In the previous episode, “Detour,” I set forth the obscene amount of money King County had paid to a private law firm to crush a former public defender who had the huevos to sue The Department of Public Defense for a number of workplace offenses. At that time, before the trial started, the county had paid the Calfo, Eakes law firm almost three million dollars to fight off Sheila LaRose. I will update the amount soon, but after two months of trial my guess is the county’s attorney fees jumped up at least another million dollars.

I suspended my journal for a while because I was a listed witness in Sheila LaRose’s law suit against King County and the Department of Public Defense. Aside from reporting the amount of attorney fees, which is public record, it would have been inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of the case before I testified. In the end, my testimony was not needed.

Not needed at all because without hearing from me, the jury today (10/21/21) awarded Sheila seven million dollars.

I wish I could have been in the courtroom when the verdict was read. To have seen the looks on the faces of the county’s attorneys when the words “in the amount of seven million dollars” were read – how satisfying that would have been.

I have tremendous admiration for Sheila and her attorneys, led by Mary Ruth Mann. Against the odds, Sheila and her team kept up the fight for the last six years. While Sheila couldn’t work and had very little money, the county spent millions of dollars in attorney fees to the Calfo, Eakes law firm. It was not a fair fight with the county’s attorneys armed with all the litigation weapons money can buy. All Sheila had was the truth and an impartial jury of regular people.

I, also, admire the present and former co-workers of Sheila who spoke the truth and remained strong in the face of attempted intimidation by the county’s attorneys. It’s not easy to tell the truth when your employer prefers a different story. The TDAD employees who stood on the truth for Sheila embodied a characteristic totally missing from DPD’s administration, TDAD’s management, and many of the county’s witnesses: HONOR.

Soon I will tell what I know about the county’s bully tactics against Sheila and her witnesses. Tonight, though, I will sleep well knowing that once in a while the right thing happens.

Below is a news article describing the terror experienced by a public defender assigned to represent a serial, deranged, stalker. Below that is a public disclosure account of the amount of money King County has paid to one private law firm, Calfo-Eakes, to fight the attorney’s claim. Keep in mind the sum below is through July, 2021. Trial in this case starts August 30th, so the fees are sure to climb steeply. If you have any comments which may inform my post on this subject next week, please do tell (at either honestretiree@gmail.com or my personal contacts). Spoiler alert: the total to date is $2,946,925.00 (almost three million dollars).

