Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

Our unique statistical analysis of the Supreme Court's annual activity is complete for 2011. Every year we track the opinions and votes of each justice and provide a case-by-case breakout, along with some analysis. For comparison purposes see: 

• Washington Supreme Court Statistics 2010
• Washington Supreme Court Statistics 2009

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Washington issued opinions in 117 cases, down from 140 in 2010. The Court continues to enjoy a high level of agreement: 59 percent of all decisions were unanimous (including unanimous-in-result-only opinions and per curiam opinions). This is up from 54 percent in 2010.

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen was the most prolific writer this year, with 35 total opinions. Debra Stephens came in second with 27 opinions. wrote the most majority opinions (23). Susan Owens wrote the most majority opinions (17) as well as the most unanimous opinions (9). Owens and Mary Fairhurst were in the majority in 93.6 percent of all cases they participated in.

Looking at the rates of agreement between justices, the justices who agreed with each other most often were Charles Wiggins and Madsen (96.3%), Wiggins and Fairhurst (92.7%) and Wiggins and Stephens (92.7%). The justices with the lowest rates of agreement were Tom Chambers and Jim Johnson (73.1%), Chambers and Madsen (74.3), and Jim Johnson and Stephens 75.7%).

The Court had a change in 2011, with Charlie Wiggins replacing former Justice Richard Sanders. Wiggins only participated in 55 of the cases with an opinion this year; while Sanders served as a temporary justice on 52 cases. In that time Sanders wrote two majorities, one concurrence, and seven dissents.  

*Excludes partial dissents.

 *Including concurring votes
**Analysis is limited to signed opinions
***Including unanimous in result

*Unanimous in result only (concurrence or partial dissent filed)

*Unanimous in result only

(Note: Feel free to use any of these numbers, but please credit the Supreme Court of Washington Blog.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In light of Justice Gerry Alexander's mandatory retirement, Jessica Bowman of the Freedom Foundation has an opinion piece in The Olympian arguing that we should reconsider booting judges off the bench when they turn 75.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Blogging has been light the last few months but we're getting back into the groove.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mike and I are excited to announce the publication of the second edition of To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights, a guide to Article I of the Washington State Constitution. This is a one-of-a-kind resource for practitioners and citizens alike. I always keep a copy handy at my desk for whenever a constitutional question arises. 

The book provides a section by section analysis of the Washington Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. In it we review the state’s 1889 constitutional debates, contemporary accounts of the convention, and significant cases that have dealt with the rights guaranteed in the Washington Constitution. 

Our goal in writing the book was to help citizens become more familiar with their state constitution because individual rights are often afforded greater protection there than in the United States Constitution.

Washington Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Charles Johnson kindly wrote the forward to the book. First published in 2008, we've updated it with analysis of some major new decisions issued by the state supreme court.

You can order a copy directly from our publisher.

Coming soon...a high quality edition of the full Washington State Constitution and U.S. Constitution in one volume.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 There are no Supreme Court opinions this week. The Court will next hear arguments on June 14.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Very few cases make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, but every year thousands of cases reach their final resolution in state supreme courts. Among them, the Washington State Supreme Court has been singled out as one of the most influential in the country.

Today the Freedom Foundation launches a new publication: the Supreme Court Year in Review - 2010. The Year in Review highlights the most interesting and influential cases decided by the state Supreme Court and offers summaries in a dozen areas of law, including criminal law, immigration, wrongful death, and First Amendment rights. The Review also includes breakdowns of how each Justice voted, authored opinions statistics, rates of Justice-to-Justice agreement, and how long cases were considered. The Freedom Foundation will publish the Year in Review annually. 

The Year in Review is the latest tool offered by the Freedom Foundation aimed at enhancing knowledge of the Washington court system.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

No opinions from the Supreme Court today, but the Ethics Advisory Committee has issued a new ethics opinion for judges.

The question: May a judicial officer compile humorous letters and/or pleadings sent to the court into a publication that could be sold with the proceeds going to a charitable cause?

The EAC says yes, a judge may compile and publish a book of humorous stories. However, the EAC notes a caution that universally applies to non-comics who attempt humor: "the judge should exercise caution in selecting the documents for inclusion and in drafting editorial observations so that it does not appear that the judicial officer is trivializing or in any way disparaging the persons who authored the letters or pleadings."

