Eugster v. Wash. State Bar Ass'n

Citation397 P.3d 131,198 Wash.App. 758
Decision Date02 May 2017
Docket NumberNo. 34345-6-III,34345-6-III
Parties Stephen Kerr EUGSTER, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, a legislatively created Washington association (WSBA); and Paula Littlewood, Executive Director, WSBA, in her official capacity; and Douglas J. Ende, Director of the WSBA Office of Disciplinary Counsel, in his official capacity; Francesca D'Angelo, Disciplinary Counsel, WSBA Office of Disciplinary Counsel, in her official capacity, Respondents.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

Stephen Kerr Eugster, Eugster Law Office, PSC, 2418 W. Pacific Ave., Spokane, WA, 99201-6422, for Appellant.

Paul J. Lawrence, Jessica Anne Skelton, Taki V. Flevaris, Pacifica Law Group LLP, 1191 2nd Ave., Ste. 2000, Seattle, WA, 98101-3404, for Respondents.

Fearing, C.J.

Endless litigation leads to chaos. Schroeder v. 171.74 Acres of Land, More or Less , 318 F.2d 311, 314 (8th Cir. 1963) (emphasis added).

¶1 Stephen Eugster initiated this suit, the sixth proceeding involving the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) and himself. Eugster sues the WSBA, the entity that administers Washington State's lawyer disciplinary system on behalf of the state Supreme Court, and some of WSBA's officials. Eugster claims that the discipline system violates his due process and First Amendment rights to the United States Constitution and that the WSBA retaliated against him for an earlier lawsuit. WSBA and its officials moved to dismiss the suit on five grounds: lack of subject matter jurisdiction, res judicata, failure to state a claim, immunity, and lack of justiciability. The trial court granted the motion on all grounds. On appeal, we hold that the trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction, but that res judicata bars this lawsuit because Eugster could have asserted his due process arguments in at least one earlier proceeding.

FACTS

¶2 Since the trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to a motion to dismiss, we borrow from Stephen Eugster's complaint to prepare this statement of facts. The WSBA, like most other state bar associations, functions as an integrated bar. All active lawyers in the state of Washington are members of and must pay dues to the WSBA. The WSBA, by direction of the Washington Supreme Court, administers the system to discipline lawyers who violate the attorney professional code of ethics. The Supreme Court reserves the final say in disciplining a member of the Washington State bar.

¶3 In 2005, the WSBA investigated a lawyer disciplinary grievance filed against Stephen Eugster by a former elderly client, Marion Stead. After Stead terminated Eugster's services, Eugster filed a guardianship petition against Stead without any investigation as to her alleged incompetency. Eugster sought to appoint Stead's son as the guardian despite Stead having directed Eugster to remove her son from control over her affairs. In the process, Eugster disclosed to the son and others confidential communications between Eugster and Stead. Eugster refused to surrender papers and property to Stead and refused to deliver Stead's file to her new counsel. The WSBA Disciplinary Board recommended disbarment. The Washington Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the disbarment and instead suspended Eugster from the practice of law for eighteen months. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster , 166 Wash.2d 293, 209 P.3d 435 (2009). During the proceeding, Stephen Eugster never challenged the constitutionality of the WSBA attorney disciplinary system. Because of the many proceedings involving Stephen Eugster and the WSBA, we refer to the grievance filed by Marion Stead and the eventual Supreme Court decision as Eugster I.

¶4 During his eighteen-month suspension, the WSBA commenced Eugster II, an investigation of a grievance against Stephen Eugster filed by Mattie Kivett. In response to the second grievance, the WSBA eventually sent a letter to Eugster instructing him to analyze cases more thoroughly and concurrently dismissed the grievance. The WSBA gave notice to Eugster that he must avoid the grieved conduct and the WSBA would retain file documents concerning the complaint for five years.

¶5 On January 21, 2010, Stephen Eugster filed Eugster III, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Washington's attorney discipline system violated his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association , No. CV 09-357-SMM, 2010 WL 2926237 (E.D. Wash. July 23, 2010), aff'd , 474 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2012). He named, as defendants, members of the Washington State Supreme Court, the WSBA, and members of the WSBA Board of Governors. Eugster requested that the court enjoin the defendants from continuing to operate Washington's attorney discipline system. He initially further requested that the court declare void the suspension imposed on him in Eugster I, but he withdrew the request before the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The United States District Court dismissed Eugster III, without prejudice, for lack of standing because Eugster failed to demonstrate that he suffered an actual or imminent injury in fact since he provided no evidence of any pending disciplinary proceeding against him.

¶6 Stephen Eugster appealed Eugster III to the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an opinion shorter than our opinion, the federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal since Eugster did not allege he would ever again be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association , 474 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2012).

¶7 On September 23, 2014, Cheryl Rampley filed Eugster IV, a lawyer disciplinary grievance with the WSBA against Stephen Eugster, the third grievance against Eugster. Rampley is the niece-in-law of Verdelle G. O'Neill, a client of Eugster. The WSBA sent notice of the grievance to Eugster on October 1, 2014. In response, Eugster sent voluminous records to the WSBA concerning his representation of O'Neill. He also wrote letters to respond to Rampley's allegations. On November 21, 2014, Kevin Bank, WSBA managing disciplinary counsel, relayed a letter to Eugster to inform him that the WSBA assigned Bank to complete the investigation. Eugster responded to further letters from Bank. A Christmas day 2014 letter from Eugster asked Bank to identify for Eugster his deficiencies so that Eugster could correct the wrongs.

¶8 On March 12, 2015, Stephen Eugster filed Eugster V,Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association , No. C15-0375-JLR, 2015 WL 5175722 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 3, 2015), aff'd , 684 Fed.Appx. 618, 2017 WL 1055620 (9th Cir. 2017), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. He joined as defendants in the suit WSBA officials and all justices of the Washington Supreme Court. In the federal suit, Eugster challenged the constitutionality, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, of compulsory membership in and payment of dues to Washington's integrated bar association. Eugster asked for judicial declarations permitting him to practice law without membership in the WSBA, freeing him from mandatory bar dues, and declaring the WSBA unconstitutional.

¶9 In our case on appeal, Stephen Eugster alleges that, despite being notified of the grievance filed by Cheryl Rampley in October 2014, the WSBA did not decide to commence an investigation based on the grievance until after his filing of Eugster V, his second federal lawsuit. According to Eugster, Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigator Vanessa Norman informed him of the investigation shortly after he filed the federal lawsuit. On April 3, 2015, Norman informed Eugster that the WSBA assigned her to conduct the investigation on Rampley's grievance. Then on April 21, 2015, WSBA disciplinary counsel Francesca D'Angelo wrote to Eugster to inform him that the WSBA assigned her to investigate the grievance. Thereafter, Eugster responded to more requests for information from the WSBA. Verdelle G.

¶10 On September 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington entered an order dismissing Eugster V. The court ruled that Stephen Eugster failed to state a claim under which he could receive relief because federal courts uphold the constitutionality of compulsory membership in and dues to bar associations. He also failed to state a claim on which he could receive relief with regard to the expenditure of funds by the WSBA, since the bar association allowed a Keller deduction. The district court dismissed the latter claim without prejudice to allow Eugster to amend the complaint to specifically allege misallocation of charges not permitted to be compulsory assessed. The court gave ten days for the amendment or else the court would also dismiss the claim with prejudice. The entire complaint against the WSBA was dismissed on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity, since a bar association is an arm of the state. Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association , No. C15-0375-JLR, 2015 WL 5175722 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 3, 2015) (court order). We suspect that Eugster did not amend the complaint. He filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 21, 2015. On March 21, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished memorandum opinion. Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association, No. 15-35743, 2017 WL 1055620 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2017).

¶11 In his complaint on appeal, Stephen Eugster alleges that the WSBA, on November 3, 2015, sent him a letter informing him that disciplinary counsel intended to request a Disciplinary Board review committee to order review of Cheryl Rampley's complaint by a hearing officer. According to Eugster, the WSBA letter contained false statements concerning his conduct and failed to inform the Disciplinary Board of conflicting material statements. When Stephen Eugster filed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Reeves v. Mason Cnty.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2022
    ...for or against whom the claim is made. Rains v. State , 100 Wash.2d 660, 663, 674 P.2d 165 (1983) ; Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association , 198 Wash. App. 758, 786, 397 P.3d 131 (2017). Res judicata also requires that the prior judgment be final. Eugster v. Washington State Bar Associ......
  • In re Estate of Reugh
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • August 20, 2019
    ...to the removal motion. ¶37 A court must have subject matter jurisdiction in order to decide a case. Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association , 198 Wash. App. 758, 774, 397 P.3d 131, review denied , 189 Wash.2d 1018, 404 P.3d 493 (2017). Subject matter jurisdiction is the indispensable fo......
  • Blackburn v. State
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • February 9, 2023
    ...767 F.2d 344, 348 (7th Cir. 1985); Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association, 198 Wn.App. 758, 791 (2017). We deem Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association controlling. Attorney Stephen Eugster initiated suit the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA), the association's director, and ......
  • Blackburn v. State
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • February 9, 2023
    ...767 F.2d 344, 348 (7th Cir. 1985); Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association, 198 Wn.App. 758, 791 (2017). We deem Eugster v. Washington State Bar Association controlling. Attorney Stephen Eugster initiated suit the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA), the association's director, and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT