Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP

Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. 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 in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

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.

Jim Johnson is a Candidate for Injustice

There's just a few days left in the campaign for Supreme Court Justice. I will be posting over the next several days examples of why you should vote for Stan Rumbaugh and oust the incumbent, Jim Johnson. Caveat: These examples were provided by the Rumbaugh campaign, and I am simply posting in whole:

With just four weeks to go until the primary we'll be taking a look at Jim Johnson's record of injustice on the Supreme Court.

Date July 20, 2010  

Landmark Regulation of Predatory Banking Practices Nears – but There’s a Dissenter: 

Contact: Brendan Williams, (360) 791-3979

This week President Obama signs landmark bi-partisan legislation tackling the predatory banking practices behind the current recession.

Yet most Washingtonians don’t realize Justice Jim Johnson defends those practices.

On June 24, the Washington Supreme Court decided McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank.

At issue was a bank deceiving customers by gouging their transactions with illegal junk fees like a “fax fee” and “notary fee."

The Court recognized Washington law protects individuals and businesses from such abuse, quoting precedent stating, “‘The state cannot dictate to the Bank how it can or cannot operate, but it can insist that, however the Bank chooses to operate, it do so free from fraud and other deceptive business practices.’”

Yet Justice Jim Johnson sided against Washington consumer protection law and wrote a dissent designed to inappropriately cherry-pick weaker standards and virtually immunize federal banks.

Instead of following our laws, Johnson worked to shield the financial industry, writing that, “a successful lawsuit by Anne and Chris McCurry…would effectively regulate a federal savings bank[,]”. Johnson and the special interests he routinely sides with on our Supreme Court would prefer to exempt all such banks from state laws including our Consumer Protection Act.

What is particularly egregious about this judicial activism is the grasping for legal foundation—beyond splitting hairs in defining the word ‘incidental’, Johnson relied only on an argument that the lawsuit would cost the bank money. The majority was equally bothered, writing, 

“Basically, the dissent hypothesizes that litigation that causes “extensive” expenses—regardless of the merit of the claim—might cause Chevy Chase to alter its lending practices—here, by ceasing to charge fees precluded by contract…The dissent would preempt the generally applicable state law that sets the groundwork necessary for any meaningful commercial and contractual relationship between Chevy Chase and its customers.  The dissent cites no case law or regulation to support the over-expansive interpretation it applies here.” (Emphasis added.

Even Justice Johnson’s campaign co-chair disagreed with him.  Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office argued that if the McCurrys’ claim was not recognized, it would undermine the attorney general’s ability to protect Washington’s citizens from fraud and abuse. The majority agreed, writing, “It is unclear under the dissent how any state law would survive…Ultimately, the dissent’s novel interpretation of preemption would prevent Washington consumers from enforcing contracts[.]” (Emphasis added).

At the heart of this case is simply a refusal on the part of Johnson to apply Washington’s consumer protection laws because forcing the financial industry to stop committing fraud would cost them money. Chevy Chase Bank is headquartered in Maryland and is part of an international conglomerate owned by industry giant Capitol One, major players in the subprime crisis that causes the global economic recession.  A Supreme Court justice should impartially apply our laws and Constitution as they come to him, not work to rewrite them from the bench to protect corporate criminals’ injustice.

For the McCurry majority, see http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/818967.opn.pdf

For the Johnson dissent, see http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/818967.no1.pdf

To learn more please visit www.johnsonsinjustice.com

To learn more about Stan Rumbaugh please visit www.rumbaughforjustice.com

Subscribe in a reader

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