I look forward to the book.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen recently sat down with Austin Jenkins on TVW's Inside Olympia program. They discussed the state of the courts, the funding crisis facing trial courts, judicial elections, and diversity in the profession. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There’s a fascinating article in the Everett Herald by Diana Hefley addressing Justice Richard Sanders’ continued work on the Supreme Court.

Voters replaced Sanders with Justice Charlie Wiggins, who was sworn in last month, but there are nearly 70 cases where Sanders heard arguments and participated in deliberations. He will have a vote in those cases as a pro tem justice.

Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Roe is loudly criticizing the court for retaining Justice Sanders. He has a pending case reviewing whether a Monroe woman cited for honking her horn outside her neighbor's house was engaged in constitutionally-protected speech. “Appointing him pro tem is a slap in the face to crime victims, prosecutors, law enforcement and the public that elected someone to replace him,” Roe said. “[He] was defeated in part because the public was made aware of his consistent pro-criminal votes, opinions and rulings. To see him appointed so he can cast a few more votes of the reversal of criminal convictions, after the public has already said ‘enough,’ is extremely disheartening, and, I think, arrogant.”

Others see nothing wrong with the process, such as Phil Talmadge, a former Supreme Court justice who now practices as an appellate attorney. “This is something done universally in the history of this court,” he said. “The court would be singling Sanders out if they did something different.”

I tend to agree with Talmadge. The Supreme Court is operating according to its internal rules for appointing a temporary judge. Retired Justices Faith Ireland and Bobbe Bridge both participated in numerous cases after they left the court.

It would be difficult to appoint a different pro tem to each of the 70 cases and then require that justice to play catch-up with the rest of the court. Now, it might be best to assign the responsibility of authoring opinions to members currently on the court, but a complete ban on Sanders' participation is going too far. 

UPDATE: By my quick count, Justice Bobbe Bridge voted in 19 decisions after she left the court. Justice Faith Ireland participated in nine cases -- eight of which she wrote the majority opinion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court of Washington Blog is rolling out a new feature this year: we are identifying the justice that we believe has had the greatest impact on the court this year. Now, I’ll be the first to admit this is not an exact science. I am not a statistician, and we cannot account for relational influences, case assignments, or administrative duties that take away from a judge’s case work.

Nevertheless, as we analyzed several key factors from 2010, one justice clearly left an imprint. Relying on our 2010 court roundup, we reviewed majority decisions written, frequency of appearing in the majority, rate of agreement with other members, number of votes received in support of opinions authored, and other criteria. The members of the Washington Supreme Court are a respectable bunch, but this year presented a runaway winner.

So with no further fanfare, the Supreme Court of Washington Blog’s choice for the most influential justice in 2010 is Justice Debra L. Stephens. Justice Stephens was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Gregoire in 2008 after serving on the Court of Appeals (Div. 3). Her biography can be found here.

In just three years, Stephens has proven to be a prolific author and a frequent representative of the court’s thinking. In 2010, she wrote more majority decisions (23) than any other justice. Stephens also wrote the most unanimous opinions last year (13). She voted in the majority in 91.9% of cases decided, second only to Justice Charles Johnson, who was in the majority 92.4% of the time. Stephens enjoyed a high rate of agreement with her colleagues, with other justices voting with her position in 81% of cases—just a fraction behind Charles Johnson (81.5%).

Those numbers alone might simply indicate an agreeable judge who is not willing to stick out her neck. But Stephens is a strong coalition builder, frequently joined by her colleagues when authoring an opinion. When she writes an opinion—whether a majority, concurrence or dissent—she pulls votes to her position, more than any other justice by a wide margin. Stephens led the court in votes concurring in her majority opinions (144), as well as total votes when her concurrences and dissents are included (154).

Perhaps the most significant factor is that Stephens is a key vote in close decisions. In 2010, the Supreme Court issued 22 decisions that were decided by a 5-4 vote. Stephens wrote the most 5-4 majority opinions (6), and had the most majority votes (15) in 5-4 cases. She was in the majority a whopping 75% in 5-4 cases (Justices Tom Chambers and Charles Johnson were both a distant second at 64%).

Lawyers and other court watchers love to identify the key judges who must be persuaded in order for a party to win the case. Justice Stephens appears to be that vote at the Temple of Justice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Every year we track the opinions and votes of each justice and provide a case-by-case breakout, along with some analysis. Here are the raw numbers for 2010. For comparison purposes, 2009 numbers can be found here.

This year we try to crack the question: Which justice was the most influential in 2010? We’ll announce our pick later today on Wednesday.

First, some general observations. In 2010 the Supreme Court of Washington issued opinions in 140 cases. Nine opinions were per curiam (opinions without an attributed author), a significant increase from last year, which had none. The Court enjoys a high level of agreement: 75 opinions (54% of all cases) were unanimous (including unanimous-in-result-only opinions and per curiam opinions).

Justice Richard Sanders was the most prolific writer this year, with 48 total opinions. Despite her new chief justice duties, Barbara Madsen came in second with 32 total opinions. Justice Debra Stephens wrote the most majority opinions (23). As was the case in 2009, Sanders wrote the most dissents (24) but he also contributed the second-most majorities (17).

Which justices are most likely to agree or disagree with each other? A chart below shows the percentage of cases in which justices voted together (majority and concurring opinions are treated as equivalent). The justices with the highest rates of agreement were Charles Johnson and Owens (89.1%), Chambers and Stephens (87%), and Charles Johnson and Stephens (85.8%). The justices with the lowest rates of agreement were Madsen and Sanders (62.8%), Sanders and Jim Johnson (64.3%), and Sanders and Fairhurst (65.1%).

We also look at the number of days between argument and the court's opinion, broken out by vote count. The rule of thumb is the court takes about six months to issue a decision after hearing arguments. On average, the court took 203 days (down from last year's 223) to issue opinions in the cases where arguments were heard. Fifteen decisions in 2010 were pending for over a year, while 18 cases were disposed of in less than three months. One case, In re Welfare of A.B., which dealt with the restoration of parental rights, sat for 716 days (nearly 24 months) before being resolved.

Finally, we have a chart showing how often each justice was joined by his or her colleagues when authoring an opinion. In other words, when a justice wrote a majority opinion, how many others joined that opinion? Was the dissenter able to pull others to the dissent, or was it a lone dissent? 

<Click to see the charts and tables>

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Justice Sanders - the justice fires back at the Seattle Times and lays his loss at the newspaper's feet.

Reader survey -  If you haven't done so already, we'd appreciate your comments and thoughts about the Supreme Court of Washington Blog. Click here to take the survey.

Tweet! - Check out our Twitter page for additional court news.

Golf - Sign up here for updates about the Freedom Foundation's 2011 golf tournament. Those who join the e-list are eligible for early bird specials and a chance to win a free foursome.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For Thanksgiving, from the Court's archives, an opinion summarized in verse.

Nelson v. Imperial Trading Company, No. 9879, 1912.

Carl Nelson from Kansas, in the turkey trade,
With Imperial of Spokane, a contract made:
Two thousand pounds of fancy grade
Gobbler meat, for delivery November 23rd.

Yet on the contractually specified date
Imperial found the turkeys late,
And some of the fowls not fit for bait.
And so Imperial rejected every bird.

Held for the buyer: they did not waive
Objections for delivery that was delayed.
They are not estopped for what was said,
Wrote Justice Crow, the rest concurred.

Happy Thanksgiving! (And if the day isn't all you hope for, read about the Boyer family's Thanksgiving in 1927 in Boyer v. Tacoma for a reminder that it could be worse.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here at the Supreme Court of Washington Blog we try to offer readers timely and insightful analysis of the goings-on at the Temple of Justice.

We would love to hear from you. Would you please take a moment to fill out this brief survey and provide your feedback? 

Click here to take the survey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Washington State Bar News features Justice Susan Owens in its regular lawyer profile column Briefly About Me. It's a fascinating read: Justice Owens believes the future of the practice of law is "virtual," she'd like to have George Clooney over as a dinner guest, and she's listening to the new Hendrix CD.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is a bit off-topic, but worth mentioning to interested readers.

Justice Elena Kagan? What the President’s Choice Tells Us About the Modern Court and Confirmation Process

Lecture by Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

Wednesday evening, May 26, 2010
Washington Athletic Club • 1325 Sixth Avenue, Seattle
Doors open at 6:30, program begins at 7:00

Drinks and hors d’oeuvres will be served
Parking in the Washington Athletic Club’s garage (1409 6th Avenue) will be validated
$25.00 per person, payable at the door by cash or check made out to Federalist Society

RSVP to Michael Bindas by Monday, May 24, 2010 by email at mbindas@ij.org or phone at (206) 341-9300

Presented by

THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY PUGET SOUND LAWYERS CHAPTER

in partnership with

FREEDOM FOUNDATION
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Can't get enough of the Supreme Court of Washington Blog? There are many ways to access the information on our site.

