Today a WA State Bar Grievance was filed against Doctor AND LAWYER, Nathan Schlicher, for his dishonesty in trying to influence voters by providing materially false information. Doctor and lawyer Schlicher is running for WA State Representative, 26 District, Position 1. All lawyers, INCLUDING Dr. Nathan Schlicher, Esq., are bound by a lawyer’s statutory oath to tell the truth – RCW 2.48.210.
The grievance stems from Schlicher’s characterization that being a lawyer licensed by the WA State Bar, which is under the Judicial Branch of government, and also running for a legislative office, is no more significant then a beautician who is licensed by an executive agency and runs for a legislative seat. Schlicher’s grossly inaccurate characterization was published by the Kitsap Sun as part of the Kitsap Sun’s effort to educate voters about the candidates.
Doctor and lawyer Schlicher’s characterization is so far from the truth that it must be brought before the WA State Bar as a violation of law and the rules of professional conduct.
- By law, a lawyer is a member, an associate, in a government agency – the WA State Bar. See RCW 2.48.021
- a beautician is not a member or an associate in any government agency.
- Only a lawyer can run for a judicial office. A beautician, nor any other non-lawyer can run for judicial office.
- Only a lawyer can represent a party in a lawsuit before a “judicial officer”. A beautician .. nicht!
- A lawyer is subjected to discipline by a judge … a judge is subject to disciple by a legislator. A beautician… nicht. Clearly makes for a conflict when a lawyer also serves as a legislator — tit for tat; quid pro quo???
But before a grievance was filed, doctor and lawyer Schlicher was asked to “retract” his materially false claim and correct the record… He refused to respond.
GRIEVANCE AGAINST A LAWYER
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Washington State Bar Association
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101-2539
Date Received: 8/19/2014 7:29:00 PM
Confirmation Number: 201408190003
INFORMATION ABOUT YOU
Last Name, First Name, Middle Initial
1515 lidstrom pl
Port orchard, WA 98366
City, State, and Zip Code
3607698531 Ext: 360
INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAWYER
Last Name, First Name
925 4th Ave Ste 2300
Seattle, WA 98104-1145
City, State, and Zip Code
Bar Number (if known)
INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GRIEVANCE
Describe your relationship to the lawyer who is the subject of your grievance:
Other: citizen, taxpayer, voter
Explain your grievance in your own words. Give all important dates, times, places, and court file numbers. You may attach additional materials by using the file upload feature below.
Dr. Nathan Schlicher, Esq., WSBA # 32795, as the attached email chain and letter will validate, violated his oath by offering misleading, deceptive and untrue statements in the “cause” entrusted to him. The “cause” in which Dr. Schlicher, Esq., is involved is as a candidate for WA representative, 26 District, position 1. Dr. Schlicher in response to an inquiry by Steve Gardner, Kitsap Sun reporter, asking him if being a lawyer and an “officer of the court” by his membership in the WA State Bar disqualifies him to seek an additional government seat in the legislature. Dr. Schlicher, in response to this question essentially made a comparison that being “licensed” by the Judicial Br, is no more significant, nor disqualifying, than a beautician is licensed by the WA Dept of Health. Dr. Schlicher continued the analogy claiming a beautician is not considered part of the executive branch by virtue of the license and can seek a legislative seat; the same goes for those licensed by the judicial br. The exact response made by Dr. Schlicher, Esq., can be heard in its entirety as published by the Kitsap Sun at this link. http://pugetsoundblogs.com/kitsap-caucus/2014/07/30/26th-ld-candidate-audio/#axzz3AtOnfLIH
As noted in the letter uploaded, Dr. Schlicher’s claims are untrue, deceptive, and offered to intentionally deceive the public (voters specifically) that being an “officer of the court” who, by constitution Art 2, Sec 30, “has a private interest in any bill or measure proposed or pending before the legislature, shall disclose the fact to the house of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon.” Clearly nearly every bill offers such a “private interest” for a lawyer. Furthermore any bill, that would address the corruption within the judicial br is a bill Dr. Schlicher would have a private interest that must be disclosed and require his abstention from voting on such measure. This constitutional prohibition is a material fact that will affect the “rights of voters” of the 26 District in depriving them of representation. Dr. Schlicher’s ‘trivialization” in his dual role, if elected, in being an “officer in the court” and “legislature” with ‘private interests’ in bills and measures involving the legal enterprise and Dr. Schlicher’s response constitutes a material misrepresentation and is a violation of RCW 2.48.210 and RPC 8.4.
In addition, another significant issue is wrapped up in having lawyers also hold legislative positions… the legislature has the power to remove and or impeach a judge. And a judge, under CJC 2.14- 2.16 can report lawyers for disciplinary action… in which case the WA Supreme Court can “remove a lawyer from his license”. Such quid pro quo or tit for tat one has over the other and vise versa affects the “fairness” any party may question in having a lawyer/legislator, or his firm, involved with another party to a judicial hearing.
Dr. Schlicher, Esq., as the email chain uploaded will validate, was asked to retract his false statement and offer the public the truth in being an “associate” in the judicial branch agency — the WA State Bar; and the implications in being forced to abstain voting on measures that involve the legal enterprise of which he is a part. These difference are material and have no material or substantive similarity to being licensed as a beautician as Dr. Schlicher, Esq., claims so as to down-play this important social matter.
I affirm that the information I am providing is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
I have read Lawyer Discipline in Washington and I understand that the content of my grievance can be disclosed to the lawyer.