SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
|In the Matter of the
Disciplinary Proceedings Against
DOUGLAS A. SCHAFER,
an Attorney at Law
(License No. 8652)
SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO APPENDIX TO MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
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 appended items. These items are new (within about the last two weeks, except for one January item) and all will assist the Court in determining whether the motion should be granted (the standard under RAP 17.3(b)(8)), for the reasons explained below.
1. Former Judge Grant L. Anderson's Inadequate Bar Disciplinary Investigation and Proceeding. One of my arguments why the Court should permit me to engage in discovery of the crime, fraud, and other misconduct being committed in and about 1992 by the group consisting my former client William L. Hamilton, Grant L. Anderson, and other lawyers then in his law firm is that the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) disciplinary authorities appeared unwilling to investigate and expose that misconduct. This was confirmed on March 15, 2000, when the WSBA Disciplinary Board filed in Mr. Anderson's disciplinary case a Stipulation to Suspension (2 Years) (Appendix Item #1) that reflects no investigation whatsoever by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) of WSBA. The Stipulation is based solely upon the published Decision entered April 3, 1998, of the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) recommending his 4-month suspension, the published Opinion of this Court announced July 29, 1999, removing Judge Anderson from judicial office (Case Number J.D. No.14), and the CJC's Statement of Charges filed August 9, 1999, charging him with multiple new counts of dishonest behavior (all of which the WSBA disciplinary authorities assumed to be true in assessing the appropriate sanction, per paragraph 24 of the Stipulation).
Further evidence that the WSBA disciplinary officials have been unwilling to investigate the evidence of crime, fraud, and other misconduct that was being committed in and about 1992 by the group consisting my former client, Grant L. Anderson, and other lawyers then in his law firm is provided by the REPORT TO THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD (Appendix Item #2) by Douglas J. Ende, Disciplinary Counsel, dated February 4, 2000. That Report lists the 25 documents comprising "the record" that ODC submitted to the Disciplinary Board in support of the Stipulation that ODC had negotiated with Mr. Anderson and his attorney, Mr. Kurt M. Bulmer, former General Counsel to WSBA. The only document in that record evidencing any investigation whatsoever by ODC is its Dismissal Letter dated August 15, 1996, that had closed its cursory inquiry into the initial grievance by stating, at page 8, "Our investigation did not find any evidence that lawyer Anderson or any of his partners or friends benefitted from lawyer Anderson's actions as personal representative." There is evidence that leads a reasonable person to believe, as I do, that Mr. Bulmer even authored all or parts of that dismissal letter (e.g., his itemized invoice detailing time he spent in July 1996 preparing a letter for ODC that matches no letter that ODC will acknowledge having received from him).
2. Public Interest in this Proceeding, and Public Confidence in the Legal-Judicial System. I have previously apprised the Court of the degree of public interest in this proceeding and its potential to have a beneficial or a harmful effect upon public confidence in the legal-judicial system. Because the issue in this case is integral to the integrity of the legal-judicial system - may a lawyer report a corrupt judge in that system? - I believe that the public at large ought to pay attention to this case and to how it is resolved (and pay attention to former judge Anderson's lawyer disciplinary case). Thus, I will continue, as I have, to vigorously exercise my freedom of speech to bring this issue to the attention of as many responsible citizens as possible, for that is how policy is ultimately shaped in a democracy.
Consistent with the prior paragraph, attached as appendix items are copies of several news articles (and I expect there will be more), each of which is available on the Internet, linked to my website page at http://members.aa.net/~schafer/Y2000_Press.htm:Item #3: Article published January 10, 2000, in The National Law Journal, by journalist-lawyer Bob Van Voris titled, "The High Cost of Disclosure."
Item #4: Article published March 23, 2000, in Seattle Weekly, by journalist Rick Anderson, titled, "Spilling the Sacred Beans."
Item #5: Article published March 23, 2000, in Tacoma Reporter, by journalist Bryan Winchell, titled, "Doug Schafer, Man of Action, Idealistic maverick battles corrupt judges, greedy lawyers and an inept judicial disciplinary system."
Item #6: Article published March 31, 2000, in The University Place Journal, by journalist Craig Coley, titled, "Former Fircrest Judge Disciplined," prominently expressing my view that "We do not have effective disciplinary systems in place for judges and lawyers."
|March 31, 2000
Douglas A. Schafer, WSBA 8652