The blog is now on Twitter, where we post links to cases and other court news.

We're also on Facebook and we urge you to become a "fan" by clicking here.

We record a weekly one-minute update called This Week @ the Supreme Court of Washington that airs on several radio stations around the state. And you can subscribe to our monthly podcast on iTunes.

Finally, for an email alert when a new blog post is added, enter your email in the "subscribe" field on the left sidebar.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of our podcast listeners sent us a copy of a very interesting speech given by Justice Sanders back when he first joined the Court. In the podcast (Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics) Mike, Trent and I discussed the long wait times on court opinions. Sander's speech helps explain the time lag with a detailed behind-the-scenes look at the journey a case goes through from start to finish. It includes such salient tidbits as:

Who the assignment judge is [for a particular case], is a closely guarded secret of the court. To make attorney guesswork more difficult, law clerks in addition to the assignment justice’s law clerks typically attend the oral argument.

So clerk-counting is apparently pointless.

The speech is from 1996, so some procedures have likely changed. But I'm betting that much of the path a case takes is still the same today.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Justice Tom Chambers – the only Washington justice with a blog – has offered his opinion on the debate over how we select judges.

He discusses the issue in a very thoughtful post that acknowledges the flaws in each system. Elections, appointments, selection committees ... they all have their shortcomings.

He discounts the concern that judges up for re-election would pander to popular opinion. “[I]n my 40 years in the law, the judges of Washington State have consistently done the courageous thing and are not swayed by fear of being unelected.” But Chambers cites problems in other states and says the election process can potentially threaten judicial independence.

Lifetime appointments, he says, are also problematic. “Some judges appointed for life have become tyrants and do not treat lawyers, parties, or jurors with respect. On the other hand, it was my experience that state court judges faced with periodic elections see every lawyer, party, and witness as a future potential vote and almost always treated all with respect.”

Appointment committees that screen potential judges? “In the past, such blue ribbon panels have been perceived as a good old boy network; clubbish and difficult for women and minorities to break into.”

Justice Chambers offers an interesting Solomon compromise: elect trial judges, who are closer to their communities, and appoint appellate judges, who are ultimately responsible for interpreting the law. He recommends using a diverse appointment committee and requiring appellate judges to stand for retention elections.

Chambers concludes by showing he is a pragmatist. “Although interesting, this discussion is likely academic as I think it highly unlikely that the people of Washington State are ever going to relinquish their constitutional right to elect judges.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We've updated the case-by-case spreadsheet for the Supreme Court's 2009 opinions to include the number of days between argument and the court's opinion. The rule of thumb is the court takes about six months to issue a decision after hearing arguments.

On average, the court took 223 days (31 weeks) to issue opinions in the cases where arguments were heard. Fifteen decisions in 2009 were pending for over a year, while 20 cases were disposed of in less than three months. One case, State v. Wright, which dealt with double jeopardy, sat for 674 days (96 weeks) before being resolved.

UPDATE: More numbers inspired by the comments below. Here is the average time from argument to decision based on who authored the majority opinion.

Also, the average wait based on the case's vote split.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here are some of the notable decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, selected by our writers.

Community Care Coalition of Washington v. Reed – Supreme Court lacked constitutional power to prohibit Secretary of State from certifying an initiative measure as an initiative to the people (rather than to the legislature) for placement on general election ballot.

Majority Author: Gerry Alexander
Dissent Author: Mary Fairhurst
Vote: 6-3

Brown v. Owen – Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown challenged the constitutionality of Initiative 601’s requirement that tax increases be approved by two-thirds of the legislature. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the legislature’s parliamentary process and suggested the legislature change the law if it dislikes it.

Majority Author: Mary Fairhurst
Vote: 9-0

In re Estate of Kissinger – A man was convicted of killing his mother, but was held not guilty by reason of insanity. The Court ruled he could not later inherit a portion of the wrongful death settlement obtained by his mother’s estate.

