave N Suite F Seattle WA 98109 Phone: (206) 551-6288 Email: accounting@wdtl.org Executive Director Kristin Baldwin 800 Fifth Ave., Suite 4141 Seattle WA 98104 Phone: (206) 749-0319 Fax: (206) 260-2798 Email: kristin@wdtl.org Early Winter 2011 3
Meet the Judiciary: District Court Judge Matt Williams By Erin H. Hammond Former WDTL Trustee Matt Williams was elected to King County District Court last November. Although our District Court is best known for handling criminal matters (including misdemeanors, felony first appearances, infractions, and search warrants), many civil lawyers are finding that District Court is a viable and cost effective place to resolve civil disputes with a jurisdictional limit of up to $75,000. As more and more civil cases involving personal injury, contract and employment disputes, collections, and even commercial claims are being filed in District Court, the timing of this interview with Judge Williams is opportune. Judge Williams talks to us a bit about his transition from attorney to Judge and his Court: (1) After twenty-seven years as an attorney, what led you to the judiciary as a career move? I d been considering serving as judge for several years. For over 20 years, I ve had the privilege of training trial advocates here in King County and in emerging democracies around the world. That work increasingly fueled my sense that that an open and transparent justice system is the greatest protection that we have to protect the rights and the safety of our citizens. I d become increasingly involved in rule of law initiatives both in the US and in other countries. Then in 2007, I was appointed to serve as a pro-tem judge in Pierce County. My first day on the bench in Pierce County was an epiphany. It was day of civil bench trials. Candidly, they were by no means the biggest value cases. But those cases were very important to the parties. What struck me was the fact that while those cases were just a few in a system of thousands, they were the center of the universe for the parties some of whom were having their first (and probably their only) experience with our justice system. At the end of that day, I knew that I had made a difference in the lives of those people not only by the decision I made, but most importantly how I handled their case. I knew from the end of that first day that I wanted to be on the bench full time. (2) There appears to be a recent increase in filings of civil litigation in District Court? To what do you attribute this increase? Attorneys (and even corporate litigants) are discovering that District Court is an excellent place to get quick resolution of civil matters. In District Court attorneys can get the discovery they need without the delays associated with protracted litigation. The parties get all the advantages of a Superior Court proceeding (motions for summary judgment, application of the rules of evidence, discovery, and jury trials), but in a condensed timeframe. Continued on Page 8 4 Early Winter 2011
Six Major Flaws From Page 1 brain injury). To support their conclusions, they may cite outdated research or research that does not exclude or control for confounding factors, which can be very misleading. For example, plaintiff experts frequently conclude the examinee s alleged impairments are due to a remote mild traumatic brain injury, although this conclusion is not supported by the empirical research. A number of comprehensive meta-analytic studies show there are no cognitive abnormalities detected within days to months after a mild TBI once confounding factors are removed (e.g., litigation samples, psychiatric factors). It is critically important for the expert witness to have a fundamental knowledge of the scientifically sound, evidence-based, and empirically supported research when drawing their conclusions. Failure to consider all etiologies. Some experts conclude that the claimed injury is the sole cause of cognitive dysfunction in the examinee while ignoring other possible causes. An expert may conclude the examinee s impairments in working memory are solely due to the brain injury that is at the center of the legal proceedings, while failing to consider other possible contributors to the examinee s difficulties. A number of conditions such as chronic substance abuse, learning disorders, and/or depression have more of an impact on cognitive scores than does a remote mild traumatic brain injury. Given the research has consistently demonstrated that various problems can influence cognitive status, it is essential to consider all other possible causes or contributors to the examinee s neuropsychological profile. Over-interpretation of low scores. There is often a tendency for experts to over-interpret low test scores either due to a lack of knowledge regarding what the low score might actually mean or to favor counsel who retained them. Failure to consider normal cognitive variability during a neuropsychological evaluation is grounds for misinterpretation of data. An expert might refer to low average scores (i.e., 9th 24th percentile) as impairments but fail to consider that 16% of the normal control population obtain scores at this level. Experts may also incorrectly assume that examinees with above average intelligence will score above average on all other cognitive tests, and therefore, low average to average scores reflect a decline. However, one study with high average intelligence control samples found that 75% of these individuals obtained at least one borderline to impaired score (i.e., < 9th percentile) score on the test battery, and 20% obtained at least two lowered scores. Both of these issues require knowledge about base rates in the normal population, consideration of correlations among differing cognitive domains, and understanding of other statistical principles that apply to the data. Claiming that low cognitive scores document a traumatic brain injury (TBI). TBI is frequently at the center of personal injury cases. A common flaw in neuropsychological evaluations is assuming that impaired cognitive scores provide evidence of a brain injury, or evidence to the severity of a brain injury (i.e., mild, moderate, or Continued on Page 6 Early Winter 2011 5
