Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - 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.

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

For the Johnson dissent, see

To learn more please visit

To learn more about Stan Rumbaugh please visit

Subscribe in a reader

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