Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Personal Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup: Division III


State v. McMillan

McMillan was a convicted sex offender.  After 10 years of treatment, he petitioned the court to be relieved of his statutory registration requirement.  The court granted the petition and the State appealed arguing that McMillan failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that continued registration no longer served the purpose of the registration statutes.

The State contended that the trial court failed to make a finding either in its written findings or its oral ruling that McMillan presented clear and convincing evidence.  However, the statute does not require the trial court to make a written finding that the petitioner has met his burden.  Thus the Court of Appeals reviewed the oral ruling and found sufficient evidence of the trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence.  The State also challenged that there was in deed clear and convincing evidence.  Division III found that McMillan did meet his burden and there was clear and convincing evidence that future registration as a sex offender will not serve a statutory purpose.  I have to wonder if the State perhaps pursued this appeal out of respect for the victim(s).

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.