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, its Board of Governors, or individual members of the Washington Bar. Publication of letters to the editor is not to be deemed an endorsement of the opinions, statements, and conclusions expressed by the author(s).
Reevaluating Barriers to Success
In her article “Toppling the Barriers to Success for Asian American Female Litigators” [Bar News, February 2025] Adriena Clifton alleges that she has suffered personal barriers to success in the legal profession. But what barriers is Ms. Clifton talking about? Being female? Women are in positions of power. For instance, there are many female judges in the courts, including on the Washington Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Being Asian? Asians have some of the highest IQs in the world and excel at intellectual endeavors.
These two “barriers,” gender and race, haven’t kept Ms. Clifton down. From her self-description she appears to have a flourishing legal practice as a corporate and real estate attorney. Further, she states, “I have fought against stereotypes to be my strong-willed, outspoken, daring, bulldog self.” So much for the author’s alleged hindrances and oppression.
The one slight that Ms. Clifton describes is being mistaken in court as the translator. She seems to be insulted at this innocent mistake and implies that translators are beneath her status as an attorney. How elitist and petty. A little more respect for equality is in order.
The author quotes with approval the following from the Asian Pacific American Bar Association: “We conclude that Asian Americans would benefit greatly from more institutional supports that counteract stereotypes and facilitate relationship building, development of soft skills, and leadership opportunities.” If this vague mishmash means herding people into seminars and workshops to harangue them about implicit bias, then that is coercive and only causes resentment. Crusades against implicit bias are nothing more than politically correct thought control. People have a right to their biases. It is called freedom of thought.
Lawyers should get off the victimhood bandwagon. Lawyers are accomplished professionals in society, not victims. DEI and woke philosophies pit people against each other. Lawyers should stop playing the gender and race cards and just do good legal work.
Patricia Michl
Ellensburg
Alternatives To Bar Funding
The February 2025 issue of Washington State Bar News reached my desk four days ago. I found the article on pages 22-24 about the possible license fee increase, something that did surprise me as I had expected in the back of my mind. I have followed the articles for the past couple of years about the budget. I brought before the Board of Governors the idea of moving the office out of downtown Seattle and suggesting Leavenworth as an alternative. Apparently, instead of giving serious thought to moving the office, the Board settled on a reduced lease for reduced space in Seattle. The financial issues were “just kicked down the street” and will have to be addressed again when the lease expires.
The budget difficulties are still there and getting worse. I believe that a solution is right before the Board and the administration. The answers are not in the history, philosophy, English, psychology, and similar courses which college advisors told pre-law students to take. One had to go the next building and up two floors to find the classes that a future lawyer really needed in the undergraduate level–the business school. Since I have a degree in business management and many years of practicing bankruptcy law, my mind went to proposing a solution to the financial problem.
For my purposes, I will assume that there are 40,000 lawyers paying $458 each for their license fee. (The reduced number accounts for those who pay less and/or do not pay the fee because of their status.) $458 x 40,000 = $18,320,000.
The second door down the floor is the marketing department. The first question the marketing department will ask is “What product and/or service do you have to sell to the 40,000 potential customers?” The answer is the right to practice law in Washington for a year.
When I was running for governor from District 2, I wrote a statement about what I would be interested in working on. I said: “There are 29 sections; if only 20 sections presented a seminar, sponsored and advertised to the whole Bar, the profits should be sufficient to replace the need for a fee increase.”
How does it work? I chose to use only 20 sections because there are probably some sections that are unable and/or unwilling to present to certain attorneys; e.g., prosecutors do not want to teach defense attorneys all of their tricks; likewise defense attorneys do not want to teach prosecutors all of their tricks.
If a different section put on a seminar every two to three weeks, there would be a wide variety of subjects on a regular basis, providing lots of opportunities for lawyers to meet their continuing legal education requirements.
Since this proposal will require more lawyers to be presenters at seminars, it will match President Sunitha Anjilvel’s attempts to get more people involved in the Bar Association.
Peter H. Arkison
Bellingham
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.