In the Matter of the
Disciplinary Proceedings Against
an Attorney at Law.
(License No. 8652)
No. 68957-1


            Petitioner Douglas A. Schafer hereby supplements the Appendix to the Motion for Discretionary Review of Prehearing Rulings filed by mail on December 24, 1999, and assigned the above case number with the following items:

            1. Order Dismissing Counts II and III, Denying Motions to Bifurcate, and Granting Stay, entered January 24, 2000, in the Disciplinary Board proceeding by Hearing Officer Lawrence R. Mills. I had understood from the hearing that resulted in that Order that Disciplinary Counsel Christine Gray would apprise this Court of that ruling, including the Hearing Officer's temporary stay pending directions from this Court, as part of the Association's Answer to Motion for Discretionary Review.

            2. A printed copy of the documents presently posted on my Internet website with the caption "To Kill a Messenger - for Reporting a Corrupt Judge" and having a URL address of Ms. Gray's Answer, at page 9, asserts that it would be improper for the Court to review the materials on that website. To obviate argument that such documents are not part of the record, I submit them in paper form herewith, but I urge the justices to read them on the website in order to appreciate the links between the many documents. The documents show that the Association's disciplinary staff has failed to fulfill the function assigned it by the Court of investigating and initiating disciplinary proceedings for lawyer misconduct, at least in the case of former Superior Court Judge Grant L. Anderson and the several lawyers who practiced with him before 1993 in the law firm of Anderson, Tuell, Fisher & Koppe. Because the Court holds inherent and exclusive jurisdiction over the lawyer discipline system, the Rule of Necessity supports the Court taking cognizance of the evidence before the general public of that system's failure, more evidence of which will be discovered if the Court reverses the Hearing Officers's ruling barring my discovery of such evidence. RLD 7.1(b); Dodd v. Bannister, 86 Wn.2d 176, 543 P.2d 237 (1975) (inherent disciplinary role of the Supreme Court); Kennett v. Levine, 50 Wn.2d 212 (1957) (Rule of Necessity).

            Because of its bulk and ready availability to the Court in the record of Discipline of Anderson, J.D. No. 14, I am not submitting a full transcript of his five-day fact-finding hearing by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, nor of deposition transcripts from that proceeding, though such documents are posted for public review on my website. Neither am I submitting additional copies of website documents that have previously been submitted to the Court in paper form. I intend to offer as a part of the record in this disciplinary proceeding substantially the entire record that was considered by this Court in Discipline of Anderson, J.D. No. 14, and will do so at this time if the Court so requests.

            February 18, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

Douglas A. Schafer,
WSBA 8652