[Return to Doug Schafer's Election Home Page]        [Return to Interest Group Questionnaires Page]
 
 
Webnote: In August 2004, Women in Unity graded Doug Schafer a "B" on its Report Card.

[Letter by Doug Schafer on 2000 election campaign letterhead.]
 

June 30, 2000

Women in Unity
P.O. Box 28412
Seattle, WA 98118-8412

            Re:    Reply to Your Questionnaire and Background Information Request

Dear Members of Women in Unity:

            Thank you for sending me your organization's Judicial Candidate Interview Questionnaire and inviting me to provide you background information about myself. A woman in your office with whom I spoke on July 23 assured me that a response early this week would be acceptable, and I hope that this late-in-the-week response is accepted.

            As you likely know, judicial candidates must avoid making express or implied promises to rule particular ways on particular issues if elected. Please do not misunderstand anything I say as intending such a promise. I will, if elected, fulfill my duty to be impartial and to follow the law regardless of my personal views. That said, having carefully studied the recent Washington State Supreme Court ruling recognizing the free speech rights of judicial candidates, Discipline of Sanders, 135 Wn.2d 175 (1998), I am prepared to express my views on various political issues, as I do below.

            For some background information about me, I invite you to review my election campaign website (to be expanded in the coming weeks) at http://www.doug4justice.org, which has links to my older website, "To Kill a Messenger--For Reporting a Corrupt Judge," at http://www.DougSchafer.com. There are several newspaper articles about me and my four-year effort to fully expose a corrupt Pierce County judge posted or linked at http://www.DougSchafer.com/Y2000_Press.htm. While the primary message of my campaign will be a call for raising the ethical standards of all Washington lawyers and judges, and for improved enforcement of higher standards, I have much more to offer than just delivering that "call to ethics." [URLs updated.  7/2002]

            I have been a lawyer since 1978. My office-based, business and tax practice has made me a career-long student of the ever changing law. I am accustomed to studying complex subjects and translating them into understandable guidance for my clients. That parallels the role of the justices on the state's Supreme Court--studying difficult issues and ruling on them with understandable opinions that provide guidance to the judges, lawyers, and other citizens of our state.

            Prior to mid-1989, I was in law firms representing individuals and small to big business clients, including Puget Sound Bank and Rainier Bank. In mid-1989, I opened my own office. Since then, I have assisted many individuals and businesses in tax, planning, compliance, and transaction matters. In addition, I have undertaken some major projects normally only pursued by substantial law firms. I assisted organizers in the formation of three community banks. In 1991, I assisted a dissident shareholder group to wage a successful proxy contest against the board of a publicly traded Bellevue area bank that was defended by the second largest law firm in Seattle. Beginning in 1992, on behalf of a client, I challenging the lawfulness of an employee stock ownership plan provision that had been concocted and regularly used by the nation's leading consultant installing such plans. By 1997, both the U.S. Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service had agreed with me, both agencies having for years neglected their enforcement responsibilities over such plans.

            My recognition by Pierce County's general legal community did not occur until 1995, when I began criticizing abusive guardianship practices. In 1994, I had attempted to help an elderly client avoid an unwanted and unneeded guardianship, and I was shocked at the extent to which local practices varied from what the law required, according to my studying. When the local judges in early 1995 refused my requests to discuss my concerns, I posted flyers in the courthouse, which led to the creation of two local bar committees, both of which eventually ratified my concerns. When the judges still appeared disinterested, I and others (including AARP and advocacy groups for the disabled) persuaded the state legislature in 1996 to enact many guardianship reforms, even over objections by leaders of the Washington State Bar Association. A key reform was the directive that lawyers and judges permit citizens to establish alternatives to judge-supervised guardianships, such as private trusts and powers of attorney.

            Publicity from my "guardianship crusade" made me the recipient of many, many phone calls and letters describing problems with guardianship cases and with lawyers and judges involved in them. Since about 1995, I have answered my own phone, and I have consistently attempted to help such callers in one way or another. One caller in mid-1995 had clear proof of misappropriated funds by a lawyer who for years had been the professional guardian of choice of the local judiciary, and who was the guardian responsible for a great percentage of the complaining phone calls and letters that I received about guardians. I voluntarily assisted that caller and his family for four and a half years to push the state bar disciplinary authorities to discipline that guardianship lawyer, which finally occurred in December of 1999. I have similarly helped many, many other victims of apparent lawyer and judicial misconduct, all without charge. I feel that I and all lawyers have a duty to try to clean-up our profession.