Six Major Flaws From Page 5 severe). Per the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (1993) criteria, a brain injury and its associated severity is strictly diagnosed based on the acute injury characteristics at the time of the event (e.g., loss of consciousness, Glasgow Coma Scale score) and not on the cognitive or neurobehavioral residuals. Reason being, there is not one single symptom that is specific to a brain injury. Post-concussion like symptoms (e.g., headache, memory complaints) co-occur in a number of other conditions and therefore do not provide definitive evidence of a brain injury. It is crucial to obtain information about the acute injury characteristics from day of injury medical records (e.g., paramedic reports, Emergency Department notes) as they are the most important factor in determining the presence and severity of a head injury. Neuropsychological testing can only discern residual impairment. Misinterpretation of psychodiagnostic testing (e.g., MMPI-2-RF, PAI). A select number of experts misinterpret the results of psychodiagnostic testing such as ignoring high scores on the validity scales or not accurately understanding somatoform elevations (e.g., physical symptoms that are not fully explained by a general medical condition and typically have a psychological underpinning). Experts may conclude that high scores on the validity scales suggest a cry for help. However, the research does not support the cry for help notion but rather states that high validity scores represent deliberate feigning of symptoms, and in those cases when it may not be, symptom over-reporting appears to be related to a borderline personality disorder. Another common flaw in MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF data interpretation are assuming the hypochondriasis and somatic elevations do not reflect over-reporting in personal injury litigants and are consistent with the reported injury. However, a person who is actually physically ill without pre-existing somatization tendencies will not obtain high elevations on these scales. Such persons will endorse their legitimate physical complaints but do not endorse vague physical complaints that are not consistent with bonafide medical disorders. Depression scale elevations are more likely to be elevated by actual physical illness than the somatoform scales. When experts fail to understand the relevant research and actual underpinnings of psychodiagnostic testing elevations, they risk misinterpretation of data and providing incorrect opinions to the court. In summary, an objective and thorough forensic neuropsychological evaluation should rely on data with multiple and heterogeneous symptom validity tests interspersed throughout the battery, conclusions regarding the observed cognitive profile must be consistent with the published literature for the condition in question, all plausible causes for the cognitive abnormalities need to be considered, cognitive scores should be interpreted in light of evidence as to how the litigant functioned prior to the injury with consideration of normal cognitive variability, and the correct interpretation of both cognitive and psychodiagnostic test scores is crucial. Failure of an expert to consider the above factors can produce biased or non-evidence based opinions which can be misleading to the court. Dr. Ziegler s services may be obtained through Northwest Medical Experts, a WDTL core sponsor. 6 Early Winter 2011
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. Tina Marie Aiken Sebris Busto James Referred by Jillian Barron Stephanie Alexander Michael & Alexander PLLC Samuel K. Anderson Davis Rothwell Earle & Xochihua Marvin A. Andino DigiStream Washington Terence Artz Pierce Transit Referred by Joe R. Larson Brian C. Augenthaler Keating, Bucklin & McCormack Diane Catherine Babbitt Erin Catherine Barmby Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer Referred by Nicole B. Jackson Aaron Bass Sather, Byerly & Holloway Justin E. Bolster Preg O Donnell & Gillett, PLLC Referred by Mark O Donnell Gena Marie Bomotti Riddell Williams P.S. Referred by Dan Ruttenberg Raymond Victor Bottomly Bottomly Law Firm PLLC Todd Anthony Bowers James N. Mendel and Associates Referred by Tom Crowell Katherine Bozzo Johnson, Graffe, Keay, Moniz & Wick, LLP Richard Burchak Burchak Law Office Kaci Annalisa Callahan Law Offices of Kelley J. Sweeney Bryan Joseph Case Riddell Williams, P.S. Referred by Dan Ruttenberg Kristina Chin Andrews Skinner, P.S. Referred by Pam Andrews Steven B. Crandall ProMotion Holdings, LLC Referred by Anne Bremner Mary Elizabeth Crawford Attorney At Law Matthew Zachary Crotty Witherspoon Kelley Referred by Ryan Beaudoin William L. Elsinger Scheer & Zehnder, LLP Steffanie M Fain Preg O Donnell & Gillett, PLLC Referred by Rachel Reynolds Warren Howard Fischer Office of the Attorney General Referred by Mike Nicefaro Continued on Page 12 Early Winter 2011 7
Meet the Judiciary From Page 4 Attorneys are also discovering that district court is frequently a better alternative than filing in superior court and then being referred into mandatory arbitration. In District Court, attorneys get to try the case once and have a resolution that won t involve a de novo appeal. Not having to try the case twice means that cases resolve faster, reducing costs to both parties. It also means that civil lawyers actually get to try jury cases! Basically, it s a win-win for both the plaintiffs and the defendants. Not surprisingly, we are seeing an uptick in our civil filings. (3) What is your vision for the future of our judicial system? What changes would you advocate and why? Technology is driving a lot of change in the court and the practice of law. We live in virtual world where everything from court filings to court appearances are now done via the Internet. King County District Court was one of the first District Courts in Washington to have completely electronic court records (ECR). What makes our system especially helpful is that the parties can access the court records via the internet. Every aspect of legal practice is facing hard choices driven by economic realities. The court system is no exception. Our court system here in King County has found ways to improve efficiencies without sacrificing the quality of service or the accessibility that we offer citizens. But we are facing continued challenges, and those challenges will require that we get even better and more efficient. In other parts of the world, I ve seen budget crises used as the rationale to take short cuts and to erode the necessary separation between the judiciary and the parties. I ve worked on anti-corruption initiatives in other countries which have found themselves on a slippery slope because economic or political forces led to a gradual corruption of the independence the judiciary. I believe that we need to be ever vigilant to make sure that