Facts:  Paul King was disbarred following a hearing before the Washington State Bar Association’s disciplinary board, which found that King had violated several rules of professional conduct by failing to notify a client that he had been suspended from the practice of law, falsely informing opposing counsel that he was merely taking leave from the case when he had in fact been suspended, continuing to practice law after his suspension, and attempting to obstruct and delay the disciplinary proceedings against him.  King subsequently appealed the disciplinary board’s sanction to the Supreme Court of Washington, asserting that he had not obtained a fair hearing and that the hearing officer should have been disqualified for lack of appearance of fairness given that the hearing officer was the subject of a pending lawsuit that King had filed.

Question(s):  Did King receive due process?

Should the hearing officer have been disqualified for lack of appearance of fairness?

Conclusion:  Justice James M. Johnson’s opinion for the Court affirmed King’s disbarment, concluding that King had received due process insofar as King was properly served and granted sufficient time to file an answer to the complaint against him and insofar as the ex parte deposition of a witness had not been improper and the disciplinary board did not abuse its discretion in rejecting King’s motion to vacate its findings, in not permitting King to file a reply brief to the Washington State Bar Association’s answer to this motion, in scheduling the hearing, and in not ruling upon King’s motion to review the audio tape of the hearing for accuracy.  The Court also held that there was no disqualifying lack of appearance of fairness with regard to the hearing officer as the lawsuit King filed against the hearing officer was not filed until after they had been appointed as hearing officer and a lack of appearance of fairness cannot be manufactured simply by filing a lawsuit against a presiding official.

Docket No. 681-7

Petitioner: Paul King

Respondent: Washington State Bar Association

(Counsel: Scott G. Busby)

Argument: Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

Decided: Thursday, June 10th, 2010

Prevailing Party: Washington State Bar Association (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders
(Concurs)

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson
(Majority)

Stephens