About Stephen Eugster

Arizona Bar Petition: Separate Regulatory and Trade Association Functions

Posted On Jan 9 2019 by

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 …

Washington Supreme Court and the Bar Structure Work Group

Posted On Jan 3 2019 by

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.

Eugster v. WSBA and Justices of the Washington Supreme Court

Posted On Dec 9 2018 by

Pleadings on appeal: Doc_6_ Opening_Brief_and_Appendix Doc_13_Answering Brief Doc_16_Reply Appellant

Supreme Court Workgroup and Fleck v. Wetch

Posted On Dec 7 2018 by

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. …

Case IX Prefiling Motion of WSBA

Posted On Sep 29 2018 by

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 doc_61 Motion_Prefiling Order doc_62_Declaration Flevaris Doc_63_Response to Motion_Pre-Filing Doc_64_Motion to Disqualify doc_65_Order Denying Motion Disqualify Doc-66 Reply Doc_67_Order re No Disqualification Doc_68_Order re Pre-filing Doc_69_Notice of Appeal 9th Circuit, Opening Brief is due October 12, 2018 Doc_6_ Opening_Brief_and_Appendix Doc_13_Answering Brief Doc_16_Reply Appellant

Janus v. AFSCME

Posted On Jul 8 2018 by

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.    

Case 9 Judge Ricardo S. Martinez imposed a Pre-filing Order on me today.

Posted On Jun 15 2018 by

This afternoon I received word that the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez has imposed a pre-filing order on me.  Doc_68_Order re Pre-filing.

Case XIX — WSBA Email Addresses

Posted On Jun 15 2018 by

I have a hearing before Judge Ray Clary of the Spokane Superior Court.  It is on my motion the WSBA and Executive Director Littlewood be ordered to give me (a member of the WSBA) a data file of email addresses of WSBA members.  The basis for the motion is common law and the right of members of an association to obtain information of other members for association purposes. The WSBA resists saying such records fall under GR 12.4 WSBA Access to Records, the “public records” section of the General Rules.  I have tried that before.  Here is what I say: 2018_01_22_Motion_Summary_Judgment …

Case 9:  Robert Caruso and Sandra Ferguson v. WSBA, WAWD #2:17-cv-0003-RSM

Posted On May 23 2018 by

Case 9:  Robert Caruso and Sandra Ferguson v. WSBA, WAWD #2:17-cv-0003-RSM Issues:  Whether New WSBA 2017 violates freedom of non-association and expression (First Amendment) and right to procedural due process (Fifth Amendment) and the New WSBA has the power to discipline lawyers under the current Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC). The trial judge dismissed the case (all of Plaintiffs’ claims) and ordered Steve Eugster to pay the WSBA over $28,000.00 in attorneys fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). There are two Appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Caruso v. WSBA   No. 17-55410 and Eugster v. WSBA …

Washington Lawyer Defense Project

Posted On Mar 26 2018 by

Washington Lawyer Defense is now Washington Lawyer Defense Project. Efforts called “Washington Lawyer Defense” begun early on, are still on-going in one way or another.  Today, however, the efforts have expanded into a broader effort, a larger project. So, the name change.   Washington Lawyer Defense Project.  For example, as the work progressed, other seemingly matters would arise.  E.g., Appellate judges who “retain” jurisdiction of the case before them.  The only jurisdiction had was appellate.  The efforts of the court of appeal had been completed.  When this happens, the Clerk of the Court issues a mandate to the trial court.  When the …