Eugster v. Washington Supreme Court Justices

Today I filed an Application for Leave to File — complaint against the individual justices of the Washington Supreme Court.

The issue is whether the WSBA an integrated association of lawyers, limited practice officers, and limited license legal technicians violates the holding in Janus v, AFSCME.

This case is different from the petition for writ of certiorari of  Jarchow v. Wisconsin State Bar Association now before the United States Supreme Court

Docket

Doc_4_Application for Leave

Doc_4-1 2020_04_13_Draft of Complaint_Case 13A

Doc_5 Motion to Disqualify Judge

Doc_5-1_Declaration ISOM Motion to Disqualify Judge

 

Posted in Lawyers General | Comments Off on Eugster v. Washington Supreme Court Justices

Caruso v. WSBA, FRCP Rule 60 Motions, Summary Dismissal // Petition for Rehearing En Banc

The bar association filed a 9th Circuit R. 3-6 motion.  I have responded with a Petition for Rehearing

En Banc.  Doc_17_Petition for Re Hearing En Banc

Posted in Lawyers General | Comments Off on Caruso v. WSBA, FRCP Rule 60 Motions, Summary Dismissal // Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Fleck v. Wetch

The Supreme Court will consider the new Fleck Petition for Cert.  It has been distributed for conference this coming Friday, March 6, 2020. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-670.html

Here is a Geo. Will column on February 28, 2020 — https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/supreme-court-s-fine-janus-decision-merits-encore/article_d2dd2ba3-75f0-5566-826a-9f91ba00f470.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share

Posted in Lawyers General | Comments Off on Fleck v. Wetch

Fleck v. Wetch, 8th Circuit Order, Briefing and Argument

No. 16-1564.

JUDGE ORDER: On December 3, 2018, the Supreme Court vacated this court’s judgment and remanded the matter for further consideration in light of Janus v. State, County and Municipal Employees, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018). On January 9, 2019, the court reopened this case. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the issues on remand. Appellant’s brief is due February 15, 2019, and appellees’ brief is due March 15, 2019. Appellant’s reply brief, if any, is due March 29, 2018. The principal supplemental briefs shall not exceed 10,000 words, and appellant’s reply brief shall not exceed 5,000 words. It is further ordered that this matter will be set for oral argument in St. Paul, Minnesota on Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel will be advised of the courtroom assignment when the June calendar is published. Hrg Apr 2017 [4745232] [16-1564] (MDS) [Entered: 01/11/2019 02:59 PM]

Posted in Lawyers General | Comments Off on Fleck v. Wetch, 8th Circuit Order, Briefing and Argument

Arizona Bar Petition: Separate Regulatory and Trade Association Functions

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

Yesterday, the Goldwater Institute filed a petition asking the Arizona Supreme Court to amend the rules governing the State Bar of Arizona to separate the regulatory and trade association functions along the lines adopted by the Nebraska Supreme Court and comparable to bar reform legislation sponsored by Rep. Anthony Kern in the Arizona Legislature the past few years. In addition, the petition asks for the implementation of heightened financial transparency requirements via a detailed and independent annual audit of the Arizona Bar’s expenditures. A copy of the rule petition is attached. Also see the explanatory links below for additional background.

https://indefenseofliberty.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Petition-to-Amend-Rules-32c-d-Rules-of-the-Supreme-Court.pdf

https://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/goldwater-asks-az-supreme-court-to-protect-arizonans-rights-and-bring-transparency-to-the-legal-system/

https://indefenseofliberty.blog/2019/01/08/arizona-should-cease-violating-lawyers-first-amendment-rights/

I urge you to make your comments in support of this new bar reform rules petition via this registration link: https://www.azcourts.gov/rules/Forum-FAQ

Any member of the public is free to make comments.

Warm regards,

Mo

__________________________________
Mauricio R. Hernandez, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 7347, Goodyear, AZ 85338

 

 

Posted in Lawyers General | Comments Off on Arizona Bar Petition: Separate Regulatory and Trade Association Functions

Washington Supreme Court and the Bar Structure Work Group

The Washington Supreme Court exercising its power over the WSBA and members under GR 12.2 has created a Bar Structure Work Group.

The court neglects to mention Eugster v. WSBA and Justices of the Supreme Court.  The case is on appeal to the 9th Circuit, all briefs have been filed.

Posted in Lawyers General | Comments Off on Washington Supreme Court and the Bar Structure Work Group

Eugster v. WSBA and Justices of the Washington Supreme Court

Pleadings on appeal:

  1. Doc_6_ Opening_Brief_and_Appendix
  2. Doc_13_Answering Brief
  3. Doc_16_Reply Appellant
Posted in Lawyers General | Comments Off on Eugster v. WSBA and Justices of the Washington Supreme Court

Supreme Court Workgroup and Fleck v. Wetch

Members of the Spokane County Bar Association, December 7, 2018, from Steve Eugster*

The Washington Supreme Court recently created the Supreme Court Workgroup to Review WSBA Structure.[1] The duration of the workgroup is six to eight weeks with meetings every three to four weeks.  The first meeting will be in January 2019. It will be held at WSBA offices in Seattle and will be open to the public.