Terrorized Public Defender Sues Her Office

           TACOMA, Wash. (CN) – A serial stalker terrorized his public defender and broke into her home after the county assigned her his case despite warnings that he had done it to his previous female defender, the attorney claims in court.
     Sheila LaRose endured months of harassment from the pseudonymous”John Smith,” who was sentenced in January to seven years in prison for felony stalking.
     LaRose sued King County and the Public Defender Association dba The Defender Association on Monday, in Pierce County Court.
     Smith had a history of stalking charges and required public defenders. His previous appointed attorney, who represented him on a felony charge of stalking women, asked to be removed when Smith started calling her and “telling her repeatedly that he loved her,” LaRose says in the complaint.
     Supervisors agreed Smith should be represented only by men, but when he was charged again with stalking a few months later, they assigned LaRose the case.
     “At the time the new felony stalking case was to be assigned, the male public defender that had taken over the prior stalking case, advised management not to assign the new stalking case to a female public defender,” the complaint states.
     “Nevertheless defendants assigned Ms. LaRose to be Mr. Smith’s appointed attorney on the second charge of felony stalking of women.” And they did it without warning her that he had stalked his previous attorney, LaRose says.
     Smith immediately began harassing her, repeatedly calling her and saying he loved her and wanted to marry her. LaRose says she was not trained on how to respond to sexual and violent threats from clients, and her direct supervisor “did not acknowledge that this was really a problem and that he had assigned her a known stalker.”
     Smith’s harassment escalated when he was released from jail in November 2013.
     “By February of 2014 it was necessary for Ms. LaRose to make emergency calls and incident reports requesting police aid. Mr. Smith was coming repeatedly to her home, hid out in her backyard, appearing at her bedroom door (glass divided) repeatedly in the middle of the night – breaking her bedroom window. She did not sleep for days due to fear,” according to the complaint.
     LaRose says she did not learn about Smith’s harassment of his previous attorney until after he was arrested for breaking into her home.
     “In February of 2014, Ms. LaRose learned of Mr. Smith’s prior history, his stalking of his prior female attorney and his reassignment to a male attorney. She learned not from management but from the prior ‘stalked’ female attorney. By then, Mr. Smith had been stalking Ms. LaRose and her daughter for nearly a year including
     “work phone calls with sexual messages;
     “tracking Ms. LaRose to her parking space;
     “placing lingerie on her windshield;
     “jumping out of a stairwell at her in the dark after work;
     “surveilling her and her family at her home for over 3 months;
     “leaving gifts for Ms. LaRose including a pamphlet describing how to convert non-Muslim women to the Muslim faith;
     “repeatedly coming to Ms. LaRose’s house and yard when her daughter was present, requiring removing her daughter to a safe house;
     “hid[ing] in her back yard watching her dress and undress for over 3 months;
     “appearing at her back bedroom door numerous times in the middle of the night;
     “bashing in her bedroom window;
     “on multiple nights, when the police came, he fled and later returned and continued to watch her;
     “terrorizing her the following mornings by leaving messages about having watched the police arrive and leave, and expressing his sexual intent toward her;
     “threatening to find and shoot and kill a family member who attempted to assist her when Mr. Smith was stalking her at her home;
     “breaking into her home.”
     LaRose says she has suffered “continued harassment, terror, public humiliation and different treatment,” economic harm, retaliation, loss of emotional health and “will more likely than not continue to suffer the damage to her financial security, peace of mind and enjoyment of life into her elder years and retirement.”
     She seeks lost wages, future wages and compensation for psychological trauma, counseling and medical care, pain and suffering and diminished enjoyment of life and retirement.
     She is represented by Mary Mann, with Mann & Kytle in Seattle, who did not immediately return a request for comment.
     Leslie Brown, communications manager for the King County Department of Public Defense, said she could not comment on pending litigation.

Friday, at 9:06 A.M., all 400 DPD employees, received the following email from Leslie Brown, publicist for the Department of Public Defense:

Brown listed all thirty-five promoted applicants. She repeated Youngcourt’s message that the selection process was so fair and thorough no one should question the results.

At that moment about 100 of the email’s recipients were seated in a large lecture hall at the University of Washington for a training on the defense of homicide cases. I don’t have a precise number, but it appeared to me that a majority of the sixty-nine senior applicants, including me, were in attendance. I was there because in addition to being interested in the topic, I had committed to presenting at a breakout discussion which would immediately follow the opening plenary session.

Each applicant learned his/her results the day before, Thursday, but none of us had seen the full list of new seniors. I knew the results only of the few applicants who worked with me in Involuntary Treatment Court, two or three people, all us were rejected.

On Thursday we had some control over the spread of our results. No longer. Suddenly, when the senior announcement popped up in our emails, all eyes in the hall were focused on laptop or phone screens. The names of the successful applicants were now known to everyone. And because the Director’s Office had earlier sent a blast email listing all the applicants, those of us who applied but “just didn’t make the cut” were simultaneously outed.

Naturally, there was a wave of low volume congratulations (the training was in progress) and thumbs up aimed at the new seniors who were randomly seated throughout the audience. But then the happy vibe was muted because people did the math and realized rejected applicants were also among them. Whether intentionally or negligently, the announcement of new seniors was timed to achieve maximum embarrassment for rejected applicants while clouding the joy of the newly promoted.

Thanks, Leslie Brown, for again emphasizing the exhaustive review process that so fairly separated the successful and unsuccessful applicants. Everyone should know that anyone not on the promoted wasn’t on the list for a reason, right?

As people read the list, I felt eyes on me. To this particular audience I was very well known. As director of Death Penalty Assistance Center for ten years I hosted and presented at about eight training programs every year. I had trained, advised, mentored, or co-counseled almost everyone in the room. I was lead counsel on TDAD’s two most high profile aggravated murder cases, the last of which had concluded only a year previous. I had been pictured and quoted in the media often. I could not melt into the crowd.

Rejection is always hard. Rejection in view of a hundred people who know you is special.

