Prologue
What you read here is my memoir. Memoirs are not autobiographies and they are not legal briefs. Memoirs are subjective accounts often written to help the authors understand significant, but confusing, events in their lives. Hoping this memoir, about a confusing chapter in my life, serves its purpose for me.
Comments are very welcome.
Acronyms used below:
TDA: The Defender Association (public defense non-profit agency)
TDAD: The Defender Association Division (what the employees of TDA became when King County took over public defense from the independent non-profit agencies)
DPD: The King County Department of Public Defense which controlled all of the divisions.
DPAC: The Death Penalty Assistance Center which was part of TDA until King County took over public defense from the independent non-profit agencies.
Sexism: TDAD Women Stood Together
Episodes 5 and 6 establish the sexism of DPD’s Senior Selection promotions of 2016. In addition to the bare numbers set forth previously, TDAD women applicants commissioned a study by a Ph.D. statistical expert at the University of Washington. The study found a clear bias for male applicants in the selection of Senior Attorneys.
TDAD’s sexist in chief was the division’s then managing attorney, Rick Lichtenstadter. While elevating male attorneys, Lichtenstadter relegated equally or better scored female defenders to the Senior attorney basement (level one) or, as he did to me, completely locked them out of the promotions. Lichtenstadter turned a progressive modern public defender division, at least the felony hallway, into his dream, a Mad Men office with men on top (of the pay scale).
Instead of remedying Lichtenstadter’s discrimination against female TDAD Senior Attorney applicants, DPD’s directors, Lorinda Youngcourt followed by Anita Khandelwal, did everything they could to crush the women’s efforts to achieve justice. With full knowledge of his bias against women, Khandelwal rewarded Lichtenstadter by promoting him to be her assistant director, the second highest post, and second highest salary, within the Department of Public Defense.
All of the above financially harmed, insulted, and frustrated the affected women. However, Lichtensadter’s disrespect for all TDAD female Senior applicants was not personal toward any one woman. No point wondering what one did wrong or what one could improve. The answer to both questions was “nothing.” In Lichtenstadter’s eyes, women were lesser so we deserved less pay. He wanted men in the top pay slots. His impersonal message to all female applicants: “It’s not you. It’s me. I prefer male attorneys.”
Don’t get me wrong. Being discriminated against and losing a promotion, or being placed at a lower salary level, because of rank sexism sucked for all of us. However, there was a certain esprit de corps that helped us soldier through our discovery of Lichtenstadter’s gender bias, our aborted litigation (future episode) and our anemic union grievance (not worth an episode). There is emotional strength in numbers.
Having discovered the gender discrimination at TDAD, I stood with and consistently supported all the women who were disadvantaged by Lichtensadter’s sexism. However, two years after I discovered TDAD’s Senior Selection was the product of Lichtenstadter’s sexism, I learned his sabotage of my promotion was motivated by something more, a very dark personal malice.
Against Lichtenstadter’s Anger: I was alone
State v. McEnroe, the six victim capital case that consumed almost eight years of my life and the lives of our entire defense team was finished in 2015. Around the same time, the powers that be in the Department of Public Defense decided the county would no longer house the Death Penalty Assistance Center (DPAC), of which I was the director. Without the two major projects that had consumed my work life for the previous eight to ten years (I was hired by TDA to be the director of DPAC in 2005) I needed, and TDAD needed, a place to put me. At first, TDAD management asked me to take on representation of all our clients committed to Western State Hospital as not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). NGRI clients are entitled to review of their cases every six months. To his credit, Lichtenstadter made an effort to assure vigorous representation (me) for an often forgotten group of clients. I was happy with the NGRI assignment and the clients were happy to have an attorney dedicated to helping them. All went well for a few months until DPD decided the NGRI clients didn’t deserve an attorney who had time to become expert in the commitment laws and to regularly visit clients at the state hospital (50 miles from our offices in Seattle). For reasons never explained to me, DPD suddenly pulled the plug on the position and placed the burden of NGRI reviews on already time strapped felony attorneys. That left me and Lichtenstadter wondering how I should serve going forward.
Soon, I received an email from Lichtenstadter asking me to come to his office to discuss my future. In this meeting he told me he wanted me to voluntarily join the felony trial unit. I had not been in a public defender felony trial unit for thirty-five years, not since my early years in Spokane and Snohomish counties. I had no jury trials since I was hired by TDA to be director of the Death Penalty Assistance Center in 2005, ten years before this conversation with Lichtenstadter. During my twenty-five years in private practice I had many felony jury trials, including burglaries, rapes, drug charges, and two capital murder trials. However, the volume of cases assigned and limitations on time to spend with clients and case preparation inherent in a public defender felony trial practice are very different than the pace of private practice. Given my long absence from public defender felony practice, I thought I could not jump into TDAD’s felony trial unit, take over a full caseload, and meet my own standards or the bar association’s standards for effective representation of our clients.