Majority Author: Tom Chambers
Vote: 9-0

In re F5 Networks, Inc. – In a ruling that disappointed business advocates, the Court adopted the “demand futility standard,” allowing shareholders to commence litigation in the name of the corporation without first demanding action from the corporate board.

Majority Author: Tom Chambers
Vote: 9-0

State v. Garvin – The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from conducting “squeeze searches” of objects under a suspect’s clothing when a “pat-down” is the appropriate frisking method.

Majority Author: Richard Sanders
Vote: 9-0

City of Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ – The Court ruled that Woodinville violated a church’s religious liberty by preventing it from applying for a temporary permit to host a tent city. The Court also noted that the state constitution protects religious liberty more expansively than the U.S. Constitution.

Majority Author: James Johnson
Vote: 9-0

Morgan v. City of Federal Way – An investigative report concerning the municipal court’s hostile work environment and an elected official’s wrongdoing is a public record and is subject to disclosure.

Majority Author: Susan Owens
Vote: 9-0

Briggs v. Nova Services – Upholding the state’s at-will employment policy, the Court ruled that an employer did not violate state law by terminating employees and managers who protested their executive director’s managerial decisions.

Majority Author: James Johnson
Dissent Author: Susan Owens
Vote: 5-4

City of Federal Way v. Koenig – A court’s administrative records are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. (Madsen and Sanders did not participate.)

Majority Author: Susan Owens
Dissent Author: Debra Stephens
Vote: 7-2

Federal Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. State – The Court declined to micromanage education policy, and ruled that salary disparities between employees in different school districts do not violate the state constitution’s directive to provide “general and uniform” system of education.

Majority Author: James Johnson
Vote: 9-0

State v. Rafay – The Washington Constitution guarantees a defendant’s right to self-representation on appeal.

Majority Author: Debra Stephens
Vote: 9-0

Gold Star Resorts v. Futurewise – In a victory for property owners, the Court said the state growth board lacks authority to issue “bright-line” rules limiting rural development to a maximum of one home per five acres.

Majority Author: Barbara Madsen
Vote 9-0

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Every term we track the opinions and votes of each justice and provide a spreadsheet with a case-by-case breakout. Here are the numbers for 2009.

 Number of Opinions by Justice 

The workload for 2009 was fairly evenly distributed. Soon-to-be Chief Justice Barbara Madsen was the most prolific writer this year, with 18 majority opinions and 39 total opinions. Justice Richard Sanders is the most frequent dissenter, writing nearly three times as many dissents as any other justice (including a dissent to his own majority opinion). As is common for the chief justice, Gerry Alexander wrote fewer opinions because of the additional administrative duties his position requires. Justice Debra Stephens participated in the fewest decisions as she joined the court after many of the cases had been argued, but she still managed to author the second-most majority opinions this year.

Frequency of Agreement between Justices

Ever wonder which justices agree with each other most frequently? The above chart documents the percentage of cases in which justices are on the same side of an opinion (majority and concurring opinions are treated as equivalent). The justices with the highest rates of agreement were Madsen and Fairhurst (88%), Chambers and Stephens (88%), and Owens and Fairhurst (88%). The justices with the lowest rates of agreement were Sanders and Fairhurst (66%), and Sanders and Jim Johnson (64%).

Frequency in the Majority 

*Including concurring votes

Number of Decisions by Vote Count

Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, which sees many narrow 5-4 decisions, the state Supreme Court enjoys a number of strong majority opinions, with nearly half of its rulings unanimous or 9-0 in the outcome. Justices will frequently concur in the result of an opinion, while employing a separate rationale for reaching his or her conclusion.

Coming Soon: the court's noteworthy opinions from 2009.

(Note: Feel free to use these numbers, but we'd appreciate if you'd cite the Supreme Court of Washington Blog as the source.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We won’t ask often, but please consider a year-end donation to support the Supreme Court of Washington Blog. This site is provided to enhance the public’s understanding of the role of the courts and our legal system, and we hope the content is valuable to a wide audience. If you’re able, please consider a contribution to help defray our costs. Contributions are tax-deductible and your support will allow us to keep writing and podcasting. Thank you!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Washington Ethics Advisory Committee has issued an opinion on whether judicial blogging is permitted under the Code of Judicial Conduct. Established in 1983 by the state Supreme Court, the Committee provides judicial officers with advice with respect to their ethical obligations.

