Smith Goodfriend, Civil Appeals, SeattleSmith Goodfriend, Civil Appeals, Seattle
≡
  • Our Practice
  • Our Attorneys
    • Catherine Wright Smith (shareholder)
    • Howard M. Goodfriend (shareholder)
    • Valerie A. Villacin (shareholder)
    • Ian C. Cairns (shareholder)
    • Jonathan Collins (shareholder)
    • Nicholas Bartels (associate)
    • Malcolm L. Edwards (1932-2019)
  • Published Decisions
    • ALL
    • By Case Type
      • Amicus
      • Civil & Appellate Procedure
      • Commercial
      • Constitutional
      • Domestic
      • Governmental Liability
      • Health Care
      • Insurance
      • Labor & Employment
      • Personal Injury
      • Professional Discipline
      • Probate & Trust
      • Real Property
      • Taxation
    • By Attorney
      • Catherine Wright Smith
      • Howard M. Goodfriend
      • Valerie A. Villacin
      • Ian C. Cairns
  • "Always Appealing"
  • Articles
    • Why New Counsel on Appeal?
    • Practical Aspects of the Appellate Process: Counseling the Parties on Whether to Appeal
    • The Accidental Advocate: Tips for the Reluctant Rhetorician
    • Attorney's Fees on Appeal
    • Domestic Relations on Appeal: Tips for a Seldom Taken Journey
  • Contact Us
June 19, 2025

Published Decisions - Professional Discipline

LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Group, LLC

168 Wn. App. 862, 279 P.3d 448, 287 P.3d 628 (2012), aff'd on other grounds, 181 Wn.2d 48, 331 P.3d 1147 (2014) (rescission)

Fair v. Powers & Therrien

181 Wn.2d 117, 330 P.3d 190 (2014) (damages)

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Poole

156 Wn.2d 196, 125 P.3d 954 (2006) (attorney discipline)

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michels

150 Wn.2d 159, 75 P.3d 950 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1112 (2004) (judicial discipline)

Eidson v. Dept. of Licensing

108 Wn. App. 712, 32 P.3d 1039 (2001) (professional discipline)

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Turco

137 Wn.2d 227, 970 P.2d 731 (1999) (judicial discipline)

©2001-2025 Smith Goodfriend, P.S. Site design by The Web Dood. All rights reserved.
Unsolicited e-mails or other contact with the firm or any of its attorneys are not privileged communications, and cannot create an attorney/client relationship or expectation of confidentiality.