            My website describes the details surrounding my reporting to the authorities in February of 1996 considerable evidence of the dishonesty of Pierce County Superior Court Judge Grant L. Anderson. It further describes my monitoring of his case to ensure that his misconduct would not be covered-up by his many friends in the legal community. Though the state supreme court removed him from judicial office in September of 1999 for what the court described as his "pattern of dishonest behavior," his friends succeeded in covering-up enough evidence that he retained his state bar license, with only a two-year suspension. Instead of pursuing Mr. Anderson, the state bar chose to pursue me for disclosing in my 1996 report to authorities a comment by my former banker client who had fraudulently paid for the judge's new Cadillac. My disciplinary hearing begins July 17, 2000, at the state bar office in downtown Seattle. I believe that my reporting of the corrupt judge was proper, and is what every lawyer should do under the circumstances.

            I was raised, from age 12 through 21, in southeast Seattle (51st Ave. S. and Morgan St.), attending Brighton Grade School, Sharples Jr. High, and Franklin High School, graduating in 1967. My schools' student bodies at that time were a harmonious blend of religious, ethnic and economic groups--at least, so it appeared to me. My high school class included Frank Raines (now Chairman/CEO of Fannie Mae) and Ron Mamiya (Seattle Municipal Court Judge); in the class following us was Gary Locke (now Governor) and in the next was Mark Sidran (now Seattle City Attorney). I worked my way through the University of Washington, with part-time and summer jobs cleaning school classrooms and bathrooms, loading U.P.S. delivery trucks, pulling weeds around school grounds, clerking in the UW library, and leading summer playground activities.

            Upon graduation from the UW in 1971 with a B.A. in Recreation Administration, I avoided being drafted for probable Vietnam duty by being selected for U.S. Naval Officer Candidate School. My naval career ended prematurely but honorably after I told the captain of my assigned ship, after five months of duty on it, that I did not feel we were making the world a safer place. Following my 18-month naval career, I worked for the City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department for a couple of years, spent a winter as a paid ski patroller at Crystal Mountain, and spent a summer leading youth work parties in the North Cascades National Park. My wife and I came to Tacoma in 1975 for me to attend University of Puget Sound Law School (later bought by, and relocated to the campus of, Seattle University). My first year grades led to academic scholarships for my second and third years, and I graduated 6th of 256 in my class of 1978.

            I was raised in a middle class, two-parent, church-going household with a brother one year older, and three sisters 5 to 11 years younger than I. My wife and I have three wonderful sons, ages 20, 17, and 16, all doing well in school. My wife and I are now in the process of dissolving our marriage--a private matter (nothing scandalous).

            I regard myself as a progressively minded person. I have always been a strong defender of equal rights and opportunities for all persons. I cherish our rights to free speech and to freely exercise our own chosen religion without governmental interference or assistance. I have long been a supporter of privacy in our personal and family affairs, including our personal choices concerning sexuality, reproduction, and child rearing. I am a product of public education and a strong supporter of taxpayer funded, quality education for all children. Society has a duty, I feel, to educate our children and to protect them.

            My legal career of dealing with governmental regulation leads me to believe that there is just far too much of it. Markets should be free markets. Tax laws should be understandable and fair to all. Governments and taxes should be limited to essential government services. Citizens who can support themselves should do so, but those who cannot must be assisted humanely. Our democracy should be governed by majority rule, except for special circumstances. Citizens should be protected from criminals. Citizens should be able to get disputes resolved fairly, affordably, and within a reasonable time.

            The personal views expressed above might be more relevant were I seeking office as a lawmaker. I am not. I do not consider it the province of judges and justices to be makers of the law--they are followers of the law. On each of the issues mentioned above, if elected I will follow the law that is made by the lawmakers (the voters, legislative bodies, and executive agencies). To the extent that interpretations of a law or assessments of a law's constitutionality may become necessary in a case that comes before me, voters are entitled to know of the personal views that may invariably impact my future decision making. Still, I pledge to do my best to remain open-minded and receptive to all proper arguments presented to me in any future case, and I reserve the right to change from my past personal views whenever presented with persuasive arguments to do so.

            I hope that this helps your organization to better know who I am, where I've come from, and where I might go--if elected to the Washington State Supreme Court. I also enclose your completed questionnaire. Thank you for contacting me.

Very truly yours,
 

Doug Schafer

Enclosure

[Return to Election Home Page]       [Return to Interest Group Questionnaires Page]

WOMEN IN UNITY

Judicial Candidate Interview

Candidate: Douglas A. "Doug" Schafer
Position: Washington State Supreme Court, Position 2
Completed: June 30, 2000

1.    What educational, professional, personal, or community activities have contributed to your development as a jurist?

            Probably the greatest contribution to my development as a prospective jurist has been observing, in the last five years, the extent to which powerful people often abuse their power to achieve what they subjectively believe are proper objectives. The judicial processing of allegedly incapacitated persons in guardianship proceedings, in disregard of statutory and constitutional fundamentals, was an eye-opener for me in 1994. The reluctance of powerful people to examine the problem, when I pointed it out, was disappointing.

