Case Law Updates – Page 7 – NWSidebar

by NWSidebar

Social Security and the 10-Year Marriage Rule

Social Security retirement benefits may not be the first thing on your clients’ minds when they are getting divorced, especially if they are younger. The right to Social Security benefits is a federal entitlement not affected by state law, and rarely discussed much during divorce. But one critical timing mistake could cost your client a […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Discusses Arbitration of Legal Malpractice Claims

Division I of the Court of Appeals recently discussed arbitration of legal malpractice claims in Butler v. Thomsen, 2016 WL 4524244 (Wn. App. Aug. 29, 2016) (unpublished). The facts in Butler were unusual. A lawyer had negotiated the settlement of a minority shareholder “squeeze out” case involving a closely held high-tech company. The settlement agreement […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Outlines Standards for Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege in Settlement Reasonableness Hearings

Division II of the Court of Appeals recently outlined the standards for implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege in the context of settlement “reasonableness” hearings under RCW 4.22.060. In Steel v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. WL 4001431 (July 26, 2016), the parents of children who had been abused at a day care center sued the center […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Finds Fee Dispute Alone Doesn’t Support Consumer Protection Act Claim

Since Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wn.2d 52, 691 P.2d 163 (1984), the business aspects of law practice have been subject to the Washington Consumer Protection Act. RCW 19.86.020 prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce…” RCW 19.86.090, in turn, creates a private […]

by NWSidebar

Supreme Court Reaffirms ‘Actual Innocence’ Requirement for Criminal-Case Malpractice Claims

The Washington Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the requirement that a plaintiff in a legal malpractice claim arising from a criminal case prove that the plaintiff was actually innocent of the crime involved. The “actual innocence” requirement presents a high bar for claimants because, as the Supreme Court explained in Ang v. Martin, 154 Wn.2d 477, […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Holds that Fee Rules Don’t Apply to In-House Counsel’s Wages

Division I of the Court of Appeals recently held that the rules governing lawyer fees do not apply to an in-house counsel’s wages. The case, Chism v. Tri-State Const., Inc., 193 Wn. App. 818, 374 P.3d 193 (2016), involved a wage claim by a former in-house general counsel against his former corporate employer.

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Discusses Lawyer Web Advertising under the Consumer Protection Act

Since Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wn.2d 52, 691 P.2d 163 (1984), the business aspects of law practice have been subject to the Washington Consumer Protection Act. RCW 19.86.020 prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce[.]” RCW 19.86.090, in turn, creates a private […]

by NWSidebar

4 Important Changes to Washington DUI Laws

With House Bill 2700 going into effect on June 9, 2016, it is important to keep DUI clients informed on sentencing and licensing changes. Here are four updates to DUI laws that your clients may need to know.

by NWSidebar

Supreme Court on Use of Refusal to Submit to Field Sobriety Tests: No Clear Holding

In State v. Mecham, the Washington Supreme Court issued a fractured opinion in a DUI prosecution in which the state entered into evidence the defendant’s refusal to perform field sobriety tests (FST). Although the court stated in its June 16 ruling it was affirming the defendant’s conviction, the actual result appears to reverse the conviction […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Addresses Insurance Defense Conflicts in Reservation of Rights Context

Division II of the Court of Appeals recently addressed conflicts when an insurance defense counsel is representing an insured in a reservation of rights case. The plaintiffs in Arden v. Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S., ___ Wn. App. ___, ___ P.3d ___, 2016 WL 2647685 (May 3, 2016), asserted that the defendant law firm had a […]

by NWSidebar

Case Analysis: Second Amendment Does Not Protect Concealed Carry

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled June 9, 2016, in Peruta v. County of San Diego that the Second Amendment does not include the right to concealed carry. The court heard the case en banc and decided 7–4.

by NWSidebar

U.S. District Court Disqualification Case Highlights Importance of Engagement Agreements

A recent disqualification decision by the federal district court in Seattle highlights the importance of engagement agreements — and the problems that can occur if a law firm doesn’t have one.

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Discusses Interplay Between RPC 1.16 and CR 71 on Withdrawal

Division III of the Court of Appeals recently addressed the interplay between RPC 1.16 and CR 71 on withdrawal in Schibel v. Eymann, ___ Wn. App. ___, ___ P.3d ___, 2016 WL 1639567 (Apr. 26, 2016). Schibel is a legal malpractice case that grew out of commercial lease and related mold exposure litigation. Disagreements over […]

by NWSidebar

Legislative Update: Two New DUI Bills for Washington State

Over the course of the last few years, Washington state has seen aggressive new laws and amendments concerning DUIs get passed by the state Legislature. This last session was no different.

by NWSidebar

Do You Need an Expert for a Legal Malpractice Case? Yes, No and Maybe So

Division III of the Court of Appeals recently addressed the question of whether a claimant needs expert testimony to avoid summary judgment in a legal malpractice case. In Slack v. Luke, 2016 WL 917310, ___ P.3d ___ (Wn. App. Mar. 10, 2016), the plaintiff alleged that her lawyer had not timely filed an employment claim. […]

by NWSidebar

Court of Appeals Reiterates No CPA Claims for Asserted Malpractice Alone

Since the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wn.2d 52, 691 P.2d 163 (1984), the business aspects of law practice have been subject to the Consumer Protection Act, RCW Chapter 19.86. The CPA generally prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in “trade or commerce” under RCW 19.86.020. Remedies under RCW 19.86.090 […]