My reluctance to take on a full felony trial caseload was informed by my decades of investigating and raising ineffective counsel claims in post-conviction cases. I have qualified and testified as an expert witness on effective representation in state and federal courts. In addition, I have produced multiple training programs on the causes of ineffective representation and spoken on the topic numerous times in Washington and nationally. I know the circumstances that diminish attorneys’ ability to effectively represent their clients. I knew my circumstances, and I appropriately objected to being transferred to TDAD’s felony trial unit.
Deposed in another TDAD attorney’s lawsuit against DPD, Lichtenstadter described our conversation as follows:
Attorney: I just want to make sure to the best of your knowledge or to the best of your memory exactly what it was [Katie] said.
Lichtenstadter: She would be ineffective if she was assigned to be a felony attorney because she had not been a trial attorney for a long period of time.
I actually said I hadn’t been in jury trials for a long time. Normally, the different phrasing wouldn’t mean much, but in the context of his later attacks on my abilities, it’s likely the change of phrase was intentional.
During and after that brief exchange, Lichtenstadter seemed fine. He seemed to agree that my reluctance to go into the felony trial unit after a thirty-five year hiatus was reasonable. He assigned me to the Sex Offender Commitment (SOC) unit, a great fit. Meeting over.
I never had a great deal of interaction with Lichtenstadter before or after our meeting. When I did see him, he showed his happy face. I had no clue then that our brief conversation, which led to a sensible resolution, generated a malignant resentment toward me.
Perhaps Lichtenstadter’s feelings would have remained buried until we both retired had it not been for the Senior Attorney promotions. I applied. In September, 2016, Lichtenstadter was notified that my four person review committee scored me well within the top thirty-five applicants to be promoted. We now know Lichtenstadter did not want to waste any TDAD Senior Attorney positions on women – he desperately wanted three additional male attorneys to be promoted – but the prospect of my promotion especially burned. By this time my declination of a transfer to the felony trial unit had morphed into an act of grand insubordination. The idea of me receiving any recognition of my work at TDAD or of my entire body of work was anathema to him.
What I had achieved in my career didn’t matter to Lichtenstadter, how many clients’ lives I had saved, how many courts of all levels I had argued in, and how many attorneys and staff I had trained throughout my career didn’t matter. Because nothing could influence him in my favor, I doubt he ever read my application, my resume’, or my writing samples. He was fixated on what he viewed as my defiance of his bureaucratic authority. His anger at me, a woman, refusing to do what he wanted had become a mind cancer.
During the full committee’s consideration of my application, to the surprise of members, Lichtenstadter threatened to veto me several times. The rules allowed managing attorneys to veto applicants without explanation but doing so would seem arbitrary and raise questions. At the least, I think eyebrows were raised when he floated his veto plan. He decided to persuade the committee members to reduce my score until my rank fell below the cutoff. To do this he lied.
The Lies.
When I met with Lichtenstadter two weeks after the promotions and rejections were announced, he admitted he was responsible for my rejection. His explanation was that “TDA is a trial office” and I had declined assignment to the felony trial unit. I was stunned. Being a felony trial attorney was expressly not required for the senior promotion. To the contrary, under the rules, senior attorneys were to come from all practice areas. All of the committee members knew the rules. I sensed Lichtenstadter must have said something more damning to the committee but, at that moment, I was too shaken to press him. After the meeting I followed up by sending him an email asking him “exactly” what he had told the committee members to convince them to reduce my points. He responded by email:
From: Lichtenstadter, Rick
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 7:57 AM
To: Ross, Katie – DPD
Subject: RE: Seniors at DPD
What I said was that I thought that TDAD had some other very experienced trial attorneys that I felt more strongly should be senior attorneys as we were primarily a trial practice office . I also told them that you had done outstanding work on McEnroe and were one of the people responsible for him being alive. I also said I recognized that you had done great work on other death penalty cases and provided valuable assistance to attorneys and on death penalty cases throughout the state and that I thought that we should have a special position for you in DPD for assisting in those cases. As managing attorneys we also had to say if we thought someone was qualified to be a senior attorney in the end I did say that you were qualified. I am not currently in a position to authorize Jackie or Chris to share what they witnessed. However, if I wasn’t being “honest” I wouldn’t have told you what I said to the group.
That last flourish tells us who Lichtenstadter really is. He wasn’t being honest. He did not tell me what he said to the group, not even close.
During the Senior Selection full committee meeting in September, 2016, Lichtenstadter believed he could safely say anything about me and I would never know. All witnesses were constrained by nondisclosure agreements and DPD’s strict secrecy orders. I reached out to all members of the selection committee but, probably fearful of DPD, none responded. Only when Lichtenstadter was deposed in 2018, was he forced to disclose what he said to spoil my promotion and my reputation. None of the following allegations are true:
- I was not the lead attorney in State v. McEnroe. According to Lichtenstadter, I was only “a consultant.” I only did such things as identifying expert witnesses for the case. DPD director, Anita Khandelwal suggested in her deposition that Lichtenstdter told her, as a consultant, I did not visit Mr. McEnroe in jail.
