LET US HEAR FROM YOU!
We welcome letters to the editor on issues presented in the magazine. Email letters to wabarnews@wsba.org. All opinions, statements, and conclusions expressed in letters to the editor represent the views of the respective authors and do not necessarily carry the endorsement of the WSBA or its Board of Governors. Publication of letters to the editor is not to be deemed an endorsement of the opinions, statements, and conclusions expressed by the author(s).
Walking in Prosecutors’ Shoes
After reading “Walking in Their Shoes” in the June issue of Washington State Bar News I was left concerned about some analysis that I thought needed to be included for a more complete picture. Before I go further, I want to say that while I have only ever worked in prosecution, I have immense respect for our public defense community, and I personally regard them among the finest trial lawyers I have ever encountered. I don’t know who these “greet and plea” attorneys are that frequently get mentioned, but I certainly have never met any.
That said, anytime there is a discussion on stresses and strains on one half of a system I think it is important to at least include some of the perspectives of the individuals from the other half of the system even if that perspective is not the main focus of the article. In “Walking in Their Shoes,” Mr. Rigley profiles an attorney who indicates that irrespective of any public defender shortage, charges are still being filed. I find this line to be misleading; it suggests that prosecutors do not care whether defendants have adequate access to representation or that public defenders are the only attorneys out there that are overworked. In addition to the existence of a public defender shortage, your readers might also be surprised to learn that there is a severe prosecutor shortage as well. Any new charge filed is also going to end up on the caseload of a prosecutor somewhere who does not enjoy the benefit of pre-existing caseload limits. Secondly, defense attorneys are simply not in a good position to determine how many cases are getting filed as a percentage of total referrals, which is far more informative than just looking at the total number of referrals.
If a jurisdiction consistently files 1,000 cases every year, then it may not look like the number of filings has ever changed. But if over the years the number of referrals has gone from 1,000 to 10,000, then the number of cases filed every year has gone from 100 percent to 10 percent. This is far more telling. I say this because I have spoken to prosecuting attorneys from jurisdictions with defense attorney shortages and they have personally told me that they are not charging otherwise chargeable offenses due to the lack of available counsel. This is a rather significant fact that gets overlooked if one only speaks to a defense attorney who sees the same [total number of] 1,000 cases getting filed every year.
I encourage this publication to also look at the shortages of prosecutors across the state and the triage taking place at the charging level. The fact is that we are all part of the same system, and that system cannot function properly if either side—or both sides—are under-resourced. I do appreciate the attention though that the article brings to the funding problem. Currently, the state of Washington provides a paltry 3 percent of my county’s public defense budget. Limits placed by the Legislature on a county’s ability to tax combined with the Growth Management Act’s limitation on a county’s ability to develop conspire to create very tight county coffers for public defense, or anything else for that matter. The state must do better. I do wish my colleagues performing defense work the best and I want them to receive more support—after all, we’re all in this together.
James M. Kennedy, Port Townsend
In Response to Changes to Lawyer Licensing
On behalf of my former client, honorable Judge Fred Bonner, now deceased, I want to commend Chief Justice [Steven González] and the [Washington Bar Licensure] Task Force for their commitment to pursue equal justice through equal access to the law for all. [“Changes to Pathways to Attorney Licensure and New Ways to Measure Competence,” July/Aug. Washington State Bar News.] Fifty years ago, in May 1974, Fred Bonner graduated from the University of Washington School of Law, took the bar exam, and was denied certification to the Supreme Court for licensure four times, not due to his lack of knowledge, skill, or ability, but due solely due to an arcane flawed licensure regimen that failed its purpose.
Fred Bonner petitioned the Washington Supreme Court to intervene directly, first in February 1977, to eliminate procedural WSBA rules that were arbitrary, punitive, and operated as a clear impediment to minority bar applicant licensure. Curiously, the then-chief justice denied the petition, concluding thus, in a role reversal oral opinion that disregarded the court’s sole and inherent power to grant or to deny admission to practice law in the state of Washington: “I regretfully find it my duty to deny this application, …” No. The court’s “duty” was to fix it.
Fred Bonner again took the Washington bar exam and was again denied certification to the Washington Supreme Court for licensure. In February 1978, Fred Bonner again petitioned the Supreme Court directly to intervene, this time laying bare the arbitrary and discriminatory history, nature, and impact that the WSBA examination regimen had on minority applicants. The chief justice summarily dismissed the Bonner petition thus: “the Court finds that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to initially entertain the matter presently brought before it.” The WSBA eventually changed the discriminatory rules that Fred Bonner identified as impeding licensure, which I believe resulted in an exponential increase in minority admissions to the Washington Bar. Fred Bonner was among the qualified minorities that were licensed as a result. And Fred Bonner served over 25 years as an outstanding Seattle Municipal Court Judge.
It is unfortunate that Judge Fred Bonner did not live to witness the Task Force proposals for future bar admissions with substantive alternative licensure pathway recommendations that promise a meaningful measure of outstanding legal knowledge, skill, and ability, such as Fred Bonner demonstrated as a lawyer and as a judge, in spite of the bar exam.
Lee Stanley Smith, Olympia
Letters to the editor published in Bar News must respond to content presented in the magazine and also comply with Washington General Rule 12.2 and Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990).* Bar News may limit the number of letters published based on available space in a particular issue and, if many letters are received in response to a specific piece in the magazine, may select letters that provide differing viewpoints to publish. Bar News does not publish anonymous letters or more than one letter from the same contributor per issue. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity, civility, and grammatical accuracy.
*GR 12.2(c) states that the WSBA is not authorized to “(1) Take positions on issues concerning the politics or social positions of foreign nations; (2) Take positions on political or social issues which do not relate to or affect the practice of law or the administration of justice; or (3) Support or oppose, in an election, candidates for public office.” In Keller v. State Bar of California, the Court ruled that a bar association may not use mandatory member fees to support political or ideological activities that are not reasonably related to the regulation of the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.