The workgroup will undertake a “comprehensive review of the structure of the bar in light of recent case law of the First Amendment and antitrust implications for bar associations.”  Id.

Recent case law is Fleck v. Wetch, a Petition for Writ of  Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.  Mr. Fleck contends it is a violation of his rights under First and Fourteenth Amendments to be forced to pay dues to the North Dakota Bar Association unless he opted in, (consented) to pay.

He filed his petition on December 21, 2017.  On June 27, 2018, Janus v. AFSCME was decided.

Mr. Fleck’s petition was granted on December 3, 2018. When it was, the first act of the United States Supreme Court was to vacate the lower court judgment and remand the case to the 8th Circuit for “further consideration in light of Janus v. State, County, and Municipal  Employees, 585 U. S. ___ (2018).”

Janus held a person could not be forced to pay money to the state, or a union contracting with the state, to secure a right to work. The practice violated the worker’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Fleck v. Wetch is not the only case the Supreme Court Workgroup will have to consider.  I too have a case; it is  Eugster v. WSBA and Justices of the Washington Supreme Court, No. 2:17-cv-000392-TOR, Eastern District of Washington. Appeal Pleadings.

Unlike the bar association in Fleck, the “bar association  (WSBA) is an integrated association of lawyers and others. The case is now before the 9th Circuit. It seeks to have the court apply the ruling in Janus to the facts of the case.

Soon Fleck v.Wetch will be considered by the 8th Circuit.  Additional briefing may be called for by the court.  Eugster v. WSBA and Justices is now before 9th Circuit.  The briefs have been filed. Appeal Pleadings. There will be a setting of the hearing in the next several weeks. The two cases will likely be decided near in time to the other.

Janus v. AFSCME will have a significant impact on integrated or unified bar associations.  When applied to such associations it is likely that the court will also overturn Lathrop v. Donohue and Keller v. State Bar of California. Why? Because of Janus, and because Janus overruled Abood v. Detroit Teachers Association, the mainstay of Keller which operates as support of the result in Lathrop.

Janus will also have a significant impact on the WSBA as it is today, that is, no longer an integrated bar association of just lawyers. A circumstance which brings into play the First Amendment jurisprudence of today.  Infringements of lawyer’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments will not be allowed unless they pass exact or strict constitutional scrutiny.

Thoughts about the future:  (1) The Washington lawyer discipline system will be independent of the WSBA and the Washington Supreme Court.  (2)  The WSBA will become a voluntary association of lawyers only. (3)  Lawyers will be able to practice their profession without being compelled to belong to and pay dues to the WSBA.

Steve Eugster

WSBA # 2003

eugster@eugsterlaw.com

509-624-5566

 

* Practicing lawyer Spokane, Washington.  B.A. University of Denver 1966; J.D. University of Washington School of Law 1969.  Admitted to the Bar of the Washington Supreme Court, January 31, 1970.  Order of The Coif; Washington Law Review 1967-69, Managing Editor 1968-69.

[1] https://www.wsba.org/legal-community/committees-boards-and-other-groups/bar-structure-work-group

Posted in Lawyers General | Comments Off on Supreme Court Workgroup and Fleck v. Wetch

Case IX Prefiling Motion of WSBA

WSBA Motion for Prefiling Order

The attorneys for the WSBA Defendants have filed a “prefiling” motion.  The purpose is to compel Eugster to prefile certain pleadings for court approval before they may be filed.

Trial Docket

  1. doc_61 Motion_Prefiling Order
  2. doc_62_Declaration Flevaris
  3. Doc_63_Response to Motion_Pre-Filing
  4. Doc_64_Motion to Disqualify
  5. doc_65_Order Denying Motion Disqualify
  6. Doc-66 Reply
  7. Doc_67_Order re No Disqualification
  8. Doc_68_Order re Pre-filing
  9. Doc_69_Notice of Appeal

9th Circuit, Opening Brief is due October 12, 2018

  1. Doc_6_ Opening_Brief_and_Appendix
  2. Doc_13_Answering Brief
  3. Doc_16_Reply Appellant
Posted in Lawyers General | Tagged | Comments Off on Case IX Prefiling Motion of WSBA

Janus v. AFSCME

It looks like Janus v. AFSCME may have direct application to the issue of whether the Washington Supreme Court/ WSBA  (see General Rule 12.2) meets exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment. See also, Arnold Fleck v. North Dakota Bar Association (Wetch) petition for writ of certiorari.  Go here.

 

 

Posted in Lawyers General | Comments Off on Janus v. AFSCME