- Hundreds of pages of transcript disprove this falsehood. The court recognized me as the lead attorney. My co-counsel recognized me as lead attorney. Media recognized me as lead attorney. I had to be the lead attorney because I was the only attorney with extensive experience in capital litigation, and I was on the supreme court’s list of attorneys qualified to lead capital trial teams. My two co-counsel and I had equally important but different roles in Mr. McEnroe’s defense. We were the three legs of a three legged stool, all necessary to achieve the purpose of the stool. We all visited our client, sometimes together but often rotating our minimum of three face to face jail visits per week.
- Although, my four person review team praised my “strong” writing, Lichtenstadter told the full committee I did not deserve credit for the writing samples attached to my application. His words: “…there was a lot of time spent by the other attorneys rewriting a lot of the things that she wrote.” “I know there was a lot of rewriting happening at the last minute in those cases. It was kind of frantic. It was usually Bill who was doing a lot of the rewriting … and Leo did a little bit but it was mostly Bill. So I was aware that was going on a lot.”
- 100% false. I conceived, researched and spent hundreds of hours, including all-nighters, preparing Mr. McEnroe’s motions and briefs in the trial court and in the Washington supreme court. Nothing could be filed without my approval. I am a control freak when it comes to my legal writing. Not always a good thing but true. My co-counsel had their own writing projects. Lichtenstadter didn’t even know when we were preparing motions, most of which were done before he became TDAD’s managing attorney. He had nothing to do with Mr. McEnroe’s defense in general and absolutely nothing to do with our writing. After I learned what Lichtenstadter said to the selection committee I responded to DPD and Lichtenstadter that I could easily prove the falsehood of Lichtenstadter’s allegations. I could show them all my drafts of our briefs from first outlines to filed papers. Or, they could simply ask my co-counsel. Neither Lichtenstadter nor anyone representing DPD ever asked me or my co-counsel about the writing of motions and briefs in State v. McEnroe. Bill Prestia was waiting to be interviewed, formally or informally. He was never contacted. The administration and Lichtenstadter were not interested in the truth. Lichtenstadter knew what he said was false. That’s why he lied to me in his 9/29/16 email. His almost flattering account of what he said to the selection committee was intended to placate me. He thought I would let go of my search for the truth. He thought his falsehoods would never be exposed.
- Lichtenstadter told the committee members that my writing was so bad, he could not place me in any TDAD practice area that required substantial writing. His words: “My concern was that for the [misdemeanor] appeals that would happen in our division and where we are at our level, she was not able to do those.” “… she could not be in our sort of writing.”[sic]
- I wrote and argued successful motions and appeals in all the state and federal courts in Washington, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. I had gotten the death notice dismissed by the trial court in McEnroe and convinced the Washington Supreme Court to change its rules on sealing documents during three pre-trial appeals in McEnroe. But, according to Lichtenstadter, I was not able to handle misdemeanor appeals “that would happen in our division … at our level.” Right, TDA’s misdemeanor level appeals are sooo much beyond all those other appeals I wrote when my clients’ lives were at stake I couldn’t be expected to write “at our level.” In fact, for about a year I did write misdemeanor appeals (known as RALJ appeals) for TDA and got good performance reviews. Again, truth was not a concern to Lichtenstadter.
- Lichtenstadter said I had “never really been a full time [employee of TDA] except for a very short time.” He said I had a personal contract with someone other than TDA – he didn’t seem to know who – to be director of DPAC so was only employed by TDA or TDAD half time.
- The facts were the opposite of what Lichtenstadter asserted. I had always been a full time employee of TDA and TDAD except for a very short time. I didn’t have a contract with the state Office of Public Defense, TDA had that contract. The contract was made in 2000, five years before I was hired by TDA. TDA was obligated to house DPAC and staff it with full time employees OF TDA. TDA attorney Mark Larranaga was designated DPAC’s first director. When Mark resigned from TDA to go into private practice, I was hired by TDA to replace him. There was one blip in my full time employment by TDA and TDAD. In 2014, TDA’s successor non-profit, PDA, which owned the DPAC contract with the state, decided to move and take the DPAC contract. For less than two years I was paid half my salary by PDA for being director of DPAC and half my salary by King County DPD for continuing to lead TDAD’s McEnroe defense team. In 2015, PDA abandoned DPAC. DPAC was moved to the Washington Defender Association which asked me to join them and continue as director of DPAC. Because of our recently established retirement benefits, I chose to return to TDAD full time. So, the only period of time I was not a full time employee of TDA[D] was in 2014-2015. Lichtenstadter should have known the history but he chose alternative facts. By the way, I should have followed DPAC to WDA. I should have chosen my passion over my retirement. Had I done so, this sad chapter would not be part of my memoir.
