Case 4 and Case 5 — What may happen on appeal

Posted On Mar 17 2017 by

Case 4 and Case 5 The issue in each case (Case 4 is in Superior Court, Spokane; Case 5 is in US District Court WAED) is whether the WSBA Washington Discipline System is constitutional, does it accord with requirements of procedural due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The superior court judge, Judge Sam Cozza (now deceased), held after exercising some jurisdiction said the court did not have jurisdiction because the Supreme Court has power over the discipline system and that one must raise his constitutional concerns in the discipline process.  But, under the state constitution, the …


U.S. District Court: Things a Lawyer Should Know

Posted On Feb 28 2016 by

There are certain obstacles to a lawyer’s efforts to gain the attention of a Federal District Court. Rooker Feldman Doctrine A lawyer cannot challenge a decision of the State Supreme Court in federal court.  This is the Rooker Feldman Doctrine.  The federal court will not take jurisdiction of a case contesting a final decision of a state court. The names of the doctrine refer to two cases: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is jurisdictional, see Olson Farms, Inc. v. …


The Washington Lawyer Discipline System — The US Supreme Court — “Pie in the Sky”

Posted On Jan 4 2015 by

I have heard it said that a lawyer who has been disbarred by the Washington Supreme Court can always appeal to the United States Supreme.  What is meant by lawyers who say this can only mean that the disbarred lawyer can petition the United States Supreme court for a writ of certiorari — this means one can ask the Supreme Court to take review of the case. Anyone would like to hope she could get the United States Supreme Court to take the case on.  But, it would be a hope against hope.  One’s chances are next to nil.  One is …


So you want to go to Federal Court ? — The Younger Abstention Doctrine

Posted On Aug 25 2014 by

The federal court will abstain.  It’s called the Younger Abstention Doctrine. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971). Younger was used in Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106, 1109 – 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) by the federal court to dismiss a case where an attorney sought to have the court address certain First Amendment issues regarding the bar association’s interest in disciplining him: The Middlesex Factors: “Absent `extraordinary circumstances’, abstention in favor of state judicial proceedings is required if the state proceedings (1) are ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and …