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 - WA Supreme Court: No specific findings competency for waiver needed for pro-se; County jails need to provide good-time credit; failure to define aggravators not a manifest constitutional error; Statutory language trumps on lien

Pers. Restraint of Rhome

In this original personal restraint petition, Demar Rhome argues 

that the state and federal constitutions require independent findings of fact that a 

defendant is competent to waive counsel and represent himself at trial.  He also 

argues that the colloquy conducted by the trial court here was inadequate to secure a 

valid waiver of counsel.  We disagree and dismiss his personal restraint petition.

Pers. Restraint of Talley

We hold that the statutory issue is properly before us.  We also hold 

that former RCW 9.92.151 requires a county jail to provide opportunities for 

a presentence inmate to earn good-time credit.  We do not reach Talley's 

constitutional issue.  Because the Skamania County Jail policy conflicts with 

former RCW 9.92.151, Talley should receive earned early-release credit at 

the statutory maximum rate of 15 percent.

State v. Gordon

John Gordon and Charles Bukovsky were each charged 

with second-degree murder in the beating death of Brian Lewis.  The State also 

sought two aggravating sentencing factors: deliberate cruelty and particular 

vulnerability of the victim.  The jury was instructed to determine whether the  

State v. Gordon (John Caldwell); State v. Bukovsky (Charles Andrew), 84240-0

aggravators were present, but the instructions did not define "deliberate cruelty" or 

"particular vulnerability."    The defendants did not object to the instructions on that 

basis.  The jury found the defendants guilty and also found the aggravators applied.  

The trial court imposed exceptional sentences.  We must decide whether the failure 

to provide detailed instructions defining the meaning of "deliberate cruelty" or 

"particular vulnerability" is a manifest error of constitutional magnitude that may be 

addressed for the first time on appeal.  We hold that it is not and therefore reverse 

the Court of Appeals.

Williams v. Athletic Field, Inc.

RCW 60.04.091(2) requires mechanics' liens to be 

"acknowledged pursuant to chapter 64.08 RCW"  --  that is, an authorized person 

must certify in writing that the signor executed the lien freely and voluntarily.  RCW 

64.08.050.  RCW 60.04.091(2) also includes a sample claim of lien that the statute

states "shall be sufficient" but that does not include language satisfying the

acknowledgment requirement.  Contractors Athletic Fields Inc. (AFI) and Hos Bros. 

Construction Inc. each filed claims of lien that used the sample form and did not 

contain certificates of acknowledgment.  In each case, the lower court concluded the 

lien was invalid.  We disagree and hold that a claim of lien in the sample form is 

valid despite the absence of a proper acknowledgment.

 

 

In other news, have you checked out the new blog? The Nursing Home Neglect Report covers issues of elder abuse and neglect and elder care. You can find it at http://www.nursinghomeneglectreport.com




Subscribe in a reader