I had many friends and close colleagues in the audience. The looks I got were filled with sympathy and surprise. The words “why” or “WTF” were mouthed to me. I appreciated the concern but I didn’t have an answer. Maybe Lorinda Youngcourt had kiboshed my promotion, but I didn’t know anything outside the individual notice I received Thursday and the blast announcement everyone had just seen. My universal response, for the day, was shrugging my shoulders.

I congratulated new seniors as I encountered them. It was more awkward for them than it was for me.

After my breakout presentation, I left the building and was met by a small group of friends who were exceptionally kind. Two of them were on the promoted list and the others hadn’t applied. One young attorney was close to tears. They asked me to join them for lunch but they all, especially the new seniors, deserved to enjoy their meal without the burden of trying to bolster my feelings.

I took my swirl of emotions home and decided what to do next.

[I need to say that I wasn’t the only well known and accomplished attorney at the training program who had their rejection outed by omission in Leslie Brown’s email. I know others were stung as I was, but it’s not for me to tell their stories.]

Over four months after the application deadline, on Thursday, September 15, 2016, all sixty-nine senior attorney applicants received emails revealing whether they were promoted. It was significant that DPD sent the notices over the noon hour. Whatever the news, we applicants would have to keep working the rest of the day, mingling with co-workers, reporting to court, seeing clients, negotiating with prosecutors, and generally functioning within the fishbowl that is public defense.

For the thirty-five applicants who received happy news of their promotions and new salaries plus tens of thousands of dollars in retroactive pay (the promotions were retroactive to January 1, 2015) their challenge was to contain their joy. Applicants were individually notified so, aside from themselves, they didn’t necessarily know who the winners and who the losers were. It would be bad form for winners to release balloons and break out the champagne within view of the less fortunate, whoever they might be. Their Cheshire cat grins and new bounce in their walk, however, were dog whistles that enabled the new senior attorneys, if they desired, to identify each other and arrange celebratory happy hours as soon as they could finish mandatory duties and make it to their bars of choice.

The other thirty-four applicants, the losers, had to process disappointment in that same fishbowl. We each received the following email from DPD’s director:

I think my interpretation of Youngcourt’s message was shared by most of my disappointed colleagues. Her words were offensive and, at the same time, defensive.

Rejection letters should be short, like this:

I’m sorry to inform you that you were not selected to become a senior attorney. If you have any questions, contact the chair of the selection committee, Lou Frantz, at Lou.Frantz@kingcounty.gov.

Enough said.

Youngcourt’s additional message that attorneys who were not promoted were “not deemed qualified” or “simply did not make the cut” was not comforting. Her assurance that “this action will not result in a change in your current salary” introduced a concern I never had – that by applying for a promotion I might have risked a reduction in my current salary. Whaaat?! Was I supposed to feel lucky I didn’t lose money by applying for the senior attorney positions?

Youngcourt’s intention was not to console or encourage failed applicants. She sought to convince any applicant who did not “make the cut” that he/she was an inferior attorney compared to the promoted applicants. An impartial committee diligently conducted a fair, “robust and in-depth [selection] process” said Youngcourt. There were so many meetings, such careful review of applications by every committee member, so many hours of discussion, if you weren’t selected, you didn’t deserve to be promoted. Challenges to the selection of seniors would be futile and draw attention to the challengers’ inadequacies. Best for rejects to tuck their tails between their legs and whimper in solitude.

Although Youngcourt offered an opportunity to meet with the chair of the selection committee, Lou Frantz, she conveyed that those of us taking the meeting should not expect much. By quoting the contract, Youngcourt made it clear she was doing the minimum required. At best, we might discuss our work but it would be a one sided conversation. What the committee thought about our work and how our work or any other factor played into the promotion decisions were part of the committee members’ deliberations and, according to Youngcourt, not to be discussed with Frantz.

As for her promise we would be told “how you might succeed in a future promotion,” there never was and never will be another senior attorney promotion opportunity.

Youngcourt’s letter had the opposite effect of her intention to quell challenges to the senior selections. All failed applicants were criminal defense attorneys with keen noses for governmental suppression of evidence (DPD, sadly, is now nothing but a wholly owned subsidiary of King County government). Youngcourt’s clumsy effort to forestall questions alerted me and the others that DPD had something to hide.  

A shit storm was brewing but it would be months before Youngcourt’s myth of a completely fair, “robust and in-depth process,” would be busted.

