In an article by Jordan Schrader published 9-2-11 in The Olympian regarding Washington State’s Attorney General (Rob McKenna) and that office’s mandatory obligation to represent State agencies, it came to light David Bricklin, esq. may have been involuntarily representing, pro bono, Peter Goldmark (State Lands Commissioner) in a dispute involving the condemnation of State land for a power line by Okanogan’s PUD#1 in the Methow Valley.
David Bricklin was the attorney representing Concerned Citizens of Mason County (CCMC) in its lawsuit naming the Port of Shelton and Adage as defendants. Duff Badgley, an environmental activist residing in Seattle with close ties to Mr. Bricklin, described David’s legal strategy as ‘holistic’ given Peter Goldmark and Mike Dorcy (Mason County Prosecutor) sided with an analysis of the Adage dispute favoring local area residents. As it turns out, Mr. Bricklin was personally acquainted with both of these elected officials. Whether that relationship was useful in presenting Mr. Bricklin’s legal arguments favoring the citizens of Mason County to the men is simultaneously speculative and amusing. What’s known is Adage announced it withdrawal within days of their published official opinion–leaving the Port of Shelton to settle the CCMC lawsuit on its own in the bargain!
The following excerpt is taken from Mr. Schrader’s article:
CLIENT VS. LAWYER
The court said it had never before been confronted with an attorney general’s refusal to defend a state official. [Peter Goldmark, State Lands Commissioner]
Clients don’t usually disagree when his office tells them they can’t win and ought to throw in the towel, McKenna said: “I can’t think of a single instance where this has happened.”
But that’s what happened when Goldmark sought to appeal a ruling against the state that allowed the Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County to condemn State land to build a power line.
McKenna said the effects of Goldmark’s victory are limited because it hinges in part on laws unique to the lands commissioner’s power – although the ruling also cites broader state laws. Those laws say the attorney general “shall” represent all state officials in court, but McKenna argued that shouldn’t mean he has to pursue cases to every avenue of appeal.
“We were surprised at the beginning that the attorney general abandoned his client, given the clarity of those statutes,” said Goldmark’s attorney in the Supreme Court case, David Bricklin.
Goldmark, in announcing his decision to appeal to the Supreme Court last year, said he had “retained the pro bono legal services of attorney David Bricklin, at no cost to the State or trusts.” But Goldmark’s spokesman, Bryan Flint, said Thursday that could change.
“(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.
Bricklin said Thursday he never intended to work for free. “I’ve been sending them bills and haven’t been getting paid,” he said.
Now McKenna’s office plans to appoint a lawyer from outside the agency to represent Goldmark, a move likely aimed at making sure the lawyer isn’t influenced by the AG’s conclusions about the case.
Justices Debra Stephens and Richard Sanders dissented from the ruling favoring Goldmark, saying the opinion clashes with the one they issued in the health care case.
Jordan Schrader: 360-786-1826 jordan.schrader@thenews tribune.com blog.thenewstribune.com/politics
The article, in its entirety, can be seen at the following link:
