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.

WA Legal Roundup

Yes, your esteemed blogger is quite sick thanks to what is either 1) a cold caught from the office baby whom I spent far too much time playing with on the firm boat ride; or 2) food poisoning from the WSBA annual awards dinner. Seeing as the first symptoms appeared concurrnetly with the first bite of crab cake, I'm assuming that its probably the baby. But, during a file server reboot, I have a bit of time to bring you the latest and greatest out of Div. I.

Division 1

In State v. Gamble, the court was asked to decide who had the authority to decide whether a community custody violation could result in sanctions. Ms. Gamble argued that, in giving that authority to the DOC, the legislature had stripped the superior court of the same authority. Unsurprisingly, the court instead adopted the State's argument, that the legislature granted concurrent jurisdiction:

The plain language of RCW 9.94A.634(1) demonstrates that the superior courts retain authority -- and thus jurisdiction -- to enforce the conditions of the sentence they impose. True, the SRA also grants to DOC the authority to impose sanctions for violations of a specific subset of sentence conditions, including community custody conditions of sentences imposed pursuant to the first-time offender waiver option. The legislature may even have intended that this be the preferred procedure for enforcing community custody conditions in such cases. However, only by ignoring RCW 9.94A.634 is it possible to conclude that, by giving DOC this authority, the legislature intended to remove the concurrent jurisdiction of the superior courts. "We interpret statutory language in the context of the entire statute and its purpose, and avoid strained interpretations." State v. Manro, 125 Wn. App. 165, 173, 104 P.3d 708 (2005).

Seems fair to me.
Back to work!

Subscribe in a reader