Why not to "TRUST" Lawyer's or

It is therefore our charge to measure Mr. Garen’s application by the standard
we have applied to others. I would be most interested to hear any explanation from
the majority as to how Mr. Garen has fallen below that standard we have set in the
prior proceedings enumerated above. Cum tacent, clamant. {Footnote 6}

Date on my receipt 04/02/98

From:
THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON

IN RE:..........)        B.A. NUMBER 61
                )
CLARK GAREN,    )        DISSENT TO DENIAL OF
                )          APPLICATION TO
BAR APPLICANT   )             PRACTICE
                )              LAW

299/874(THIS WAS A HAND WRITTEN NOTE) Pg-1

Quick synopsis: This guy failed on his LETTER HEAD, on a business in Nevada, to disclose that he was admitted to practice in Texas & California only. Second in "OPEN COURT" in California, said he wasn't going to pay his property taxes. (That REALLY PISSED OFF, the Character and Fitness Committee. You would thought he shot J.F.K. or something akin to that. And the BEST for Last, he only answered questions of the Character and Fitness Committee with Telling the "Technical Truth." addressed on pg. 39 of the decision. Also something about a Bankruptcy, pg. 4, of the Character and Fitness Committee)

Just some of the high lights, ref: Clark Garen total pages for the decision 44 pages.

Opinion of the Character and Fitness Committee, 7 pages.

Justice Sanders wrote the opinion, [footnote 9 W.S.Ct.]"By majority vote the court has denied my request to publish" Pg. 44

In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61
Dissent by Sanders, J., Denial of Application to Practice Law

2nd Paragraph, pg 4

Analysis begins by noting the paucity of published authority in this
jurisdiction of the meaning of “good moral character,” much less the recommended
procedure for it to be proved, or disproved. Only two published decisions emanate
from this court on the topic: In re Belsher, 102 Wn.2d 844, 689 P.2d 1078 (1984)
and In re Wright, 102 Wn.2d 855, 690 P.2d 1134 (1984). In both cases the
applicant came to the court burdened with a record of serious misconduct. Dennis
Belsher, for example, blew up his parents’ car with a home-made bomb, although
end of Pg-4.

In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61
Pg.5

his parents miraculously escaped injury. Nevertheless, the Board of Governors
found Mr. Belsher fit to practice law in this State, although ultimately this court
turned aside the favorable recommendation, concluding it was not in the interest of
the public or the Bar to admit Mr. Belsher to practice “at this time.” Belsher, 102
Wn.2d at 854. The second case, In re Wright, was apparently a closer case as it
ended in a split decision, four justices favoring the admission of Mr. Wright as per
the Bar’s recommendation, four justices opposed. Mr. Wright had been convicted
of second degree murder while armed with a firearm. While his appeal was pending
from this criminal conviction, he was charged and ultimately pleaded guilty to
possession of heroin as well.

In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61
Pg.14

1st paragraph, last sentence.

Nor Should it be his
problem that the committee has “doubts,” as doubts can arise from a variety of
sources including the listener’s inattention or lack of understanding.

In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61
Pg.17

4th sentence

The object of our inquiry is therefore to determine a trait or
generalization based upon a general course of conduct rather than a particular event,
unless that event is so significant so as to have overshadowing importance. In the
case of Mr. Wright, for example, the court concluded “second degree murder does
not exhibit good moral character.” In re Wright, 102 Wn.2d at 859. By the same
token, prior engagement in criminal enterprise may also point to bad moral
character. Cf. In re Belsher, 102 Wn.2d. At 851-52. Even so, we have admitted
or readmitted others to practice notwithstanding prior criminal conduct when

In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61
Pg.18

rehabilitation is demonstrated. Let us weigh the claims of the Bar by the standard
we have set for ourselves in prior proceedings.
We have reinstated attorneys who have committed serious illegal and/or
immoral acts including: second-degree assault (In re McGrath, 112 Wn.2d 481,
482, 772 P.2d 502 (1989)); misappropriation of client funds (In re Moynihan, 113
Wn.2d 219, 220, 778 P.2d 521 (1989); In re Rosellini, 108 Wn.2d 350, 355, 739
P.2d 658 (1987); In re Chantry, 84 Wn.2d 153, 154, 524 P.2d 909 (1974));
witness tampering (In re Stroh, 108 Wn.2d 410, 41, 739 P.2d 690 (1987); In re
Shain, 24 Wn.2d 598, 166 P.2d 843 (1946)); lying to a client (In re Livesey, 94
Wn.2d 251, 252, 615 P.2d 1294 (1980)); possession of bank robbery proceeds ( In
re Egger, 93 Wn.2d 706, 707, 611 P.2d 1260 (1980)); burglary (In re Krogh,
93 Wn.2d 504, 505, 610 P.2d 1319 (1980)); grand larceny (In re Johnson, 92
Wn.2d 349, 350, 597 P.2d 113 (1979)); assault with intent to commit rape (In re
Simmons, 81 Wn.2d 43, 44, 499 P.2d 874 (1972)); fraud (In re Eddleman, 79
Wn.2d 725, 489 P.2d 174 (1971)); mail fraud (In re Lonergan, 23 Wn.2d 767,
767, 162 P.2d 289 (1945)); embezzlement (In re Lillions, 196 Wash. 272, 82 P.2d
571 (1938)); and having an