            When I reported clear evidence of the corruption of former judge Grant L. Anderson, then a highly respected individual, I was astounded at the extent to which powerful people refused to objectively deal with the problem, but instead rushed to his defense and suppressed the evidence. Quite frankly, I have come to recognize that the mentality that led to LAPD's Ramparts Precinct scandal is rampant in our society--many public officials believe that the ends justify the means.

            Also contributing to my judicial development has been my being the recipient of countless communications from citizens feeling themselves aggrieved by the legal-judicial system. I certainly know that they've not all been treated unfairly, but am personally surprised at the extent to which public dissatisfaction with the legal profession and the judiciary has been growing, both in-state and nationally. I think that the leaders of the legal-judicial system must take steps to stop that growth, such as raising the ethical standards for lawyers and judges, and enforcing those standards.

2.    What issues will you be required to review as a judge?

            Supreme Court justices review whatever issues come their way in the cases that they are required to resolve or in other cases that they choose, by accepting discretionary review, to resolve. The issues cover the full breadth of the law. Additionally, the Supreme Court has inherent power, as the head of the judicial branch of government, to regulate the participants in the judicial system--lawyers and judges. I hope that, if elected, I will be able to prod my judicial colleagues to address issues concerning the ethics of lawyers and judges and also to address ways for improving the administration of the judicial system.

3.    In what types of cases can you have the greatest impact for the African American community?

            I do not think in terms of cases that impact any one ethnic community, whether African American, Asian American, Latin American, Native American, or European American. To the extent that some minority populations have suffered more than others from abusive or otherwise improper criminal or civil justice practices, any cases that bring about corrections to those improper practices have a greater impact on them.

4.    Do you believe that a judge has a duty to educate the public regarding issues decided within our court system? If you envision such a role, how could it be accomplished?

            Yes, I believe that the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system requires that judges educate the public regarding issues decided within it. Among the ways that such goal can be pursued are:

            (1)  jurists deciding high visibility cases by writing clear opinions that explain their reasons for ruling as they do [Judge Alsdorf's opinion in his Initiative 695 case is a good example of that];

            (2)   publishing a syllabus (an official summary) of each Supreme Court opinion, as the U.S. Supreme Court does with each opinion it releases, that will facilitate public understanding of the ruling;

            (3)   providing an explanation in every ruling of significance, rather than issuing one word ("Denied") or one sentence rulings;

            (4)   supporting efforts to educate both youth and the general public about the legal-judicial system through school classes and programs, community programs, and Internet and televison programming.

5.    In the past, have you taken an active stand on the following issues? Please describe your activities.

(a)    Access to equal opportunity in education and hiring.
            I have not taken an active stand. I have always supported equal opportunity in education and hiring, but I am not personally convinced that considering the racial, gender, or other classification of persons seeking education and employment opportunities is the way to achieve that goal. I personally bristle when I am required to complete an "optional" affirmative action form in order to apply for government or other employment.
(b)    Racial profiling.
            I have not taken an active stand, but I regard racial profiling as abhorrent. My awareness of the problem was heightened recently by a presentation at an ACLU meeting in Tacoma. I intended to attend the Senate's recent public hearing in Tacoma on the subject, but conflicting pressures prevented me from doing so.
(c)    Disproportionate representation of African Americans in state jails and prisons.
            I have not taken an active stand on this issue. If elected, I will support efforts to identify and correct the causes of such disproportionality.

            6.    Have you, in the past, lent your name or financial support to a candidate who opposed access to equal opportunities?

            No.

            7.    What do you think are the most important issues facing Washington State's judicial system?

            Perhaps the most important issue, as Justices Guy and Talmadge have noted, is re-designing our state's judicial system to more efficiently and effectively fulfill its mission and ensuring sufficient stable funding with which to do that. We seem to study such matters repeatedly, but fail to get beyond the studying stage. I think we need to consider adding specialized courts. We should seriously consider, for example, if parens patriae jurisdiction cases (i.e., child welfare and guardianship cases) would be better dealt with in administrative tribunals in which the advocates and judges have social science training rather than in courts where adversarial lawyers and judges often lack such training.

            Of similarly great importance is striving to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the lawyers and judges of this state. This goal is not achieved by covering up evidence of individual misconduct, but by enhancing the disciplinary system whereby individual failings are swiftly and effectively dealt with. Among the key reforms that I hope to achieve is a change in our state's ethics rules for lawyers in order to mirror the national model that requires lawyers to report serious misconduct by other lawyers and judges. (ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.3)

[Return to Election Home Page]       [Return to Interest Group Questionnaires Page]