our judges remain independent. In King County, we have eight courthouses handling a myriad of cases. Our systems are correspondingly complex. I was fortunate to serve as a general manager of large/complex business units before I came on the bench. My area of expertise was fixing broken enterprises, and in the process, I gained experience in implementing Lean/Six Sigma process improvements across national platforms. I believe that the courts need to work with the civil and criminal bars to drive improved efficiencies within our courts. To that end, in my courthouse, we have implemented monthly bench/bar user s group meetings where we meet with representatives of the bar and talk through process issues and ideas on how to make our courthouse run smoother for the end users. We ve already implemented several changes that have improved how we schedule and how we handle certain types of cases. Our courts are by no means broken (we actually have a very smooth operation given the sheer volume of tasks and transactions that are being handled each day). That being said, we can always make things better. We have great opportunities to continue to make our system easier to use while still improving our efficiency. Continued on Next Page And our systems are improving almost daily. I would expect that we will continue to inject net-based technologies into our court system. I would expect those systems will soon include pure paperless court files throughout the state, as well as virtual courtrooms, and streaming video of court proceedings. Our challenge is to understand the balance that we face in integrating technology while still making our systems reliable and cost effective. Nothing is more frustrating to a party than to come to court and have their matter rescheduled because the courthouse has lost access to our ECR servers. Which brings us to the significant challenges that our justice system is facing due to the budget and financial crises confronting every sector of our economy: 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 8 Early Winter 2011
Meet the Judiciary From Page 8 (4) Identify the one federal or state court judge, living or dead, whom you admire the most and explain why. Jack Nevin, Pierce County District Court. I have had the great honor to teach advocacy and ethics with Jack for almost 20 years. Jack is the consummate renaissance man he is judge, lawyer, teacher, soldier, scholar. His ethical insights into our system of justice and his vast knowledge of our system of justice have been an inspiration to me to try to be the very best judge possible. He sets a high standard. One I try to meet every day! (5) Describe the most challenging ethical dilemma you have encountered as a judge. How did you handle it? Interestingly, the most challenging issue came up during the judicial campaign. It involved information that was reported to me about another candidate that was also running for a judicial position. Frankly, it put me in a tough spot. conflicts and ethics have clearly defined rules and we have resources to help in those spots where the answer to an ethical question may not be readily apparent. For lawyers, the WSBA offers their hotline as well as other resources. Judges have a similar resource through both the AOC, and through the Judicial Conduct Commission. (6) Should Washington retain the election system for judges? Why or why not? Most systems of selecting judges try to balance public accountability with judicial independence. There isn t a perfect system. Some states (like Texas, New Mexico, or Louisiana) have purely partisan judicial elections. Lots of public contact, but many challenge the independence of judges elected under such systems where just the identification of political party can drive the resources and results, AND where the judge is actively and personally involved in fund raising. Other states (like Missouri) have judges selected by a blue ribbon panel appointed by the governor or executive. Those judges stand only for retention elections, and if de-elected by the people, another judge is appointed by the same judicial appointment process. Many people challenge this system as both limiting public accountability but also suggest that it can create an appearance of back room influence. Our Washington system is a unique hybrid. We have non-partisan elections, but frequently, our judges are appointed, then required to run in open elections. The reality is that most judges run unopposed but they still must run! This places judges in the interesting position of having to run an election campaign, seek endorsements, and deal with issues of campaign financing. Of course, a key part of our system is that judicial candidates cannot know who has donated to their Continued on Page 11 I sought advice from other judges, and through them from the ethics adviser of the Office of the Administrator of the Courts. I took the highest road possible, and carefully followed the advice that I received. It wouldn t be appropriate for me to say more. On a different note, I think that issues that relate to ethics and the culture of ethics that we have in Washington State is one of our greatest assets. Jack Nevin and I just returned from Ecuador where we were working as part of a judicial anti-corruption initiative. I ve worked on similar initiatives in Eastern Europe for the US Department of State and Department of Justice. As you know, I also served as a special disciplinary counsel for the WSBA. I have to say that we are fortunate here in Washington State to have a culture of practice and a system where issues of Our Mission Representing Quality Physicians in the IME Industry Physician Direct Services delivers strong support to our clients. We are Physician driven and client focused, working directly with Physicians to deliver complete and professional medical opinions. Our Vision To provide outstanding service while connecting the most qualified Physicians to clients large and small. ~ Providing services in Washington and Oregon ~ Corporate office: Oregon office: 2411 Pacific Ave. SE 1225 NW Murray Rd. #110 Olympia, Washington 98502 Portland, Oregon 97229 pds@physiciandirectservices.com pdsor@physiciandirectservices.com Early Winter 2011 9