In the meantime, the suffering of rejected applicants would soon be enhanced with an extra dose of humiliation.

On May 6, 2016, the last day to do so, I submitted my application for senior attorney status. As explained below, I viewed applying as a probable waste of time. Had the deadline eve, May 5th, been a typical Thursday night, I would have been visiting clients and reading their files pretty late into the night. In that case I would not have stayed up even later to prepare an application. The title “Senior Attorney” was not important to me. The increased salary was attractive but Dave and I were not in financial need. However, my case duties that night were unusually light. Fate gave me time to fill out an application. So I did. Fate is a tricky bitch.

My belief that applying for the promotion would be a long shot was based on a few interactions I had with then DPD director, Lorinda Youngcourt. I had recently spoken at a meeting of DPD’s advisory board against Youngcourt’s sudden and brutal dismissal of the long time managing attorney of one of the other divisions. Furthermore, as director of the Washington Death Penalty Assistance Center (DPAC) I had several conflicts with Youngcourt over her reluctance to follow the Washington supreme court’s rules regarding the appointment of qualified counsel in potential death penalty cases. Youngcourt did not take criticism well. Although I met and exceeded every criteria for senior status and, only a year earlier I led the defense in the most serious and high profile case in TDAD’s history, I thought there was slim chance Youngcourt would approve my promotion if it got to her desk. On the other hand, a slim chance was still a chance.

After submitting my application, I was persuaded by colleagues that Youngcourt probably would not block applicants selected by the committee. She was personally involved in drafting the selection protocol so intervening after the committee made selections might raise the hackles of other stakeholders, including our union. If Youngcourt stayed out of it, I expected I would be promoted. However, although Youngcourt wisely kept her distance from the naming of seniors, I was not promoted.

In retrospect, things would have been much easier had Youngcourt personally axed my promotion. No one would have been surprised had she vetoed my promotion. I had a history of irritating her. She had a history of dealing harshly with thorns in her side. Under the protocol she had the final say on senior promotions. Had she blocked my promotion, I would have been disappointed but not really surprised. That’s just the way autocracies work.

I was soon to get an emotional slap in the face that left me reeling like a concussed cartoon character.

For over forty years King County met it’s obligation to provide indigent criminal defendants with counsel by contracting with four independent non-profit agencies. In 2012 – 13, for reasons not relevant here, King County conscripted all of the agencies and their employees into a new King County Department of Public Defense (DPD) converting all 400 former private non-profit employees into county employees. The county replaced the four independent agencies with four similarly named divisions of DPD. Before it was absorbed by the county, I had been employed by “The Defender Association.” As of 2013 I was employed by “The Defender Association Division (TDAD)” of DPD. The other agencies became “Associated Counsel for the Accused Division,” (ACAD), “Society of Counsel Representing Accused Persons Division,” (SCRAPD), and “Northwest Defenders Association Division,” (NDAD).

Once we became county employees our salaries were supposed to be brought into parity with much higher paid corresponding positions in the prosecutors’ office. In 2016 DPD decided to create thirty-five special “senior attorney” positions. Senior attorneys would receive significant pay raises. There were approximately 160 non-management attorneys employed by DPD so the senior promotions would benefit only twenty percent of DPD’s hod carrying lawyers.

An elaborate selection process was established requiring applications, review teams, interviews with co-workers and supervisors, interviews with applicants, and allowance of “confidential” comments from any DPD employee with or without an ax to grind. The process was initially intended, at least by our union, to avoid cronyism which most attorneys (and staff) believed had long infected promotions at all the non-profit agencies. Managing attorneys of the four divisions weren’t having it. They lobbied the administration to protect a treasured perk of their positions, patronage. The managers succeeded in maintaining the ability to promote their favorites in two ways, 1) by inserting a clause in the selection protocol allowing applicants’ original scores scores, awarded after the review teams’ exhaustive investigations, to be changed at the behest of managing attorneys, and 2) by allowing managers to veto any applicant without explanation.

Sixty-nine attorneys applied for the thirty-five senior positions. I was one of the thirty-four rejected applicants. Had the process been fair, even if the promotions were awarded by lot, the unselected would have been disappointed but accepting. After all, we were all criminal defense attorneys who had experience in doing our best but losing cases and moving on. However, this selection process was not fair, and people were hurt, very hurt.