The Committee's opinion on judicial blogging says "yes, but be careful" (my paraphrase).

The Code of Judicial Conduct does not specifically prohibit a judge from blogging on the internet. CJC Canon 4(A) permits judicial officers to write concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice provided that activity does not cast doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before them. Even though a judicial officer may post an internet blog that activity, in addition to the limitations of Canon 4(A), will also be subject to the limitations of Canon 2(A) and Canon 3. That is, a judicial officer should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and judicial duties must take precedence over all of a judicial officer’s activities.

The opinion goes on to give advice for blogging judges.

If the judicial officer does post a blog, the judicial officer may want to consider posting a disclaimer that the opinions expressed are only those of the author and should not be imputed to other judges. The judicial officer may also want to consider outlining constraints to which judicial officers are subject such as commenting on pending cases or discussing cases with persons appearing before the judicial officer’s court in order to avoid ex parte communication. If possible, the judicial officer should review a response before allowing it to be published on the blog or alternatively, regularly monitor the responses to make sure that the thread of the discussion does not change from that permitted by Canon 4.

This is an encouraging development. I agree, as the opinion states, that judges are in a unique position to improve the public understanding of the law. To my knowledge, Justice Tom Chambers is the only member of the state Supreme Court who maintains a blog. Perhaps we'll see more in the future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is slightly off-topic for this blog, but a news story I noticed prompted the question above. George Erb of the Puget Sound Business Journal has a report on Friday’s annual meeting of the Bench-Bar-Press Committee of Washington. The topic of a panel discussion: “Where have all the reporters gone?”

The answers are disturbing. I know that here in Olympia the political/government press corps has dwindled from 30+ reporters to just seven people in a few short years. Veteran reporters have “chosen” early retirement, government positions, or private-sector employment. David Ammons (Associated Press), David Postman (Seattle Times), and Joe Turner (The News Tribune)—just to name three—had decades of experience between them, and their insight and institutional memory is now gone. There are very good reporters left behind, but they’re the first to admit they’re stretched too thin.

The discussion on Friday covered these issues, with U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik and Washington Chief Justice Gerry Alexander voicing concerns about the state of journalism .

But one comment caught my attention:

Peter Shaplen, a producer, consultant and educator, said the courts are seeing more bloggers. Unfortunately, blogs are less likely to provide the in-depth reporting that lays out the facts and arguments behind court opinions and verdicts, he said.

I’m not especially interested in the “blogs vs. newspapers” debate. But when it comes to legal reporting, Mr. Shaplen is wrong. I’m equally concerned about the erosion of the press, but blogs can and do provide in-depth reporting on legal issues and cases.

Consider this blog, for example. By the time the Washington State Supreme Court issues a ruling, we’ve written about that case numerous times: we announce the case when the petition for review is accepted, we provide previews and recaps of oral argument, we link to party briefs, we discuss the case’s procedural history, and we preview the case the night before the ruling is issued. We then unpack the Court’s opinions—covering both the story and the significant legal issues for the benefit of legal practitioners and laypersons alike. We’re also able to observe trends, comment on the nuances of developing case law, and translate particularly complex legal issues. The political reporters in town do a fine job. I’m not saying they don’t. But the lawyers writing for our blog offer an expertise and depth of analysis that a general assignment reporter can’t match.

The ease of online publishing allows subject-matter experts to offer their views to the public without the barriers they would face if trying to get quoted in the New York Times or on 60 Minutes. Take any area of law, and there’s probably a legal professional blogging on that topic. Attorney Bill Marler is a leading expert on food poisoning outbreaks and litigation and writes about the topic on his blog. Want to know about equestrian law? You’d better be reading Alison Rowe’s Equine Law Blog.

Legal professionals are filling the void created by the death of print journalism, and the public is well-served because of it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Justice Debra ("Gangsta") Stephens and Chief Justice Gerry ("Big Dawg") Alexander at the court's annual Halloween party.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Washington State Supreme Court recently heard two cases at Peninsula College in Port Angeles last week as part of the court's "On The Road" initiative to bring a live example of the judicial system to students and citizens. After each argument last week the justices entertained questions from the audience, which can be seen below.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The good folks over at Real Lawyers Have Blogs profiled our Supreme Court of Washington Blog yesterday. Read the Q&A for details about our experience so far. And thanks to all our readers who give us the motivation to keep writing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link