//
(B) WA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY SCHEME

(B) WA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY SCHEME
WA State Bar members, whether in a judicial or quasi-judicial function, have reciprocal obligations to police each other’s conduct. Bar members who serve as judges have the obligation under RULE 2.15 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct that states:
Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct

(A) A judge having knowledge* that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects should inform the appropriate authority.*

(B) A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects should inform the appropriate authority.

(C) A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge hascommitted a violation of this Code should take appropriate action.

(D) A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a
violation of
professional Conduct should take appropriate action.

In similar fashion, lawyers have the reciprocal obligation under Rule 8.3, of the Rules of Professional Conduct stating,
REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, should inform the appropriate professional authority.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judges fitness for office should inform the appropriate authority.

(c) This Rule does not permit a lawyer to report the professional misconduct of another lawyer or a judge to the appropriate authority if doing so would require the lawyer to disclose information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

Under the “disciplinary scheme” WA State Bar members have rendered these obligations null in a quid pro quo understanding and by employing tactics to discourage the reporting of misconduct by both the “ethical lawyer” or “non-lawyers”. Furthermore, under WA Constitution Article 4, Section 17 which mandates only Bar members may seek judicial office, the scheme is designed to “eliminate” the potential of an ethical lawyer seeking judicial office.

  • retaliate against whistleblower-lawyers who try to expose corruption within the legal enterprise
  • dismiss thousands of citizen complaints filed each year against lawyers who are “players” in the Bar’s schemes
  • control the ‘gene pool’ of potential judicial candidates
  • Discussion

    One thought on “(B) WA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY SCHEME

    1. I will post my complaint to the bar, their response, and my details on the Spokane PD’s office.

      Posted by armedkafir | February 5, 2015, 4:26 pm

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: