|
This newsletter is a quarterly publication of the Federal Bar Association of the Western District of Washington. Comments to the Editor should be directed to: Alexandra K. Smith, Editor The FBA Honors Judge William Dwyer at Its Annual Dinner President's Message Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Court to Implement Scanning, Faxing and More Sophisticated Technology in the Court Room Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Commission Proposes Dividing Ninth Circuit into Three Divisions Ethics and Practice Committee Launches Federal Bar Mentorship Program Appellate Practice Internet Tools Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference FBA Maritime Committee's Activities Nominations Committee Activities Time to Renew Your Membership
By Judith H. Ramseyer
By all accounts, the Federal Bar Association dinner held on December 9, 1998, was a roaring success. A sell-out crowd; the largest ever to attend the annual event; packed to capacity the Spanish Ballroom of the Olympic Four Seasons Hotel. The record-setting attendance was, no doubt, a tribute to both the popularity of the event and the evening's honoree: The Honorable William L. Dwyer. At the no-host cocktail hour before the dinner, a densely-packed collection of new and seasoned judges, judicial hopefuls, legal scholars, and lawyers practicing in all areas of the federal court system visited, made new and renewed old acquaintances, and, in some cases, enjoyed a drink or two. As one can imagine, and as the pictures accompanying this article show, the mood was solemn and sedate. After a leisurely, and loud, salmon dinner in the ornate Spanish Ballroom, the program began with a presentation on the new federal courthouse. The Honorable Carolyn R. Dimmick, making good on her promise to keep the presentation brief, introduced Bill Bain of NBBJ, architects for the project. Mr. Bain showed slides of the planned courthouse, describing innovations and improvements designed to make the courthouse inviting to citizens and efficient for lawyers and court staff. Construction of the courthouse, located at 8th and Stewart, is planned to begin in 2001. Construction funds have yet to be appropriated by Congress. The program then turned to the main event, a tribute to U.S. District Court Judge William L. Dwyer, who took senior status on December 1, 1998. First to speak on behalf of Judge Dwyer was his law partner of thirty years, Gordon Culp. Culp recalled the early years of a cocky and brilliant Bill Dwyer. As a law student, Dwyer skipped classes to pursue the finer things in life; like the woman who became his wife of forty-two years, Vasiliki; but still aced exams. As a young lawyer, Dwyer devoted his formidable legal talents to cases of all types. Early in his career he earned national recognition for his defense of Dave Beck, the colorful leader of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and, later, his representation of John Goldmark in a famous libel trial. With humor and candor, Culp described how Bill Dwyer, a skillful and successful trial lawyer, literally helped shape the Seattle we know today. Next to speak on Dwyer's behalf was the Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, his colleague on the district court bench. Judge Rothstein shared a less public view of Dwyer. With great affection, she described a judge who is sensitive to the fears and needs of the average person who comes into contact with the federal court system. Judge Rothstein recalled a time when Judge Dwyer spent several hours with a frightened and reluctant grand jury witness, speaking to her in Spanish, to help her understand the proceedings and the options she faced. She described a judge who, when confronted with angry and vile reactions from people who disliked his rulings in the timber cases, would calmly see to it that they got copies of his orders to more fully understand the context and nature of the decisions. Judge Rothstein also told a story of Judge Dwyer's wit at her expense. After conducting a contempt hearing during which the defendant called Judge Rothstein a "lazy #%&*," Judge Dwyer reported to his fellow judges that he had told the man, "You can't call Judge Rothstein lazy!" True or not, the story brought down the house and gave those in attendance insight into the personal side of this warm and intelligent man. After Judge Rothstein's comments, Tony Rafel, incoming President of the FBA, presented Judge Dwyer with The Life of John Marshall, a four volume collection, as a token of the FBA's appreciation. In his gracious and, as always, concise comments, Judge Dwyer thanked all those who have made his life and career so rich: his wife Vasiliki and his family; his long-suffering teachers; the negotiators who signed the Korean War cease fire agreement in 1953 in the same month he was drafted; his superior officers in Germany who let him try a great variety of court martial cases; his law partners and colleagues at the firm that became known as Culp, Dwyer, Guterson & Grader; his associates at the King County and Washington State Bar Associations; his friends, colleagues, and staff at the U.S. Courthouse; citizens who have served as jurors in his court; the Ninth Circuit for correcting his errors (having detected only a small percentage of them); the Supreme Court for correcting the Ninth Circuit's errors; future Supreme Courts for correcting the current Supreme Court's errors; and members of the bar. And Judge Dwyer thanked us, the "unsung heroes of our society," for our faithful efforts to protect the rights of all people, including the vulnerable and the despised; to assure the law-abiding conduct of business; and to serve pro bono the needs of those who cannot afford to pay. Judge Dwyer told the crowd this is not farewell, as he intends to maintain a full caseload until a successor has been appointed, then move to work part-time. With Judge Dwyer promising to "see [us] in court," the dinner was adjourned. President's Message By Anthony L. Rafel
Many thanks to all of you who attended the Federal Bar Association's Annual Dinner and Annual CLE in December. The Dinner gave us a great opportunity to visit with colleagues and our local judges in a lovely setting, to hear about the plans for the new courthouse to be built in Seattle, and to honor Judge William Dwyer on the occasion of his taking senior status. The CLE featured many of the judges and dealt with current trial, appellate and mediation issues of broad interest to the bar. The Federal Bar Association looks forward to recognizing Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher, who has also assumed senior status, for her distinguished service on the Court of Appeals. Judge Fletcher was a pioneer among women lawyers in this district before going on the bench, and has been a wise and compassionate presence on the Ninth Circuit since 1979. By now, all of you will have received our mailing asking for your committee preferences for 1999. I strongly encourage everyone to get involved. Committees are open to any member who wants to participate, and not only help us stay informed about developments affecting law practice in our courts, but often give us a unique opportunity to help shape those developments. For example, the Local Rules Committee recently submitted formal comments to the committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference that is proposing far-reaching changes to the civil, bankruptcy and evidence rules and, with the District Court's support, our representative attended the hearing on the proposed amendments and gave testimony. Our Ethics and Practice Committee has started a mentorship program that allows less experienced federal practitioners to consult with seasoned veterans about pending cases on a "hypothetical" basis that avoids conflict of interest problems. Our Pro Bono Panel gives lawyers the chance to first-chair cases and provide valuable assistance to the court and the community. In addition to the ongoing committee work, the Association will be sponsoring several exciting events this Spring. The Annual District Conference, to be held on April 27, is a fun and informal half-day program presented by our district's Ninth Circuit lawyer representatives. And next Fall, the Appellate Practice Committee will present a full-day CLE on effective appellate advocacy. More information about these events appears elsewhere in this Newsletter. Other events are being planned for the fall and winter. Besides getting more lawyers to become actively involved in the Association, my goals as President include developing an informative website for the Association, compiling a library of written materials prepared for past CLE programs, and communicating more with members about upcoming activities, events and opportunities for input. Thank you for participating. Please e-mail or call me with any suggestions or questions you may have. Anthony L. Rafelalrafel@rgslaw.com (206) 223-1600
Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure By Michele A. Gammer
The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States ("Standing Committee") has issued proposed amendments to the federal rules of civil procedure. These proposed amendments eliminate the ability of local district courts to opt out of the national rules and mandate national uniformity in discovery (including a revised form of mandatory disclosure). The leadership of the Federal Bar Association, through Michele Gammer (Chair of the Local Rules Committee), submitted lengthy written comments in response to these proposed amendments. Tony Rafel traveled to San Francisco to offer testimony to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on January 22, 1999. That subcommittee will be debating the written comments and testimony received until April 1999. In June 1999, it will submit its final proposal to the Standing Committee, which will submit its recommendations to the Judicial Conference of the United States. If the Supreme Court approves the proposed amendments, it will transmit them to Congress by May 1, 2000, and, unless Congress acts, the amendments will become effective December 1, 2000. Written comments submitted by the FBA are excerpted below:
Re elimination of opt-out provision: Court to Implement Scanning, Faxing and More Sophisticated Technology in the Court Room
The Western District of Washington is in the process of implementing two projects that have the potential to improve communication between the clerk's office and members of the bar, and to improve attorneys' ability to use cutting edge technology in the courtroom. Scanning/Faxing Project:This summer, the Clerk's Office plans to implement its scanning/faxing project. This will involve the scanning of all court orders into the computer and, whenever possible, distributing the orders by fax. The Clerk's Office also plans to scan all non-sealed case-opening documents (i.e. complaints and indictments) into the computer for easy access by the public. The long term goal is to make all of the public documents that the Clerk's Office has scanned onto its computer system accessible to the public on the Internet. The long term benefits of scanning public documents into the computer and distributing court orders by fax include:
The project will begin with the collection of fax numbers and authorizations from attorneys and governmental agencies willing to have their orders received by fax. Those who agree will normally have same-day delivery of court orders. Quality control measures will ensure that all such faxes have been successfully transmitted. If, for some reason, the fax transmission is not successful, the computer program will automatically print a mailing label, and the order will be sent out in the mail just as it is now. If any counsel or governmental agency does not wish to authorize service of orders by fax, copies of orders will be mailed to them as they are now. Sealed materials will not be scanned or faxed. Existing procedures will apply to sealed papers. Those who need certified copies can receive an electronic certification, which General Counsel advises the Clerk's Office is as legal as the current "raised seal" certification. The Clerk's Office anticipates that this will greatly reduce, or eliminate altogether, the need for "raised seal" certifications. The Clerk's Office anticipates the need to make some changes in its internal procedures as a result of implementing this program. Similarly, users of the service (judges, attorneys, other government agencies, and various court personnel) may determine that it necessitates modifications in their procedures as well. The Clerk's Office encourages a continuing dialog to ensure that it integrates this new technology as smoothly as possible with existing procedures. The Clerk's Office plans to begin meeting with agencies and law firms in February of 1999 to assess their willingness to participate, and to begin collecting fax numbers. In March, the Clerk's Office will begin publicizing the program more broadly, and in April it will select some test sites to begin the program. By May, the Clerk's Office expects to be scanning relevant documents and faxing orders to the designated test sites. By early June 1999, the Office plans to "go live" with the program and hopes to be able to accommodate as many participants as want to sign up. If you are interested in participating in this Project at any of these phases, please contact Bruce Rifkin in the Clerk's Office. Courtroom Technology Project:The court plans to provide the infrastructure and equipment for computer, video, and audio evidence presentation, as well as for real-time court reporting, as standard features in all district courtrooms in Seattle and Tacoma. The court will provide the equipment, which attorneys in cases before the court must operate. The system will include: Evidence Display Systems:
Real-Time Reporting:
In Seattle, the court will be implementing this project in the Spring of 1999. Planning has been completed, and procurement of the necessary equipment is scheduled for late March. The Clerk's Office anticipates that installation, integration, testing, and initial training on the equipment will take place in April or May of 1999. The court plans to provide two portable evidence presentation systems for use in the five district courtrooms. The portable systems will be operable from either the video presentation cart or the litigants' tables. All five of the courtrooms will be equipped with the necessary wiring and cabling. In Tacoma, planning is underway and is scheduled to be completed in February. Procurement of equipment is anticipated for late summer, with installation, integration, testing, and initial training scheduled for the Fall of 1999. The court plans to provide two video presentation carts. All four of the district court rooms will be equipped with the necessary wiring, cabling, and monitors. The portable systems will be operable from either the video presentation cart or the litigants' tables. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure By Laura J. Buckland
New amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure took effect December 1, 1998. Many of the revisions serve to break down existing rules into more easily digestible subparts. The amendments largely revise the form rather than the substance of appellate practice. The most significant change has to do with the length of a brief, and new methods for determining length based on word or line count as opposed to page number. FRAP 32(a)(7)(B) requires principal briefs to contain "no more than 14,000 words" or "no more than 1,300 lines of text," instead of the previous limit of 50 pages. Similarly, reply briefs are limited to 7,500 words or 650 lines of text, instead of the previous 25-page restriction. Under FRAP 32(a)(7)(c), attorneys must include a "certificate of compliance" stating that the brief complies with the type-volume limitation, and indicating the number of words or lines of type contained in the brief. The person preparing the certificate may rely on the word or line count of a word processing system used to write the brief. FRAP 27(d)(2) limits motions and responses to motions to 20 pages, and replies to responses to 10 pages. Other amendments include new detailed specifications regarding typeface and type style, which require "a proportionally spaced or monospaced" typeface, and a "plain roman style" type style, although boldface and italics are permissible. (FRAP 32(a)(6)). The new, environmentally friendly amendments permit submissions on "light" rather than "white" paper for both briefs and motions (FRAP 32(a)(1)(A), 27(d)(1)(A) ). Briefs and motions also must be bound in a manner "which is secure, does not obscure text, and permits the brief to lie flat when opened." (FRAP 32(a)(3), 27(d)(C)). Briefs and motions must be reproduced by "any process that yields a clear black image on light paper" (FRAP 32(a)(1)(A), 27(d)(1)(A)), and the text of briefs must be reproduced with "a clarity that equals or exceeds the output of a laser printer." FRAP 32(a)(1)(B). With regard to changes in motion practice generally, the amendments prohibit the filing of a separate brief supporting a motion, and require that all legal and factual arguments be incorporated into the motion (FRAP 27(a)(2)). The amendments increase the time permitted to respond to a motion, allowing a response within 10 days after service of the motion (FRAP 27(a)(3)(A)). A reply to a response must be filed within 7 days after service of the response (FRAP 27(a)(4)), or within 10 days after if the response includes a request for affirmative relief (FRAP 27(a)(3)(B)). Motions will be heard without oral argument, unless the court otherwise orders. (FRAP 27(e)). FRAP 29 regarding amicus curiae briefs limits the length of an amicus brief to 7,500 words or 650 lines of text (FRAP 29(d)), and requires that amicus briefs comply with the format requirements of FRAP 32 (FRAP 29(c)). The amendments also require the motion for leave to file an amicus brief to be accompanied by the proposed brief (FRAP 29(b)). The amendments extend the time permissible for filing an amicus brief to 7 days after the filing of the principal brief of the party being supported, or, if an amicus does not support either party, to 7 days after the appellant's or petitioner's brief is filed (FRAP 29(e)). The rule regarding amicus curiae participation in oral arguments has been relaxed. Permission to participate is still required, but the language requiring permission to be granted only for "extraordinary reasons" has been stricken. FRAP 29(g). FRAP 35 has been amended to replace references to "in banc" with "en banc." Changes to FRAP 35 require the party requesting an en banc hearing to file a petition (rather than a motion) for hearing or rehearing. The rules specifically require that the petition begin with a statement of good cause, asserting that either the panel decision conflicts with another federal court decision, or that the question is one of exceptional importance. (FRAP 35(b)(1)). FRAP 26.1 is amended to require corporate parties to disclose all parent corporations, and "list any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of it's stock." This clarifies the previous language which requires disclosure of parents, subsidiaries, and "affiliates that have issued shares to the public." FRAP 41 is amended to created an automatic stay of an appeals court mandate upon the timely filing of a petition for rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate. Rules 3.1 and 5.1, regarding appeals from decisions of magistrate judges, are repealed due to superseding provisions of the Federal Courts Improvements Act of 1996. Finally, an amendment to FRAP 23(f), gives the courts of appeal discretion to hear an immediate appeal of a district court order granting or denying class certification. Absent order by the district or appeals court, the appeal does not stay the trial court proceedings. Commission Proposes Dividing Ninth Circuit into Three Divisions By Laura J. Buckland
On December 18, 1998, the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Court of Appeals forwarded to Congress and President Clinton its final report regarding a proposal for reforming the nationwide system of federal appellate courts, with particular attention paid to the Ninth Circuit. The report recommends that the Ninth Circuit be kept intact for administrative purposes, but divided into three geographic divisions to hear and decide cases. The impetus for the creation of the Commission was the concern that the Ninth Circuit had become too large to function effectively and consistently. The Ninth Circuit covers the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Circuit includes 99 district court judges, 68 bankruptcy judges, 96 magistrate judges, and 28 court of appeals judges. While the size of the Ninth Circuit was of particular concern, the Commission was charged with the broader task of studying the current structure of the federal judicial circuits. The Commission's recommendation includes a draft bill that lays out a plan for regional divisions of the Ninth Circuit. The plan organizes the Ninth Circuit into three regionally based adjudicative divisions and creates a "Circuit Division" to resolve any conflicts that arise among the decisions of the three regional divisions. The three divisions would be as follows: (1) the Northern Division, which would comprise the Districts of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Eastern and Western Washington; (2) the Middle Division, which would comprise the Districts of Northern and Eastern California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the Pacific Islands; and (3) the Southern Division which would comprise the Districts of Arizona and Central and Southern California. Each Circuit judge would be assigned to a particular regional division, and each division would consist of at least seven circuit judges in active status. Each division would function as a semi-autonomous decisional unit. A majority of judges serving on each division would be residents of the districts over which that division has jurisdiction, but each division would also include non-resident judges, assigned for specified terms of at least one year. Its judges would decide appeals through panels and would sit en banc as a division. Decisions made in one division would not bind any other division, but would be accorded substantial weight. Appeals of regional division decisions would be made directly to the Supreme Court. In addition, the Circuit Division proposed by the Commission would exist solely for the purpose of conflict resolution. It would be composed of the chief judge of the circuit, the presiding judge of each regional division, and one circuit judge from each of the regional divisions. The Circuit Division would not have jurisdiction to review a decision by a regional division on the ground that it was alleged to be incorrect or unsound; its only authority would be to resolve inter-divisional conflicts. The creation of the Circuit Division would therefore replace the current en banc process, which would be abolished. As for the appellate system as a whole, the Commission advised against disbanding the circuit system altogether. According to the Commission, general changes to the structure of the appellate courts are necessary to deal with their ever increasing caseloads. For this reason, the Commission recommended that the Circuits should be permitted to experiment with innovations, and be permitted to adopt a divisional system similar to the one described above when the number of judgeships in a circuit exceeds fifteen. The Commission also suggested the Circuits should be permitted to use two judge panels to decide cases in which the outcome is clearly controlled by well-settled precedent. Finally, the Commission provided commentary and recommendations on alternative arrangements for the appellate review of certain types of cases, such as bankruptcy appeals, and offered a commentary on a proposed discretionary review system for the federal courts of appeals. The Commission recommended that the judicial counsel of any circuit be permitted to establish district court appellate panels to provide first level review for designated categories of cases, with discretionary review in the court of appeals. The Commission concluded by stating that the proposals recommended in their report will, if enacted, "provide the nation with a federal appellate structure that, with adequate funding, should operate well into the indefinite future." Members of the Commission were selected by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and include retired Justice Byron White as chair, and former president of the American Bar Association, N. Lee Cooper, as vice-chair. Other members of the commission include Judge Gilbert S. Merrit of the Sixth Circuit, Judge Pamela Ann Rymer of the Ninth Circuit, and Judge William D. Browning of the District of Arizona, the president of the American Bar Association. Full text of the Final Report can be found at the following Website: http://app.comm.uscourts.gov.
Ethics and Practice Committee Launches Federal Bar Mentorship Program By William J. Bender
An attorney mentorship program has been started by the Ethics and Practice Committee. The program seeks to make mentors available for those newer and less experienced practitioners who could benefit from consultations with a more experienced and seasoned lawyer. Twenty-four attorneys have volunteered to serve as mentors. The program contemplates that the mentors will provide a brief consultation to mentees in the nature of response to a hypothetical. The program guidelines disfavor creating conflicts of interest for mentors and mentees. Mentors are encouraged to suggest that mentees seek an association with more experienced counsel if the mentee appears to be beyond his or her experience limits. The roster of mentors has been provided to the local federal court judges and magistrate judges, the clerk's offices, and to the various bar associations. Mentors have brief reporting requirements so the program can be evaluated and improved.More volunteer mentors are needed. If you are willing to serve as a mentor, please contact committee co-chairs William J. Bender, Bruce E. Johnson, or Allison Wallin:
William J. BenderAt the end of six months, the committee will evaluate the program and report to the membership.
Appellate Practice Internet Tools by Laura J. Buckland When using the Internet for legal research one is constantly amazed by two things: the wealth of information available and the difficulty in finding what you need. It is possible to spend hours hunting about with no clear idea where to go or, if you find it, how you got there. Here are a few good sites for legal research and court information. FindLaw (http://www.findlaw.com) is a commercial Web page designed by a team of Stanford students (current and graduates). It is an excellent place to start almost all legal research. FindLaw's main page offers broad subjects from sources ranging from Law Reviews to state law resources. Once you select your subject area, you can then narrow your topic. For example, under Laws: Cases and Codes you will find links to all federal courts with Web access. Each court is responsible for developing and maintaining its Web page; quality and content will vary greatly. Another favorite Web page is the Law Librarian's Resource Exchange (http://www.llrx.com/). This page is developed and maintained by two law librarians, Sabrini I. Pacifici and Cindy L. Chick. LLRX offers monthly articles and columns covering legal research on the Internet. Of particular interest to litigators is Genie Tyburski's "Litigators Internet Resource Guide: Rules of Court." Tyburski provides links to over 100 sites containing federal and state court rules. Clavin House, an attorney with Gutierrez, Preciado & House, llp, has developed the Appellate Counsellor Home Page (http://www.appellate-counsellor.com). The site focuses on federal and state courts in California, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Also included are links to memoranda on appellate practice, judicial biographies, and other WWW resources. The Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals (http://app.comm.uscourts.gov/) offers access to its report on restructuring the Ninth Circuit, as well as testimony, hearings, and commissioner biographies. Another resource of interest to appellate practitioners is the Office of the Solicitor General (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg). This site offers access to briefs filed by the OSG in pending and decided U.S. Supreme Court cases. The file contains selected briefs from 1982-1995, although the OSG intends to make the site as comprehensive as possible. While not technically a Web site, Willamette University College of Law offers a wonderful service that will automatically e-mail you summaries of new cases within 24 hours of release. The summaries include an HTML link that will permit you to access the full text, if you have an Internet connection. The courts covered are: U.S. Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the state supreme courts for Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington. To subscribe, go to the Willamette Law Online home page at http://www.willamette.edu/law/wlo/. A few warnings for the novice Internet searcher are in order. This may sound simple, but to those used to Lexis and Westlaw, it cannot be repeated enough: the only information you can find on the Internet is what the entity chooses to post. Each state and federal agency can, and does, vary widely in the information provided. You may be thrilled to find the Washington Court Rules on the Internet, but then spend hours looking for Oregon's (not available). Also, courts that have made their opinions available, do not usually do so retrospectively. That 1964 decision you need will probably not be available. When relying on the Internet for your statutes and regulations, check the currency date and the posting organization. Do you really want to use that 1994 C.F.R. cite? Anyone can make information available on the Internet and it is easy to be misled. If you keep these warnings in mind and start with one of the sites above, you will undoubtedly be amazed at the breadth of available materials. Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference
The lawyer representatives to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference have been meeting regularly to plan the year's activities. These include the District Meeting for the Western District, which is tentatively planned for April 27, 1999 in Seattle. Our speaker will be Larry Posner, President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, who will make a presentation entitled "Killer Cross-Examination." Mr. Posner's presentation will be supplemented by remarks from district judges for the Western District. In addition, the representatives have agreed to present a resolution to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference expressing concern about the increasing percentage of Circuit decisions that are unpublished, and the decreasing percentage of cases in which oral argument is permitted; the resolution makes specific proposals to the Court to address these issues. Our current Lawyer Representatives are Marty Crowder, Linda Walton, Ted Collins, Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Tony Rafel, Rick Creatura, Bob Homchick, Chuck Ekberg, and Carolyn Cairns. FBA Maritime Committee's Activities
The FBA Maritime Committee will be sponsoring an all-day CLE, on Friday, November 12, l999, at the Convention Center. The tentative format is a series of panels on issues of maritime law. If you would like to serve as a member of the steering committee, please contact program chair Craig L. Watson, at Madden & Poliak. The Maritime Committee is also undertaking to review the local admiralty rules. If you would like to help in this effort, please contact subcommittee chair Charles M. Davis.
It is the task of the Nominations Committee to nominate trustees and officers to the Federal Bar Association of the Western District, who are then voted on by the members at the annual meeting in December. In addition, the Committee proposes to the District Judges of the Western District of Washington the names of nine or ten attorneys in the District as possible lawyer representatives to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. The judges select three lawyers from that list to serve. Lawyer representatives attend the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference each of the three years of their terms; the conferences are held during the summer at various locations in the Circuit. In addition, representatives take a role in planning that conference, and also plan the annual District Meeting for the Western District and other activities designed to benefit the members and enhance communications with the judiciary. If you have suggested nominees for a trustee, officer or lawyer representative position, please contact Carolyn Cairns at Stokes Lawrence, P.S., 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98104, (206) 626-6000, or email at carolyn.cairns@stokeslaw.com. Time to Renew Your Membership By Kevin Swan, FBA Secretary
It's April 1999 do you know where your FBA Membership is? You should recently have received a letter inviting you to renew your FBA membership, or thanking you for having done so. FBA membership comes at a very reasonable annual cost ($25) compared with the benefits of being a member, which apparently leads the vast majority of FBA members to renew right away every year. Our renewal and thank-you letters this year also asked members to provide contact information, so we can update and improve our records. For the first time, the annual membership renewal process is being undertaken by the FBA itself, rather than by the outside company that used to manage our membership lists. The FBA Board expects that bringing the membership database "in-house" will substantially improve the FBA's ability to communicate with and respond to its members. Along the way, we may experience some bumps and bruises as our volunteer officers and staff work to build a new, internal member database. For example, early returns from the inquiry letters mentioned above indicate that a few members who had already paid their 1999 dues received letters asking them to, er, pay their 1999 dues. We apologize for any errors in the mailing, and we can assure you we are working hard to complete the process of updating our records. In the meantime, every FBA member who has not paid 1999 dues is encouraged to send their $25 to the FBA at the address included in this newsletter. We would ask members who have paid to return completed information sheets, which will make it easier for us to communicate with you in the future. Anyone with questions or concerns about their membership status should feel free to send a note to the FBA address, and we will follow up promptly.
News | Events | Membership
| Committees | ADR
Roster | Links | Contact Us | Home Copyright © 2000-2003 The Federal Bar Association of the Western District of Washington |