- In his deposition Lichtenstadter was asked a concluding question by the examining attorney, did he have any concerns “about what happened in McEnroe.” He answered, “From the information that I had, yes.” The attorney asked what concerns he had. He said he couldn’t answer “because of privilege – they’re fact specific about Mr. McEnroe’s case, and unless you have a release from him, I cannot discuss that.”
- Lichtenstadter was easily caught in this petty lie. Lichtenstadter didn’t have privileged information because he never met Mr. McEnroe and never communicated with him. Mr. McEnroe gladly provided us with a release of information (ROI) directing Lichtenstadter to disclose any information he had relevant to Mr. McEnroe’s defense. I had to laugh thinking of Lichtenstadter opening the ROI. Unsurprisingly, despite receiving the ROI, Lichtenstadter never disclosed any concerns “about what happened in McEnroe,” or any privilege or what was “fact specific about Mr. McEnroe’s case.” Maybe he meant his concerns were “alternative fact specific.”
- In our brief 2015 meeting, Lichtenstadter understood me to say “She would be ineffective if she was assigned to be a felony attorney because she had not been a trial attorney for a long period of time.” Based solely on that comment, Lichtenstadter said I could “not be a criminal defense attorney.” He said I did not know how to prepare a trial, value a case, look at a case, or negotiate a case. He said I had a very limited skill set.
- Anyone I have ever worked with over my forty-five year career knows I am (or was until retirement) not only a criminal defense attorney, but a zealous criminal defense attorney. A damned good criminal defense attorney. I have no insecurity in that area.
The Harm.
Lichtenstadter portrayed my application as fraudulent and characterized me as an incompetent lawyer who had no place in public defense or criminal defense. His malice could not be contained. Dishonest and incompetent – oh, I see his projection now.
Lichtenstadter’s comments destroyed my reputation among members of the selection committee, at the least. The rejection of my application made people on the outside curious. It was embarrassing to me. For two years I didn’t know what was said so I couldn’t respond. The impact of his comments on the promotions will continue to harm me financially for the rest of my life.
Epilogue
As I said at the top of this post, this memoir is intended to help me understand all of the above. I think it has.
My theories:
Lichtenstadter’s anger at my declining his request to move to felonies became the lens through which he viewed everything about me. He didn’t get his way so he called me names and said mean things – what he said about my legal skills was the equivalent of an angry child crying out, “She’s stupid, she can’t do anything right!”
Lichtenstadter’s hostility toward me arose entirely from my declining to join the felony trial unit and these few words: “She would be ineffective if she was assigned to be a felony attorney because she had not been a trial attorney for a long period of time.” I believe he had a pathological reaction to the word “ineffective.” (“Ineffective” does not mean “incompetent.” I’ll write a separate, very short, post on what each word means.). The word had power over Lichtenstadter. After the word “ineffective” was spoken, Lichtenstadter may have been afraid to follow his plan of sending me to felony trials, afraid that he would be blamed by higher ups if I made a mistake. He repeated the word many times during his deposition.
Lichtenstadter acted properly in foregoing his plan to place me in the felony trial unit and, instead, moving me to the Sex Offender Commitment unit. That was a good management decision. However, he didn’t see it that way. He was flummoxed that an attorney would acknowledge she might be ineffective (I guess you never know for sure) if she were thrown into a practice she had not done for thirty-five years. Lichtenstadter came to believe I had somehow bested him by raising the specter of ineffectiveness. As he ruminated on the meeting, he felt tricked and, therefore, justified in getting back at me, justified in lying.
I believe Lichtenstadter’s sexism combined with his feelings of being tricked led him to construct a false narrative. On the one hand, the word “ineffective” loomed so large in his thinking of me, it was easy for him to contort “She would be ineffective if she was assigned to be a felony attorney because she had not been a trial attorney for a long period of time” into his story that I was globally incompetent. Because I used the word “ineffective”, he felt entitled to say I couldn’t write briefs, I couldn’t function as a criminal defense attorney, and I was only a consultant.
On the other hand, Lichtenstadter believed generally that women were lesser attorneys than men. Therefore, my male co-counsel must have written or re-written all the materials that were praised by the selection committee. Certainly, in his view, a woman couldn’t have really been the lead attorney in TDAD’s most high profile case. His biases were enough – he didn’t need to investigate before asserting.
I’ve sought explanations for four to six years. If anyone out there has different or additional insight into Rick Lichtenstadter’s behavior, please let me know. Conversations desired.
As always, advise me of any facts you think I’ve got wrong.
Observations 
You must be logged in to post a comment.