"Working in a very complex civil practice" means working for a law firm. Was he working for a law firm while he was going to school? You haven't convinced me that Dunn was out and out lying about what he was doing in 97/98.

And saying you have a degree in Economics when you minored in Economics is a dumb, neophyte mistake. Like you might expect from someone running for high office with no relevant experience.
Dow's not married. Get your facts straight!
1. he said he was "in" a complex civil law practice, so the lie isn't as clear cut as suggested. a summer associate or graduate not yet admitted in a complex civil practice such as Inslee Best is in civil litigation. he's not in real estate.
2. more broadly, and in all honesty -- meaning rising above legalisms -- here we have two candiates both with just several years in civil litigation, both totally unqualified as neither one (a) was in charge of any major civil litigation and (b) neither one managed lots of other lawyers on all their major civil litigation.
Ladenburg should be in this race. It;s our loss the process gives us two unqualified candidates.
I love Strait. A good chunk of his classes consist of "Republicans fucked up bad!"
Yes, John Strait is right here. Dunn's own website states that he graduated UW Law in 1998 and joined the DOJ in 2001, and then states:

Prior to joining the Justice Department, Reagan lived in Bellevue, Washington, and practiced law for several years with the law firm, Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S.

Dunn could no more include his months of work as a Rule 9 in his "lengthy complex civil practice" than a paralegal or legal assistant could. And his own website inflates his resume even more - he couldn't have qualified as a Rule 9 until Fall 1997 and could only work part time during the school year (that's an ABA rule). How that all works out to "several years" is simple republican math.
@2, I think Goldy's referring to Josh Feit's foot-in-mouth, egg-on-face reporting of a brouhaha between Dow and a couple girlfriends.

Goldy, you might like to think it's because you're partisan that people sometimes dismiss your work, but really - it's the work itself that's not as good as you think. It's not about you, it's about the fruit of your labor. There are partisans, hacks, and partisan hacks breaking their stories big all the time.
Wherein Goldy learns that being the hack that cried wolf has consequences
Lying to advance your career is ambitious. Lying to advance your sexual gratification is obscene!
Still wouldn't have cared, even though I have pictures of his affair.
Goldy, notice that every time you post one of these it gets only a smattering of comments?

Even your Slog sycophants don't care.
@6: Yes, I'm referring to the fact that they picked up Josh's bullshit story. I never meant to imply that Dow is married.

That said, if my work is the problem Gus, perhaps you might have the courtesy of pointing out the many times where I am factually wrong, or where my analysis obviously unsupported?

So I use the word "fuck" and a few other obscenities from time to time. So I openly disclose my biases (so that readers can understand me in that context). But honestly, truly: Find me another a journalist who has consistently written at more technical depth on any number of issues, from legal cases to tax structure to the current arena deal. Nobody in this state does the technical writing on public policy that I do. Nobody.
You may want to calm down. Or consider self-medicating.
@11 the Supreme Court says that's your Constitutional Right. One nation under Cher.
When did they stop using the headline LAWYER LIES ?

At first I thought you were hyping this beyond his statements, and then this morning went back and read his statements, and yah, total lying. "In private practice" could be fudged as "I worked there." "My private practice" is where he lies. I would think any ethical lawyer would either pressure him for correction or distance themselves from his, once again, lie.
@11, if you want recent examples of cant supplanting your care for the facts, you could look to your insistence than anybody questioning Darcy's suitability must be an evil party hack. On the arena deal your insistence that the epic trudge to light rail would constitute "walking distance" is worth a giggle.

I didn't and never would say your work isn't good. You should certainly continue taking pride in your work. But if you could only not be so proud of it, if you see the distinction. Then you might see some of what I'm talking about. Or not; I can only imagine how hard it must be to put yourself in the shoes of your readers.

*sniff* I so could win a pulitzer, too. I could, you guys. *sniff*
lmao @ all of post 11

bloo bloo bloo no one likes me (because I'm a pompous hack)
lots of lawyers are at firms, doing law, before being admitted to the bar. some do it for years. the technical and highly nuanced approach to dunn's stretches here falls a bit short because in fact, he has several years civil law experience -- not enough -- and in this he's rather like Ferguson who also has just several years.

Real lawyers say they are lawyers when they work at a firm before they are admitted. They do not become rule 9 interns. Frankly, this lying discussion is a bit hairsplitting, much like the bad lawyers of the world who play gotcha on technical fouls instead of getting to the meat of the issue, which is this. It's not that Dunn's "lying," it's that even if he wasn't he'd still be totally unqualified -- just like Ferguson -- because being 2, 3 or 4.5 yerars as a junior associate or assistant us attorney simply doesn't mean you can lead major national litigation like suits against Bank of America, Chse, or JP Morgan. Or Regence. THAT's complex civil litigation. CArrying the senrior lawyers' briefcases for 2 years or 4.5 years is really a nonissue, if you want to be serious. The person best qualified is unfortunately running for supreme court, and it's john ladenburg, who does have major complex civil litigation experience. I doubt Dunn or Fergusan has even done one TRIAL that lasted more than two days.
Yes, you are a partisan hack, and you obviously can't stop thinking about this (much like you can't hide your constant hard-on for Darcy Burner). Come on Goldy, publicly OCD on this some more, it's simply entertaining to watch at this point. And John Strait will say anything to get his name in print or pixels, so the delight you're taking with that supposed authority on your side is just more pathetic.
Li'l Reagan has a resume? That's pretty shocking right there.
@15: Exactly. Dunn says "my civil practice." But you can't practice law if you're not a lawyer.
Dead wrong on this one. As a Rule 9 Intern I tried 6 jury trials for misdemeanor offenses in District Court. Three of those trials were against a Rule 9 public defender. I wrote the briefs, argued the legal issues to the judge, picked the jury, made opening statement and closing argument and questioned the witnesses. So did the Rule 9 defender. There wasn't event a WSBA licensed lawyer at the counsel table (except for the first trial where they supervised).

I convicted 5 people in those trials, as a Rule 9. You are wrong Goldy, you are not a lawyer, you don't understand the law and you asked a political hack of a biased law professor whose opinion carries little if any weight in the legal community because he so completely biased in his legal views. Sorry but try to find another hit piece because this isn't going to make sense to lawyers, who actually have been Rule 9s, let alone the general public.
@22 Yah, derr "civil practice," not "private practice." Happy slugging.
all this hairsplitting about my civil practice, in civil practice, why not tell us what was each candidate's biggest "win" in any civil or criminal trial?
Get them talking about what they did as lawyers. What they learned. Ask them to publish a list of their top ten cases. Then a real reporter or the public could you know, go read their work as a lawyer. It's on file at the courts. It's not secret. It's lazy not to look it up.
I suspect neither one is at all qualified to be AG.

Being a 4th year associate or a 2d year associate just isn't enough experience.

@16: Those aren't examples of factual assertions on my part, let alone examples of where I've been demonstrably wrong in my analysis. Try again.
That's about the best I expected.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.