Don t Be This Lawyer: In this case before the 10th Circuit, plaintiff s counsel had failed to comply with discovery obligations despite orders compelling discovery and despite having submitted a declaration to the district court stating that it had complied. In affirming dismissal of the case as a discovery sanction, the 10th Circuit asked, How many times can a litigant ignore his discovery obligations before his misconduct catches up with him? It then provided some useful language for those unfortunate times we all face from time to time when we have to deal with opposing counsel s discovery gamesmanship: Back in 1937 the drafters of the Federal Rules promised that their project would help ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To date, that promise remains elusive, more aspirational than descriptive. But it is surely the case that if court orders can be repeatedly flouted we will only retreat further from the goal. When a party feels at liberty to disobey not just a discovery request but two court orders compelling production of the same material in its control, weeks or months (as in this case) pass without progress in the litigation. Hours, days, weeks of lawyers time are consumed at great expense. Focus shifts from the merits to the collateral and needless. This is not speedy, inexpensive, or just. Just the opposite. And no doubt tolerating such behavior would encourage only more of it. But there is such thing as discovery karma. Discovery misconduct often may be seen as tactically advantageous at first. But just as our good and bad deeds eventually tend to catch up with us, so do discovery machinations. Or at least that s what Rule 37 seeks to ensure. * * * Discovery is not supposed to be a shell game, where the hidden ball is moved round and round and only revealed after so many false guesses are made and so much money is squandered. Lee v. Max Int l, Inc., 638 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2011). 10 Early Winter 2011
Meet the Judiciary From Page 9 campaigns. Our judicial candidates also are precluded from commenting on issues that might appear before them. In Washington we go through extensive vetting and evalutions by a multitude of organizations, not just one selection panel. Of course, attorney groups with specialized knowledge on the functioning of the courts dominate those evauations, but judges are also evaluated by many non-attorney groups. And ultimately, we spend a lot of time talking to citizen groups. Having gone through a contested election, I can tell you that it is a fairly traumatic experience and not for the faint of heart. Every aspect of your life is opened to public scrutiny, and it can be hard not only on the candidate, but on their family as well. That being said, the election gave me many wonderful opportunities to meet and learn the concerns of many, many, many concerned citizens here in King County. It gave me a heightened appreciation for how my decisions impact the lives of our citizens. It also made me even more committed to the idea that our justice system should be as transparent as possible. It s a given that judges should be committed to following the rule of law, and should do so independent of outside influence. AND, our judges should not be so isolated from our citizens that we lose sight of the very human aspects of our justice system. We need to understand what we are doing. So, I don t have an answer as to how to create the perfect selection system. The system we have seems to balance the two main concerns, but certainly in no way close to perfection. (7) If you could give some tips to civil attorneys appearing before you that do not normally appear in District Court, what would they be? 1) Prepare. We have very full calendars. Come prepared to cut to the chase. 2) Read the CRLJs (Civil Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction), and the local rules. You will be surprised how the answers to most questions are spelled out there! 3) Remember, District Court is NOT arbitration. The rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure apply. 4) Briefing is good! Motion practice is alive and well in District Court! The more advance notice you give us on the matter to be heard, the better prepared we will be to make the best ruling possible. But keep to the point. (8) What do most civil attorneys get wrong? How can the civil practice of law be improved in your opinion? The nature of civil practice frequently limits the opportunity to try cases, so many civil lawyers struggle with issues of rules of evidence, and sometimes with basic trial practice. (How to lay foundation, impeach a witness, make an effective closing argument). Refresher training is always a good idea. I d also suggest that before trying a case in any given courthouse, it helps to simply come down and watch part of a trial or hearing in that courthouse. (9) What is your favorite case (and why)? Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 44 (1849). That s where Justice Taney stated: All power may be abused if placed in unworthy hands. It s hard to imagine a more concise statement of the need for checks and balances, as well as the realities that face any system of laws. (10) If you had a judicial theme song, what would it be? While I m tempted to go with the Doobies Long Train Running, I ve probably got to go with Chris Standring s Fast Train to Everywhere. Early Winter 2011 11
Welcome New Members From Page 7 Barbara A. Flemming King County Prosecuting Attorney Referred by Dan Kinerk Jim J. Fowler Fowler Risk, LLC Marie N. Gallagher Snohomish County Prosecutor, Civil Div. Referred by Ted Seder Jason Andrew Gardner Bodyfelt Mount LLP Referred by Heather Bowman Onik a Ilaisaane Gilliam Patterson, Buchanan, Fobes, Leitch & Kalzer Referred by Sarah Mack Sofya Goykhman Gardner Trabolsi & Associates PLLC Referred by Ronald Gardner Scott Richard Grigsby Gierke, Curwen, P.S. Karim A. Hamir Bruce C. Hamlin Martin Bischoff Templeton Langslet & Hoffman LLP Kevin Michael Hastings Referred by Shawn Lipton Sarah E. Heineman Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer Referred by Nicole Jackson Thomas A. Heller Heller Wiegenstein PLLC Referred by John Wiegenstein Ryan J. Hesselgesser Cole, Wathen, Leid & Hall, P.C. Referred by Jennifer Dinning Curt Roy Hineline Bracewell & Giuliani LLP Referred by Kristin Baldwin Frank S. Hong Lorber Greenfield & Polito, LLP Referred by Shane D. McFetridge Rachel Jeanette Horvitz Wood Smith Henning & Berman Amy Jones Cole, Wathen, Leid & Hall, P.C. Referred by Rory Leid III Jean Y. Kang Scheer & Zehnder, LLP Referred by Scheer & Zehnder, LLP Michael John Kapaun Witherspoon Kelley Christopher W. Keay Johnson, Graffe, Keay, Moniz & Wick, LLP Elizabeth M. Kennedy Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP Claire E. Kintanar Kimberly E. Larsen Rider Cole, Wathen, Leid & Hall, P.C. Referred by Jen Dining Jane J. Matthews Martens + Associates P.S. Referred by Richard Martens Aimee N. Maurer Stocker, Smith, Luciani & Staub, PLLC Referred by Steven Stocker Michael Brandt McDermott Johnson, Graffe, Keay, Moniz, and Wic Referred by Heath Fox, Mike Nicefaro Continued on Page 15 12 Early Winter 2011
