It’s been a balmy week in Bellingham, out here
in the upper left corner of the contiguous 48 states. But a flurry of lawyerly emails today reminded me I
needed to finish introducing my lawsuit before it’s time to explain some pressing
new development.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
ROGER
LEISHMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
OGDEN
MURPHY WALLACE PLLC and PATRICK PEARCE,
Defendants.
|
No. 17-2-11921-1 SEA
COMPLAINT
|
The body of
the Complaint sets forth each of the factual allegations the plaintiff believes
entitle him to relief if ultimately proven to be true. For everyone's convenience,
they are always arranged in numbered paragraphs so it's easy to zero in on particular allegations.
The first
section is under the heading “Parties.” Paragraph
1 identifies me. Paragraph 2 identifies the
first defendant, Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC.
“PLLC” stands for “professional limited liability corporation.” In the United States, only lawyers are
allowed to practice law or have an ownership interest in a legal practice. For many years most law firms organized
themselves as old-fashioned general partnerships. But a couple of decades ago, states like
Washington authorized various alternative organizational structures. For example, my former firm Davis Wright Tremaine is a “limited liability partnership,”
owned by a couple of hundred partners.
My first law firm, Bogle & Gates, imploded years ago, but I
remember when like Ogden Murphy it adopted the PLLC structure. The owners of a PLLC are called “members”
rather than partners, which caused a lot of tittering at the time.
Paragraph 3
identifies the other defendant, Patrick Pearce, who is a member of the Ogden
Murphy firm. Washington is a community
property state, so Paragraph 3 alleges that Mr. Pearce acted on behalf of his marital
community, assuming he’s married, so the income of both spouses is available to
satisfy any judgment. A gay friend of
mine was recently sued in Washington, and was amused to see his husband named
as “JANE DOE” in the caption. I prefer
to avoid stereotyping.
Paragraphs
4-7 and Exhibit A to the Complaint (which is taken from Mr. Pearce’s bio on the
Ogden Murphy website) are not part of the typical allegations identifying the
parties. They are relevant here because
different legal standards apply to an individual with a law degree when he is
performing a nonlegal task, rather than representing a legal client.
Paragraph 8
quotes language from my settlement agreement with my former employers at the
Washington Attorney General’s Office. I
released any claims against the State and all of its employees and agents. Vendors and independent contractors are not
covered by my release.
Paragraph 9,
under the heading “Jurisdiction and Venue,” confirms that the claims and
parties belong here in Superior Court, and not before some other tribunal.
The bulk of
the Complaint, Paragraphs 10 through 72, comes under the heading “Facts,” and
tells my story. Defendants will have the
opportunity in their Answer to admit each allegation, to deny it, or to deny it
in part. At that point we will know what
facts are actually disputed. The parties
will have the opportunity to gather and present evidence, with the jury
ultimately responsible for resolving any disputed factual issues. The judge is responsible for deciding the
legal significance of facts that are either undisputed by the parties or determined
by the jury.
Paragraphs
73 through 105 identify each of the five legal theories which would entitle me
to relief if the jury agrees with my factual allegations. Under the modern “notice pleading” approach,
it’s not necessary for plaintiffs to identify their specific legal theories at
this point, just the factual basis of their claim, and requests to amend a
complaint are liberally granted. But as
a practical matter, it’s useful for the lawyers and the Court to have a legal
framework to work with.
Count One
is for negligence: under the common law,
individuals have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care, and may be held
liable for damages caused by the failure to meet that duty.
Count Two
is brought under the Consumer Protection Act:
the Washington legislature has authorized plaintiffs to sue defendants
for damages caused by deceptive or unfair acts that affect the public
interest. The fact that the same
investigator caused a similar harm to another whistleblower just two years
before underscores the importance of my CPA claim.
Counts
Three and Four are for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation respectively.
And Count
Five is brought under the Washington Law Against Discrimination: I contend the Ogden Murphy Report has two
gaping logical and factual holes where it should have properly considered my
sexual orientation and disability. Instead, defendants acted to further my employers’
implicit and explicit bias.
The final
section of the Complaint is the “Prayer for Relief,” which asks for an award of
money damages as well as compensation for my litigation expenses.
Defendants’
Answer is due June 1 – then we’ll see what happens next….
Click here for more information about my lawsuit against Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC and Patrick Pearce
No comments:
Post a Comment