ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES
FOR PRIVATE BENEFIT
IN VIOLATION OF RCW 42.52.160(1) BY:
Chief Deputy Attorney General Shane Esquibel
Senior Counsel Kari Hanson
Assistant Attorney General Suzanne LiaBraaten
Assistant Attorney General Janay Ferguson
Special Assistant Attorney General Mark Fucile
12/19/18 Roger Leishman files bar grievances against two individual lawyers employed by the Washington Attorney General’s Office: Shane Esquibel (WSBA #38032) and Kari Hanson (WSBA #24206). These grievances allege violations of Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, which prohibits attorneys from ordering their investigator to interrogate someone who is represented by an attorney about the subject matter of the representation; RPC 8.4(g) and RPC 8.4(h), which prohibit lawyers from discriminating on the basis of disability or sexual orientation; and RPC 5.1(c), which requires lawyers with managerial authority to take reasonable remedial action as soon as they know one of their subordinates has engaged in unethical conduct. The bar grievances are accompanied by ten exhibits documenting Esquibel and Hanson’s ethical lapses. See RPC 4.2 Violation Undisputed Timeline.
12/20/18 The Washington State Bar Association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel asks Esquibel and Hanson to formally respond to the allegations contained in Leishman’s bar grievances.
1/11/19 Assistant Attorney General Suzanne LiaBraaten appears on behalf of Esquibel and Hanson in their disciplinary proceedings. LiaBraaten asks the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to defer its investigation into the bar grievances against Esquibel and Hanson pursuant to ELC 5.3(d)(a)(A), arguing that these two state employees might someday be called as witnesses in Leishman’s separate civil lawsuit against Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC and Patrick Pearce.
1/16/19 WSBA Disciplinary Counsel grants the Attorney General’s request to indefinitely postpone any investigation into allegations of unethical conduct by Chief Deputy Attorney General Shane Esquibel and Senior Counsel Kari Hanson.
1/18/19 At further taxpayer expense, LiaBraaten files an eleven-page “Preliminary Response” to the bar grievances against her co-workers, together with six exhibits. In violation of RPC 8.1, LiaBraaten’s Preliminary Response on behalf of Esquibel and Hanson contains numerous false statements of material fact.
1/24/19 Pursuant to ELC 5.3(d)(2), Leishman requests that a Review Committee of the Disciplinary Board reverse Disciplinary Counsel’s deferral decision.
1/30/19 Leishman submits requests under the Public Records Act seeking copies of records identifying the official basis for LiaBraaten’s taxpayer-paid representation of her co-workers in their individual bar disciplinary proceedings.
2/1/19 Leishman submits requests under the Public Records Act seeking records regarding the expenditure of Public Resources in connection with the bar grievances against Esquibel and Hanson.
3/8/19 Leishman submits a detailed Rebuttal to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel challenging numerous legal and factual errors contained in the “Preliminary Response” submitted by LiaBraaten on behalf of Esquibel and Hanson. Leishman’s rebuttal submission includes fifteen additional exhibits.
3/13/19 Leishman writes to Esquibel, Hanson, and LiaBraaten to inform them that their illegal use of Public Resources for private benefit violates RCW 42.52.160(1), and asks them to cease from further violations of the Ethics in Public Service Act.
3/19/19 In an email exchange with Leishman, the Attorney General’s Office confirms it relies on RCW 43.10.040 as the agency’s sole legal basis for expending Public Resources on behalf of Esquibel and Hanson in their individual bar disciplinary proceedings.
4/3/19 In response to Leishman’s requests under the Public Records Act, the Attorney General’s Office produces timekeeper summaries and billing invoices establishing the expenditure of thousands of dollars of Public Resources for the private benefit of Esquibel and Hanson by LiaBraaten, Assistant Attorney General Janay Ferguson, and private lawyer Mark Fucile, the Attorney General’s Ethics Advisor.
4/5/19 Leishman submits a “refresher” request under the Public Records Act seeking records regarding subsequent expenditures of Public Resources in connection with the bar grievances against Esquibel and Hanson.
4/19/19 Leishman submits requests under the Public Records Act seeking records regarding the appointment of Mark Fucile as a Special Assistant Attorney General.
5/31/19 Attorney General’s Office produces documents regarding Special Assistant Attorney General Mark Fucile. In response to Leishman’s refresher request under the Public Records Act, the Attorney General’s Office also produces additional timekeeper summaries and billing invoices which establish further expenditures of Public Resources for the private benefit of Esquibel and Hanson.
7/1/19 Leishman submits detailed complaints to the Executive Ethics Board identifying violations of RCW 42.52.160(1) by Esquibel, Hanson, LiaBraaten, and Ferguson.
7/9/19 The Executive Ethics Board’s Executive Director Kate Reynolds sends an email to Leishman rejecting all four ethics complaint as insufficient to allege violations under Washington’s Ethics in Public Service Act. Without citing to any evidence or legal authority, Reynolds’ email identifies two purported reasons for her decision: (1) “how state employees carry out their actual job duties and responsibilities and any applicability of agency policies in regards to job duties and responsibilities are not covered by the Act”; and (2) “the Ethics Board has no authority to take any action or to become involved with any legal actions between a private citizen and a state agency.”
7/10/19 Leishman writes to Fucile to inform him that his illegal expenditure of public resources for private benefit violates RCW 42.52.160(1), and asks him to cease from further violations of the Ethics in Public Service Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
7/11/19 Leishman sends a detailed letter to Reynolds responding to each of the rationales stated in her 7/9/19 email, and providing additional evidence and legal authority regarding Esquibel, Hanson, LiaBraaten, and Ferguson’s violations of the Ethics in Public Service Act, including the Washington Supreme Court’s controlling decision in Sanders v. State, 166 Wn.2d 164, 207 P.3d 1245 (2010), regarding the scope of RCW 43.10. Leishman sends copies of his letter to the Attorney General’s Ethics Advisor and to Reynolds’ immediate supervisor Solicitor General Noah Purcell, expressing concern regarding apparent and actual conflicts of interest at the Washington Attorney General’s Office.
7/17/19 Reynolds sends an email in response to Leishman’s 7/11/19 letter. Reynolds identifies several new nonsensical reasons for refusing to do her job, notwithstanding the plain language of the Ethics in Public Service Act, the Court’s opinion in Sanders v. State, and the procedural regulations adopted by the Executive Ethics Board.
Rather than continuing his futile efforts to reason with incompetent and/or unethical employees at the Attorney General’s Office, including Reynolds herself, Leishman defers taking any further action before the Executive Ethics Board until after the Washington courts act on the pending appeal of his separate lawsuit against the non-State actors.
9/3/19 The Washington Court of Appeals reverses the trial court’s erroneous entry of judgment on the pleadings under RCW 4.24.510, and reinstates Leishman’s claims against Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC and Patrick Pearce. 10 Wn. App.2d 826, 451 P.3d 1101 (2019).
10/25/19 Disciplinary Counsel informs Leishman and LiaBraaten that for eight months WSBA staff “inadvertently overlooked” Leishman’s request for review of counsel's deferral decision by a Review Committee of the Disciplinary Board.
10/30/19 Leishman sends a letter to Disciplinary Counsel identifying additional evidence of ethical violations by Esquibel, Hanson, and LiaBraaten, and requesting that WSBA commence an investigation into attorney misconduct without further delay.
11/1/19 Disciplinary Counsel declines to reopen the investigation, once again erroneously relying on the existence of pending civil litigation between different parties as the sole basis for deferral.
11/25/19 Review Committee II of the Disciplinary Board of the Washington Supreme Court finally enters written orders deferring the Esquibel and Hanson grievances, solely “because the allegations are related to pending civil litigation.
1/29/20 The Washington Supreme Court accepts review of the appeal in Leishman v. Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC and Patrick Pearce. Oral argument is set for June 9, 2020.
2/11/20 Leishman files a separate bar grievance against LiaBraaten, alleging the 1/18/19 “Preliminary Response” contains false statements of material fact in violation of RPC 8.1. Leishman also sends a detailed letter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel explaining how their reliance on the existence of separate pending civil litigation as the sole basis for deferring an investigation violates ELC 5.3(d)(1)(A).
2/21/20 Leishman submits another “refresher” request under the Public Records Act seeking records regarding subsequent expenditures of Public Resources in connection with the bar grievances against Esquibel and Hanson.
Leishman submits a “refresher” request under the Public Records Act seeking records regarding the appointment of Mark Fucile as a Special Assistant Attorney General.
Leishman submits a new request under the Public Records Act seeking records regarding subsequent expenditures of Public Resources in connection with the bar grievance against LiaBraaten.
As of March 9, 2020, the Attorney General’s Office has not yet produced any records in response to these Public Records Act requests.
2/25/20 Leishman submits complaints to the Executive Ethics Board identifying violations of RCW 42.52.160(1) by Esquibel, Hanson, LiaBraaten, Ferguson, and Fucile.
Two hours later, Reynolds sends Leishman an email stating that she refuses to accept any of the five ethics complaints for filing. Reynolds’ email asserts without citation or analysis that “there is not enough to allege violations under the Ethics in Public Service Act.” Reynolds further contends that “as a contracted employee” Special Assistant Attorney General Mark Fucile is “not subject to the Ethics in Public Service Act.”
2/26/20 Leishman sends Reynolds a detailed letter objecting to each of her ultra vires actions. Leishman asks Reynolds to let him know by March 6, 2020, “if upon further reflection you have determined to ‘file’ the ethics complaints.”
3/4/20 Reynolds sends Leishman an email stating “In order for staff to evaluate whether these issues fall under the Ethics in Public Service Act, there needs to be evidence regarding the use of state resources for a private benefit or gain.” Reynolds requests various categories of documentation.
3/8/20 Leishman sends Reynolds a detailed five-page “AGO Executive Ethics Violation Timeline & Undisputed Evidence,” together with another explanatory letter and copies of all of the evidence referred to in this Timeline.
No comments:
Post a Comment