In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61
Pg.19

affair with a juror in a cause in which the attorney was counsel (In re Bruener, 178
Wash. 165, 34 P.2d 437 (1934).[Footnote 5]

Moreover, regarding just the last seven initial applicants for admission
considered by this court, we have granted admission to applicants who have: sold
seven ounces each of cocaine and heroin (Bar Applicant No. 60); conspired to
import and distribute marijuana and transported $250,000 to another country (Bar
Applicant No. 59); engaged in vehicle tampering and shoplifting (Bar Applicant
No. 58); sold over a pound of cocaine to undercover officers for $30,500 in addition
to possessing over a half-a-pound of cocaine (Bar Applicant No.57); furnished
alcohol to a minor, delivered a controlled substance to a minor, and committed third
degree sodomy with a 14-year-old girl (Bar Applicant No.56); broke into a liquor
store, burglarized a home, stole payroll checks, and drove under the influence (Bar
Applicant No.55); and possessed marijuana and attempted to commit fraud (Bar
Applicant No.54);

Footnote 5: One case, In re Greenwood, 22 Wn.2d 684, 157 P.2d 591 (1945), does not report the misconduct for which the attorney was disbarred.

In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61
Pg.20

Tax Liens

Mr. Garen admitted to tax liens on Los Angeles County property, unpaid
since 1990, in the amount of a few thousand dollars. He testified before both the
Nevada and Washington committees he currently did not intend to pay the liens but
would do so when he sells other real property in Los Angeles. This is frequently the
practice since these liens show as a defect in title and new purchasers often, but not
necessarily, require clear title before closing.

Aside from simple economics, Mr. Garen testified before the Nevada
Committee he did not think the liens were legitimate and initially contested their
basis in a proceeding to contest the assessed value. But when he lost his challenge
he did not further appeal. He testified he did not pay the liens because he was very

[Footnote 6-- Their very silence is a loud cry. Cicero, In Catilinam, I, 21.]

In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61
Pg.21

upset about the valuation and this was the manner he elected to handle his personal
affairs. On this basis the Character and Fitness Committee concluded: “Mr.
Garen’s cavalier attitude in reference to the tax liens indicate his disregard and
disrespect for the lawful process.” Cp at 7. To the contrary, it appears Mr. Garen
fully participated in the process but rather was dissatisfied with its result.

What is missing from the committee’s conclusion, of course, is any discussion
of how Mr. Garen’s failure to pay a tax lien on real property is “immoral.” Refusal
or failure to pay property tax is malum prohibitum(Fn. 7), not malum in se(Fn. 8). Moreover,
in both California and Washington it is the property that owes the tax; there is no
personal obligation on the part of the individual to pay it. See City of Huntington
Beach v. Superior Court of Orange County, 78 Cal. App. 3d 333, 144 Cal.
Rptr. 236, 240 (1978) (“Real property taxes are imposed on the ownership of
property as such; they recur annually on a fixed date; and no personal liability arises
from their nonpayment, the sole security for the taxes being the property itself.”);
Clark-Kunzl Co. V. Williams, 78 Wn.2d 59, 63, 469 P.2d 874 (1970) (“[P]roperty
taxes are primarily in rem in character. The tax is imposed against the property
itself, not against the owners of the various interests in the land.”). One may even
acquire

Footnotes---7 & 8

Footnote - 7
A wrong prohibited; a thing which is wrong because prohibited; an act which is not inherently immoral, but becomes so because its commission is expressly forbidden by positive law; an act involving an illegality resulting from positive law. Contrasted with malum in se. Story, Ag. §346; People v. Pavlic,227 Mich. 562, 199 N.W. 373,374, 35 A.L.R. 741. Black’s Dictionary 4TH page 1112, This definition was not enter/offered by the court.

Footnote - 8
A wrong in itself; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral, and public law. Story, Ag, § 346. State v. Shedoudy, 45 N.M. 516, 118 P.2d 280, 287. Black’s Dictionary 4TH page 1112, This definition was not enter/offered by the court.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.