WDTL Convention Flees to Whistler to Escape Summer Heat Wave By Matt Wojcik, WDTL s President The Annual Convention is the crescendo for the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers - a time for socializing with fellow defense attorneys from other parts of Washington, recognizing leaders in the defense community, relaxing by the pool with family, and catching up on CLE credits through top-notch presentations. The 2011 Annual Convention did not disappoint. Held at the luxurious Fairmont Chateau Whistler in British Columbia, Canada, the Convention featured presentations from Washington Attorney General and 2012 gubernatorial candidate, Rob McKenna, and DRI Immediate Past-President, Cary Hiltgen. The unseasonably cool summer weather cooperated for the most part, allowing WDTL golfers to shed their parkas for the WDTL Annual Golf Tournament. A special thanks goes to Jason Rosen of the Christie Law Group for coordinating the Tournament. Using computer animations from trial, Andy Cooley and Adam Rosenberg of Keating, Bucklin & McCormack compared and contrasted two cases with relatively similar fact patterns but divergently different jury awards. Past-President Brad Maxa of Gordon Thomas Honeywell and Lisa Marchese of Dorsey & Whitney, along with the Assistant General Counsel of Volvo Construction Equipment (Marchese s client), provided insight into the value and necessity of creating interactive attorneyclient relationships. Dan Mullin of the Mullin Law Group and Tom Fain of Fain Anderson Vanderhoef offered strategies for defending cases against prominent high-powered Plaintiff attorneys. Finally, the crowd got a chuckle when Paul Burton of QuietSpacing, Inc. presented on Time Management Techniques for Business Success and Better Work/Life Balance and went 30 minutes over time. The main hall overflowed with litigation support vendors, showcasing their areas of expertise. Several of the vendors sponsored an elaborate Rat Pack themed President s Party, complete with appearances by Dean, Frank, Sammy, and even Marilyn Monroe. Despite the ongoing difficult economy, a record number of defense firms sponsored this year s Convention. Thanks goes to Carney Badley Spellman, Mullin Law Group, Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, Dorsey & Whitney, Forsberg & Umlauf, Stafford Frey Cooper, Thorner Kennedy & Gano, Stocker Smith Luciani & Staub, Preg O Donnell & Gillett, and Scheer & Zehnder for their generosity. The Convention culminated with the Annual Awards Dinner, presided over by WDTL President Emilia Sweeney. The Annual Silent Auction, held during the cocktail hour, raised over $2000 for the WDTL Speaker s Foundation. WDTL Past-President, Jill Haavig Stone honored Ms. Sweeney with the DRI Exceptional Performance Award for her contributions and leadership as WDTL President. Ms. Sweeney, in turn, bestowed the WDTL President s Award on Chris Nicoll of Nicoll Black & Feig for his substantial contributions to the Amicus Committee, including drafting an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court. Next year s Convention is scheduled for July 19-22, 2012 at the magnificent Skamania Resort in Stevenson, Washington. The Skamania is a historical getaway located on 175 acres of lush, wooded grounds overlooking the Columbia River, complete with a full-service spa and 18-hole golf course. The Lodge is only minutes away from the historic Bonneville Dam and towering Multnomah Falls, and within 30 minutes from 10 wineries and tasting rooms. Also nearby and just across the Columbia River is the town of Hood River, Oregon. For those unfamiliar with the town, Hood River is a kicked-back sportsman s paradise - a favorite destination for fly-fishermen, windsurfers, hikers, shoppers and sightseers. Hood River is also the western gateway to the Mt. Hood Scenic Byway. Make sure to stop by the Hood River Restaurant (AKA Jack s) to share a Scorpion Bowl with 5 or 10 of your good friends. The Scorpion Bowl is the equivalent of several long island ice teas poured into a Chinese noodle bowl, accompanied by multiple extended bendy straws. (How this has passed under the radar of the local health department, we re not sure.) After taking in a few sips from the community bowl, you will be ready to dance the night away to an eclectic array of 80 s party tunes and one-hit wonders (who will admit to knowing the words to 867-5309 Jenny? ) The 2012 WDTL Annual Convention promises to be memorable. Please consider joining your fellow WDTL members for a long weekend or make it a week-long vacation. More information on the Annual Convention and Skamania Resort will be made available on the WDTL website in the coming months. Early Winter 2011 13
Ramifications of Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. on Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Washington State By Michelle A. Alig, Merrick, Hofstedt & Lindsey, P.S. In 1923, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923) which provided a framework for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. The Frye test is frequently referred to as the general acceptance test and requires the court to determine whether a methodology or theory has been generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Frye, 54 App. D.C. 46; see also Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., No. 82264-6, *6, 2011 Wash. Lexis 669 (Sep. 8, 2011). The general acceptance test [became] the dominant standard for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence at trial. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 588, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993). In Washington, after novel scientific evidence is found admissible under Frye, a court will then consider whether it is admissible under Evidence Rule 702, i.e., whether the specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact. Anderson at *9, citing State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 829-30, 147 P.3d 1201 (2006). Seventy years after Frye, in Daubert, the United States Supreme Court rejected further application of the Frye test in the federal courts because Federal Rule of Evidence 702 does not expressly require general acceptance, and such a requirement is inconsistent with the thrust in the Federal Rules of Evidence s relaxation of the traditional barriers to opinion testimony. Anderson, No. 82264-6 at *6. Daubert set forth a reliability test and requires the court to determine if the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and can be applied to the facts of the subject case. Daubert, 509 U.S. 579; see also Anderson, No. 82264-6 at *6. Despite Daubert, the Washington Supreme Court has continued to cite to and apply the Frye general acceptance test, at least in criminal cases. See, e.g., State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 922 P.2d 1304 (1996). In civil cases, Washington s lower courts, including the court of appeals and trial courts, have also continued to apply the Frye test. See, e.g., Moore v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Grp., Inc., 158 Wn. App. 407, 417, 241 P.3d 808 (2010). The Washington Supreme Court has remained silent in civil cases. See Anderson, No. 82264-6 at *7. The Washington Court of Appeals has taken the approach that Frye s requirement that a theory be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community applies to theories on causation. See, e.g., Eakins v. Huber, 154 Wn. App. 592, 225 P.3d 1041 (Div. III 2010); Ruff v. Dep t of Labor & Indus., 107 Wn. App. 289, 299-300, 28 P.3d 1 (Div. I 2001); Grant v. Boccia, 133 Wn. App. 176, 137 P.3d 20 (Div. III 2006). In Eakins, the court excluded opinion testimony on medical causation because the opinion was not based on practical experience or a well-settled medical theory but on a hypothetical link. Eakins, 154 Wn. App. at 601. In Ruff, the court excluded expert testimony that chemical exposure at work caused chronic porphyria. Ruff, 107 Wn. App. at 299-300. In excluding the testimony, the court found that there was great skepticism among qualified experts that the test used to diagnose the plaintiff was a valid diagnostic tool and whether exposure to ambient chemicals could cause chronic porphyria. Id. at 305. In Grant, the court cited Ruff and cases from other jurisdictions when it held that given the clear disagreement in the relevant scientific community as to Continued on Page 16 14 Early Winter 2011
Welcome New Members From Page 12 Shane Douglas McFetridge Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP Jonathan R. Missen Freise & Welchman Referred by Shawn Lipton Justin M. Monroe Todd & Wakefield Caitlin Parker Morray Bennett Bigelow & Leedom Referred by Elizabeth Leedom Eric Allen Norman Fain Anderson VanDerhoef, PLLC Referred by Fain Anderson VanDerhoef, PLLC Michael Shannon O Meara IQ Data International, Inc. Bruno G. Para Liberty Mutel - Enterpise Legal Services Referred by William D. Garcia Shannon E. Phillips Summit Law Group PLLC Referred by Michael C. Bolasina Kim Adams Pratt Referred by Stephanie Croll Ruby Squyres Redshaw Nicoll Black & Feig Referred by Michael Guadagno Daniel Kennedy Reising Fucile & Reising LLP Referred by Melissa Roeder Peter M. Ritchie Meyer Fluegge & Tenney, P.S. Referred by Robert C. Tenney Michelle L. Rutherford Pierce County Referred by Shawn Lipton David Ruzumna Law Office of David Ruzumna, PLLC Midori Sagara Cole, Wathen, Leid & Hall, P.C. Referred by Rory Leid III Bahareh Samanian Seattle University School of Law Referred by Shawn Lipton Michael Bruce Saunders Halvorson Saunders & Willner PLLC Referred by Geoff Boodell Bryan D. Scholnick Merrick, Hofstedt & Lindsey, P.S. Amanda Mary Alys Searle Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. Referred by James B. Meade Kathleen A. Shea Martens + Associates P.S. Referred by Richard Martens Melinda Shelton Referred by Shawn Lipton Eileen M. Stauss Law Office of Eileen Stauss Jared Daniel Stueckle Cole, Wathen, Leid & Hall, P.C. Referred by Amy Jones Erin Sullivan-Byorick Vandeberg Johnson & Gandara Referred by Sherry Davis Dean F. Swanson Scheer and Zehnder LLP Referred by Levi Bendele Mark Allen Fiorito Symington Seattle University School of Law Referred by Shawn Lipton Bryan T. Terry Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer Inc PS Referred by Nicole Brodie Jackson Rhonda Laumann, Mediator & Attorney The Laumann Firm, PLLC Mediation and Legal Services Mediation of Personal Injury and Malpractice claims Mandatory Arbitration in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties Judge pro tempore for Bremerton Municipal Court Certified Life Coach Samuel Charles Thilo Witherspoon Kelley Referred by Ryan Beaudoin Britt L. Tinglum Preg O Donnell & Gillett Referred by Lori O Tool Ann Elizabeth Trivett Christie Law Group, PLLC Cynthia Dale Turner Turner Kugler Law PLLC Referred by John Kugler Carly J. Twiggs Betts Patterson Mines Referred by Catherine Brumbaugh Geana M. Van Dessel Witherspoon Kelley Kallie A. Veeneman Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP Referred by Frank Hong Sara L. Watkins Velikanje Halverson P.C. Referred by West Campbell Katherine Carlson Wax Perkins Coie Referred by Linda Gallagher Alexander J. Williamson Prange Law Group, LLC Referred by David E. Prange National Institute of Trial Advocacy Faculty Member The Laumann Firm, PLLC 6523 California Avenue SW, Suite 323 Seattle, WA 98136 (206) 790-2395 www.laumannfirm.com Early Winter 2011 15
Ramifications From Page 14 the cause of fibromyalgia, the trial court properly excluded expert testimony that the automobile accident at issue caused fibromyalgia under Frye. Grant, 133 Wn. App. at 185-86. On September 8, 2011, the Washington Supreme Court issued its opinion in Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., No. 82264-6. Justice Chambers wrote for a unanimous court: In civil cases, we have neither expressly adopted Frye nor expressly rejected Daubert.... In the case before us, the parties and lower courts assume that Frye is applicable, and for the purposes of this opinion, we will assume without deciding that Frye is the appropriate test for civil cases. Anderson, No. 82264-6, *7. In applying Frye, the Anderson Court noted: The Frye test is an additional tool used by judges when proffered evidence is based upon novel theories and novel techniques or methods. In our courts, scientific evidence must satisfy the Frye requirement that the theory and technique or methodology relied upon are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Id. at *11 (internal citations omitted). Nonetheless, the Court determined that if the science and methods are widely accepted in the relevant scientific community, the evidence is admissible under Frye, without separately requiring widespread acceptance of the plaintiff