National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity of the Department of Education. See this discription of the NACIQI
The Post in Findlaw NACIQI: ABA Is out of Touch and Should Lose Accreditation Power says that the ABA accredition power is being questioned. Some say the ABA is out of touch with the times.
The transcript can be found at this link
A article in appearing on August 3, 2016, in the Find Law Blog raises the question in Peeping Tom Lawyer Faces Disbarment. Is the System Rigged? The author Jonathan Tung, a lawyer, writes
It’s a matter of perspective, of course, but lawyers facing ethics issues have frequently observed that the ethics process is extremely one sided. At risk of sounding like Donald Trump, we have to ask, is this system rigged?
The bar report can be found at this link.
One of the ways to rig the discipline system is to have the bar association fill all of the positions in the system. See this Motion to Dismiss Disciplinary Proceedings.
Today I filed a motion to dismiss the action against me. I assert that the proceedings are void because they violate my rights to procedural due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Wash. Const. Art I, Section 3. A proceeding which violates fundamental procedural due process rights is void under Washington law.
Motion to Dismiss
The motion to dismiss is also a response to the WSBA’s Motion to Strike. More on this later.
The future WSBA will become, will have to become, an entity which can no longer compel Washington Lawyers to be members and pay dues. It will become voluntary. One of its activities will be the continuation the WSBA’s Continuing Education Function.
As it confronts this possibility, this necessity, one needs only look at how much costs privately for a lawyer to gain CLE credit in certain areas of the law. Today, I received a advertisement of a private CLE entity regarding the Columbia River.
I cannot imagine a lawyer who would not like to know about the law and the Columbia River. A private continuing education entity charges $525.00 for a CLE on the Columbia River for one day. See http://www.theseminargroup.net/seminardetl.aspx?id=16.rivWA. One would estimate more than one/half of the today’s compelled members of the WSBA cannot afford such an expense.
The future WSBA could do so, could provide a Columbia River CLE, and at much cheaper cost and with much more legal and practical teaching. Imagine, a bar association energetically putting on a major legal and publicly important Continuing Education Course. A Columbia River (Washington State Bar (a new bar association) for Washington’s lawyers).
Washington lawyers need only have the courage to establish a free Washington Bar Association.
Much has happened regarding Case VI. The WSBA has filed charges against Eugster; this is the “Formal Complaint.”
Eugster has responded with his Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter and Third-Party Claims together with an appendix which includes the Counter and Third-Party Claims.
Why the Counter Claims? Recall that in Case IV, Eugster v. WSBA et al., the Superior Court trial judge, Sam Cozza, dismissed the case (a Civil Rights section 1983 case) on the basis that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction. Well, “who does.” You might ask. You might say the Superior Court has original jurisdiction in all cases, in equity and in law. Wash. Const. Art. IV, Section 6. Judge Cozza did not see it that way. His conclusion was that the WSBA Lawyer Discipline System has original jurisdiction in all cases where a lawyer is suing the WSBA.
Needless to say, this came as quite a surprise. Maybe my briefing was not clear.
In any event, the case has been appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division III. The Opening Brief has been filed. It can be found here – 016_06_17_Brief_of_Appellant.
District Court Judge Thomas Rice dismissed Eugster’s case based on res judicata. The judge said that Case IV which is the state court case regarding claims that the WSBA Discipline System violates constitutional rights was dismissed with prejudice and the District Court Case (Case V) is bound by the court’s decision. Judge Rice said the state court decision was a decision on the merits. It was not. It was a decision not to take jurisdiction of the case, that is not a merits decision, why because the case was not decided. (It was punted on jurisdictional grounds.) Judge Rice is in error. The case has been appealed to the 9th Circuit. Dismissal – doc_19_order_dismissing case with prejudice. Notice of appeal – doc_21_notice of appeal.
Defendants have made the first step in the case. They have filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) (subject jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to make a claim). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case under FRCP 12(b). Defense Motion to Dismiss; Eugster Response to Motion to Dismiss, Reply of Defendants.
Judge Stanley Bastian signed an Order of Recusal today. The case went back into the regular rotation of judges to cases. Judge Tom Rice is the judge now assigned to the case. Order of Recusal, April 11, 2016.
Superior Court judge Salvatore “Sam” Cozza dismissed the Spokane Superior Court action Eugster brought against the WSBA. On April 1, 2016 the court held that Eugster’s Civil Rights action contesting constitutionality of the WSBA Washington Lawyer Discipline System had to be brought in any discipline action the WSBA seeks to bring against Eugster.
Simply stated – the rule, for the time being, is that if a lawyer seeks to contest the constitutionality of the WSBA Discipline System in state court, he must be bring it a WSBA Discipline System action. The order and the Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals Division Three. Appeal of Order of Dismissal to Court of Appeals Division Three.
Again this morning, I awoke thinking about the bar association’s current efforts to discipline me. The discipline the bar may seek? – suspension or disbarment. I have experience in this, but I am still confused by it.
I am the object of the discipline power of the WSBA. It is a power which seeks to do me harm. Its apologists say the purpose is not to harm me or punish me; it is to protect the public. The public is protected the WSBA prosecutor says because the WSBA does not tolerate the conduct I engaged in. I will be ostracized, for a time, by punishment of suspension of my membership in the bar association, or ostracized forever by disbarment. The public will be benefited by the harm the WSBA causes me. The bar says this to justify their draconian actions. The bar will have prevented me from being a lawyer. That is the benefit the bar thinks is good for the public.
The E.M. Cioran, the Rumanian thinker, writes “every work turns against its author” “only the man who sacrifices every gift and talent escapes, released from his humanity he may lodge himself in Being.” The Temptation to Exist (TTE) 33 (1956). The man comes to know he cannot “treat destiny,” he “does not set himself up as a healer in any case.” “His sole ambition is to keep abreast of the Incurable.” TTE 47.
The accused lawyer is not special. The conduct the lawyer engaged may not justify the punishment sought by the WSBA. The lawyer may be innocent. The lawyer may have done wrong. Yet the punishment may be undeserved.
I would like to think I have something to say in the process. Maybe I do, maybe I do not. If I am involved in the process, and most certainly I am, success in my involvement may be hoped for. But success is illusive.
Success is not necessary for my soul, what is necessary is “keep abreast of the Incurable.”