Washington

Earlier this year, Paula Littlewood was a guest on ABA Journal’s Legal Rebels podcast where she spoke about how she came to be an advocate for re-regulation, the need for lawyers to engage the public when it comes to regulatory changes, and Washington’s pioneering limited legal license technician program.

Washington State’s innovative Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLT) program was recently evaluated by the National Center for State Courts and found to be a well-designed program for expanding legal assistance. LLLTs are non-lawyers who are specially trained to provide certain kinds of legal assistance. And, unlike paralegals, LLLTs practice without having to be supervised by a lawyer. Becoming a LLLT requires an associate-level degree of at least 45 credits and an additional 15 credits in family law from an ABA-approved law school. In Washington, the training is provided by the University of Washington School of Law, with Gonzaga University School of Law professors helping to teach the courses.

Last summer, the Washington State Bar Association held its first round of exams in a new Limited License Legal Technician program (LLLT) aimed at bridging the access to justice gap by allowing non-lawyers to provide legal advice and assistance in limited areas, like domestic relations/family law. Now, a recent article provides an update how the LLLT program is progressing in the state.

A recent Wall Street Journal article details how one of America’s foremost jurists has declared war on legal jargon. Judge Richard Posner, who sits on of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, has launched an aggressive assault on legalese.

The "Plain Language Movement" has been afoot for many years in the United States, seeking to make legal documents accessible to a broad swath of intended readers. In Washington, the Pro Se Project was created to improve self-represented litigant’s access to the courts by improving pattern court forms. Twenty-four other states also have extensive plain language court forms for use in family law and other areas.

In a recent opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari in an Alabama death penalty case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the pressures of partisan judicial elections influence judges' decisions in cases involving hot-button issues like capital punishment. Social scientists have examined the question before, and have come to similar conclusions.

Responding to a 6-3 supreme court decision that invalidated a legislative initiative requiring a two-thirds vote for tax increases, three Republican senators proposed a bill that would eliminate four justices from the nine-member court, citing the resulting salary savings.

The Western District of Washington has amended its Local Civil Rules, which include their express purpose of promoting “the just, efficient, speedy, and economical determination of every action and proceeding.” Local Rule 26(f) states that the proportionality standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) “must be applied in every case when parties formulate a discovery plan and promulgate discovery requests.”

An analysis of voting in a supreme court primary election suggests “deep racial polarization.” In the race between incumbent justice Steve Gonzalez and a challenger who neither raised money nor campaigned, the challenger won 30 of 39 counties and nearly 40 percent of the statewide vote.

A study of the sentencing practices of superior court judges suggests that their elections influence their behavior, with judges handing out stiffer sentences from the time they take the bench to their first election.