Political Buzz

Talking WA politics.

NOTICE: Political Buzz has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Political Buzz.
Visit the new section.

Will lawyer who won Goldmark’s case get paid?

Post by Jordan Schrader / The News Tribune on Sep. 1, 2011 at 6:20 pm with 1 Comment »
September 1, 2011 5:57 pm

State Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark has yet to decide what his lawyer should be paid for representing him in his legal victory over Attorney General Rob McKenna.

The lack of a decision is notable in itself because Goldmark’s office said in June 2010 the private attorney would take the case pro bono:

Goldmark has retained the pro bono legal services of attorney David Bricklin, at no cost to the state or trusts.

But Bricklin said today he never intended to work for free.

“I’ve been sending them bills and haven’t been getting paid,” he said. “I wasn’t doing it as pro bono.”

Goldmark’s spokesman, Bryan Flint, said today it’s up in the air.

“He (Bricklin) took on the case knowing there’s a possibility he may not get paid, and we are yet to determine if, when and how he will get compensated,” Flint said.

Normally the state lawyers in the attorney general’s office represent state officials before the Supreme Court. But there’s nothing normal about this case, in which Goldmark asked for a court order compelling the attorney general to represent him in another court fight.

Leave a comment Comments → 1
  1. Apparently Goldmark asked the Court to award attorney fees which the Court denied. From the ruling:

    “The commissioner seeks attorney’s fees under RCW 4.84.185. Reasonable expenses, including fees, may be awarded if we find the defense was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause. A frivolous action is one that cannot be supported by any rational argument on the law or facts. Clarke v. Equinox Holdings, Ltd., 56 Wn. App. 125, 132, 783 P.2d 82, review denied, 113 Wn.2d 1001, 777 P.2d 1050 (1989). We hold that the attorney general’s position is not frivolous, but involves a good-faith argument of statutory and constitutional interpretation. Therefore, we deny the commissioner attorney’s fees under RCW 4.84.185.”

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0