s theory of causation. Id. at *14. The Supreme Court explicitly overruled Grant and Ruff to the extent they are inconsistent with the Anderson opinion. Id. at *18. Justice Chambers opinion seems to leave the door open for the Washington Supreme Court to replace the Frye test at some point in the future. In the meantime, unless one of the parties objects, Washington courts will likely continue to apply Frye in civil cases where novel scientific evidence is sought to be admitted. However, application of Frye post-anderson will be narrower than in the past. Thus, for example, where Washington courts have previously excluded expert testimony and dismissed actions alleging a defendant s actions caused fibromyalgia, such testimony will now likely be admitted, and the jury, rather than the trial judge, will be left to decide whether the scientific testimony is credible. Given the Anderson court s reservation about deciding whether it would adopt the Frye standard in civil cases, civil litigators should recognize the unsettled nature of this evidence issue when considering the admissibility of novel scientific evidence, and the possibility that the Supreme Court will further relax the limitations on admissibility of such evidence in civil cases. Michelle A. Alig is an attorney with Merrick, Hofstedt & Lindsey, P.S. in Seattle and can be reached at (206) 682-0610 or malig@mhlseattle.com. 16 Early Winter 2011
Congratulations to the 2011 WDTL Award Honorees Community Leadership Award: Michael Guadagno Nicoll Black & Feig, PLLC Outstanding Defense Trial Lawyer: Tom Merrick Merrick, Hofstedt & Lindsey, P.S. Outstanding Plaintiff Trial Lawyer: Felix Luna Peterson Young Putra Outstanding Litigation Associate: Maggie Bruya Kirschner Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. Felix Luna (r ) listens to his accolades as Plaintiffs Lawyer of the Year Maggie Kirschner shows off her Defense Associate of the Year award Tom Merrick accepts his Defense Attorney of the year award from President Matt Wojcik Early Winter 2011 17
PRESIDENT Matthew Wojcik Mullin Law Group PLLC 101 Yesler Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206.957.7007 voice 206.957.7008 fax mwojcik@mullinlawgroup.com PRESIDENT-ELECT Ryan Beaudoin Witherspoon, Kelley 1100 U.S. Bank Building 422 W Riverside Ave Spokane WA 99201-0302 509.624.5265 voice 509.458.2728 fax RMB@witherspoonkelley.com SECRETARY Melissa Roeder Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. 900 4th Ave, Suite 1400 Seattle WA 98164-1039 206.689.8500 voice 206.689.8501 fax mroeder@forsberg-umlauf.com TREASURER Michael Nicefaro Office of the Attorney General Suite 2100 800 Fifth Avenue Seattle WA 98164 206.464.7352 voice 206.587.4229 fax miken@atg.wa.gov Board Advisor Ted Buck Stafford Frey Cooper 601 Union Street, Suite 3100 206.667.8254 voice 206.624.6885 fax tbuck@staffordfrey.com Committee Coordinator Dirk Holt Scheer & Zehnder L.L.P. 701 Pike Street, Suite 2200 206.262.1200 voice 206.223.4065 fax dholt@scheerlaw.com Court Rules Chair Lane Powell PC 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle WA 98101-2338 206.223.7062 voice 206.223.7107 fax runyanm@lanepowell.com DRI State Representative Jill Haavig Stone Stone Novasky LLC. One North Tacoma Avenue, Suite 201 Tacoma, WA 98403 253.327.1042 voice 253.327.1047 fax jill@snlawllc.com Judicial Liaison Chair Dan L. Johnson Law Offices of Shahin Karim 520 Pike Street, Suite 1300 206.405.1911 voice 206.405.1916 fax dan.johnson@usaa.com Legislative Chair Lori O Tool Preg, O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC Suite 1500 1800 9th Avenue 206.287.1775 voice 206.287.9113 fax lotool@poglaw.com Membership Erin Hammond P.O. Box 23251 Federal Way, WA 98093 253.237.0587 voice 253.237.0701 fax erin@ehammondlaw.com Past President Emilia Sweeney Carney Badley Spellman P.S. 701 5th Avenue, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98104 206.607.4187 voice 206.622.8983 fax sweeney@carneylaw.com Programs Chair Maggie Sweeney Preg, O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC Suite 1500 1800 9th Avenue 206.287.1775 voice 206.287.9113 fax msweeney@poglaw.com Publications Chair Erin Hammond P.O. Box 23251 Federal Way, WA 98093 253.237.0587 voice 253.237.0701 fax erin@ehammondlaw.com Public Relations Chair Jennifer Campbell Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400-2338 206.689.3052 voice 206.292.0460 fax jcampbell@schwabe.com Strategic Planning Chair Linda Gallagher King County Prosecutor's Office 900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 206.296.8820 voice 206.296.8819 fax linda.gallagher@kingcounty.gov Trustee at Large Edward Bruya Keefe, Bowman & Bruya, P.S. Ste 1102, W 601 Main Ave Spokane WA 99201 509.624.8988 voice 509.623.1380 fax ebruya@kkbowman.com Trustee at Large Michael Bolasina Summit Law Group Suite 1000 315 Fifth Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 206.676.7000 voice 206.676.7001 fax mikeb@summitlawgroup.com Trustee at Large Heather Carr Stafford Frey Cooper 3100 Two Union Square 601 Union Street Seattle WA 98101 206.667.8218 voice 206.624.6885 fax hcarr@staffordfrey.com Trustee at Large Jillian Hinman Smith, Freed & Eberhard P.C. 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 4300 Portland, OR 97204 503.227.2424 voice 503.227.2535 fax jhinman@smithfreed.com Trustee at Large Lisa Marchese Dorsey & Whitney 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100 Seattle, WA 98104-7043 206.903.2379 voice 206. 903.8820 fax marchese.lisa@dorsey.com Trustee at Large Megan Murphy Thorner, Kennedy & Gano P.S. 101 S. 12th Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 509.575.1400 voice 509.453.6874 fax mkm@tkglawfirm.com Trustee at Large Brad Smith Ewing Anderson PS 522 West Riverside, Suite 800 Spokane WA 99201 509.838.4261 voice 509.838.4906 fax bsmith@ewinganderson.com AMICUS Stewart Estes Keating, Bucklin, McCormack 800 5th Ave, Suite 4141 Seattle WA 98101-2509 206.623.8861 voice 206.233.9423 fax sestes@kbmlawyers.com BAR LIAISON James Macpherson Kopta & Macpherson 365 Ericksen Ave., Suite 325 Bainbridge Island WA 98110 206.780.4050 voice 206.780.3868 fax jemacpherson@cs.com BOARD DEVELOPMENT Ryan Beaudoin Witherspoon Kelley 422 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 1100 Spokane, WA 99201 509.624.5265 voice rmb@witherspoonkelley.com CIVIC APPOINTMENTS Stephanie Baldwin Lee Smart, P.S. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1800 206.624.7990 voice 206.624.5944 fax sb@leesmart.com COMMITTEE COORDINATOR Dirk Holt Scheer & Zehnder L.L.P. 701 Pike Street, Suite 2200 206.262.1200 voice 206.223.4065 fax dholt@scheerlaw.com COMMUNITY SERVICES Heather Carr Stafford Frey Cooper PC 3100 Two Union Square 3100 Two Union Square Seattle WA 98101 206.623.9900 voice 206.624.6885 04 fax hcarr@staffordfrey.com COURT RULES Michael Runyan Lane Powell PC 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle WA 98101-2338 206.223.7062 voice 206.223.7107 fax runyanm@lanepowell.com JUDICIAL LIAISON Dan Johnson Law Offices of Shahin Karim 520 Pike Street, Suite 1300 Seattle WA 98101 206.405.1900 voice dan.johnson@usaa.com LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Lori O Tool Preg, O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC Suite 1500 1800 9th Avenue 206.287.1775 voice 206.287.9113 fax lotool@poglaw.com MEMBERSHIP Erin Hammond P.O. Box 23251 Federal Way, WA 98093 253.237.0587 voice 253.237.0701 fax erin@ehammondlaw.com PAST PRESIDENTS Rick Roberts Law Offices of Sharon Bitcon 200 W. Mercer, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98119 206.288.1507 voice 206.286.1941 fax richard.roberts2@thehartf ord.com PRACTICE DEVELOPMENT Rachel Tallon Reynolds Preg, O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC 1800 9th Ave., Suite 1500 206.287.1775 voice 206.287.9113 fax rreynolds@poglaw.com PROGRAMS Maggie Sweeney Preg, O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC 1800 9th Ave., Suite 1500 206.287.1775 voice 206.287.9113 fax msweeney@poglaw.com PUBLICATIONS Erin Hammond P.O. Box 23251 Federal Way, WA 98093 253.237.0587 voice 253.237.0701 fax erin@ehammondlaw.com PUBLIC RELATIONS Jennifer Campbell Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt 1420 5th Ave., Suite 3010 Seattle WA 98101-2338 206.689.3052 voice 206.292.0460 fax jcampbell@schwabe.com STRATEGIC PLANNING Linda Gallagher King County Prosecutor's Office 900 4th Ave., Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 206.296.8820 voice 206.296.8819 fax linda.gallagher@ kingcounty.gov TECHNOLOGY John Schedler Lee Smart P.S. Inc. 1800 One Convention Place 701 Pike Street Seattle WA 98101-3929 206.626.0405 voice 206.624.5944 fax jws@leesmart.com ASBESTOS/TOXIC TORTS Melissa Roeder Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. 900 4th Ave, Suite 1400 Seattle WA 98164-1039 206.689.8500 voice 206.689.8501 fax mroeder@forsberg-umlauf.com COMMERCIAL LITIGATION James Howard Dorsey & Whitney LLP U.S. Bank Centre 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400-4010 206.903.2390 voice 206.903.8820 fax howard.james@dorsey.com CONSTRUCTION Scott Clement Clement & Drotz, PLLC Pier 30070, 2801 Alaskan Way Seattle, Washington 98121-1134 206.448.9595 voice 206.448.2235 fax sclement@clementdrotz.com CORPORATE COUNSEL William M. Symmes Witherspoon Kelley 422 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 1100 Spokane, WA 99201 509.755.2026 voice wms@witherspoonkelley.com EMPLOYMENT Geoffrey M. Boodell Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. Suite 1400 901 5th Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 206.689.8500 voice 206.689.8501 fax gboodell@forsberg-umlauf.com GOVERNMENT LIABILITY Michael Bolasina Summit Law Group, PLLC 315 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 1000 206.676.7000 voice 206.676.7001 fax Mikeb@summitlaw.com IN-HOUSE COUNSEL Scott Noel Law Offices of Kelley J. Sweeney 1191 2nd Ave., Suite 500-2990 206.473.4519 voice 206.473.4031 fax scott.noel@libertymutual.com INSURANCE Irene Hecht Keller Rohrback LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle WA 98101-3052 206.623.1900 voice 206.623.3384 fax ihecht@kellerrohrback.com MARITIME Katie Mattison Lane Powell 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle WA 98101 206.223.7000 voice 206.223.7107 fax matisonk@lanepowell.com PREMISES LIABILITY Maggie Bruya Kirschner Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. Suite 1400 901 5th Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 206.689.8500 voice 206.689.8501 fax mkirschner@forsberg-umlauf.com PREMISES LIABILITY A. Grant Lingg Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. Suite 1400 901 5th Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 206.689.8500 voice 206.689.8501 fax glingg@forsberg-umlauf.com PRODUCT LIABILITY Lisa Marchese Dorsey & Whitney LLP U.S. Bank Centre 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400-4010 206.903.2379 voice 206.903.8820 fax marchese.lisa@dorsey.com PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY Tim Ashcraft Williams Kastner & Gibbs 1301 A St #900 Tacoma WA 98402 253.593.5620 voice 253.593.5625 fax tashcraft@wkg.com PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY Gerrit Ayers Fitzer, Leighton & Ayers, LLC 1145 Broadway, Suite 400 Tacoma WA 98402 253.683.4501 voice 253.627.8928 fax gerrit@theflafirm.com WORKERS COMPENSATION Mary E. Levenson Eims & Flynn, P.S. 216 First Avenue South, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98104 206.521.4944 voice 206.521.4940 Fax mlevenson@eims-flynn.com Central Washington Megan Murphy Thorner, Kennedy & Gano P.S. 101 S. 12th Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 509.575.1400 voice 509.453.6874 fax mkm@tkglawfirm.com South Sound Ema Virdi Gierke, Curwen P.S. 2102 North Pearl Street Suite 400, Building D Tacoma, WA 98406-2550 253.752.1600 voice 253.752.1666 fax evirdi@cgdjlaw.com Southwest Washington Jillian Hinman Smith, Freed & Eberhard P.C. 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 4300 Portland, OR 97204 503.227.2424 voice 503.227.2535 fax jhinman@smithfreed.com Eastern Washington Brad Smith Ewing Anderson PS 522 West Riverside, Suite 800 Spokane WA 99201 509.838.4261 voice 509.838.4906 fax bsmith@ewinganderson.com North Sound Open Executive Director Kristin Baldwin 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4141 Seattle, WA 98104 206.749.0319 voice 206.749.0321 fax kristin@wdtl.org 18 Late Spring 2011
Early Winter 2011 19
PRSRT STD U.S. Postage PAID Seattle, WA Permit No. 5544 WDTL Events Calendar for 2011-2012 (register online at www.wdtl.org) December 8 CLE - Ethics Seattle W 9 CLE - Annual Tort Law Update Seattle W January 24 South Sound Judicial Dinner Courtyard Marriot, Tacoma 27 CLE - Auto Crashes Seattle February 16 50th Anniversary 24 CLE - Annual Construction Law Update Convention Center Seattle W March CLE - Defense Academy I Lee Smart Seattle April 6 CLE - Insurance Law Update Seattle W 19 Judicial Reception Spokane CLE - Managing Partner s Breakfast Seattle May CLE - Products Liability Seattle July 19-21 Annual Convention Skamania Resort, Stevenson, Washington (W Simultaneous Webcast)