20th Annual Goldmark Award Luncheon
The 2005 Charles A. Goldmark Distinguished Service Award was presented to the Washington Supreme Court during the Goldmark Luncheon Friday, February 17, 2006 at the Red Lion Hotel on 5th Avenue. Helping the Foundation celebrate the 20th annual event were Chuck's brother, Peter J. Goldmark and his cousin, Peter C. Goldmark, Jr. of Environmental Defense.
Chief Justice Alexander accepted the award from Foundation President, Superior Court Judge Michael E. Schwab
Thank you, Judge Schwab, for that very kind introduction. Fellow justices and judges, members of the bar, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of all of my colleagues on the Washington Supreme Court and our excellent staff at the Temple of Justice, allow me to thank the Legal Foundation of Washington for bestowing the Charles Goldmark Distinguished Service Award on our court. (By the way, let me ask the members of our court staff who are here today to stand and be recognized.)
Unlike many in this room, I did not have the pleasure of knowing Charles Goldmark. I have, however, known of him for a long time, and along with my fellow justices, I am aware of the great work that he did during his life for the concept of "justice for all." The court is, therefore, extremely honored and humbled to take into our possession an award that bears his name. I can assure you that it will occupy a prominent place at the Temple of Justice in Olympia.
As honored as we are to accept this award, I must confess that we accept it with a slight degree of self-consciousness. Let me explain the reasons for that feeling. The first is that it is an exceedingly rare experience for the court to receive an award of any sort. Having said that, I can tell you that in this age of rapid communication we do hear from the public quite frequently, particularly when we render a controversial decision. But generally the input we receive on those occasions cannot be placed in the category of an "award" or even an accolade.
The second reason for our feeling of trepidation is that the nine of us on the Washington Supreme Court are merely the current occupants of seats on this court. As I will observe more fully in a few minutes, much of what our court is being recognized for today is attributable to decisions made by our predecessors. We are sensitive to that fact and recognize that this award is being bestowed on the court as an institution, rather than to us as individuals.
Finally, we recognize that although much progress has been made in providing greater equality in the provision of justice in the civil arena, much remains to be done before we can collectively rest on our oars and say that we are truly where we should be. That was made manifest by the civil legal needs study that the Civil Equal Justice Task Force commissioned at the request of our court. That study revealed that three-quarters of all low income households in Washington experience at least one civil legal problem each year, and that fully 85% of low income people in this state face their legal problems without any help from an attorney. Being an optimist, I am convinced that we will eventually get to where we should be if we keep the faith and continue to do what we do so well in Washington-and that is having judges, lawyers, and lay persons work together.
In thinking about what to say in response to receiving this award, it occurred to me that since the court is being recognized today, it would be appropriate for me to go back into history just a bit with all of you and talk about a signal event that occurred a little over 20 years ago. An event, which, in my view, was the most significant ever in our quest for civil equal justice-an event that has served as the catalyst for the progress we have made since and which has resulted in Washington being recognized as the national leader in the provision of civil legal services for the economically disadvantaged. I don't do this as any sort of self-congratulation to our court, but, rather, with the thought that we can learn from and gain inspiration from what has gone on in the past.
Although the event I am talking about occurred officially in 1984, it had its roots in December 1981. It was in that month and year that a Washington attorney, Lowell Halverson, petitioned the Washington Supreme Court to establish an Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) program to be implemented by amendment to the then-existing code of professional responsibility-the forerunner to our present rules of professional conduct. I wasn't on the Supreme Court at that time so, of course, I was not privy to the conversations that must have ensued at the court following receipt of that letter. It is apparent, though, that the petition piqued enough interest that the court asked the Washington State and Seattle-King County Bar Associations to jointly study the proposal. This resulted in those two associations coming back to the court a couple of years later with a proposed rule which provided for a "mandatory" IOLTA program.
The court then published the proposed rule for comment. It received, as you might imagine, a lot of comments, 531 to be precise, with 424 of them supporting the proposal. Faced with this information and the fact that some who opposed the proposed rule suggested, among other points, that such a rule would affect an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, the court very wisely determined that it should solicit briefs and oral argument before it made any final determination regarding the proposal.
Consistent with that notion, the court designated the Seattle-King County Bar to represent the proponents of the proposed rule and the Walla Walla County Bar to represent the opponents. After briefs were filed by the designated bar associations, oral argument was held at our courtroom at the Temple of Justice on May 14, 1984. The names on the briefs are a real who's who of the lawyers in those two counties and I won't read their names, other than to note that one of the signators on the brief in support of the proposed rule was Charles A. Goldmark of the law firm of Wickwire, Lewis, Goldmark and Schorr, and it was Mr. Goldmark who presented oral argument for the Seattle-King County Bar.
What happened after arguments were concluded is well known-the court, in a lengthy order, adopted the proposed rule on June 19, 1984, indicating that in doing so it wished to make clear that the funds available for the IOLTA program are only those funds that cannot, under any circumstances, earn net interest for the client after deducting transaction and administrative costs and bank fees. In the same order it directed the Washington State Bar Association to take steps to promptly incorporate and establish the Legal Foundation of Washington. The bar accomplished that task and the foundation came into existence in 1985 as the repository and custodian of the IOLTA funds. Do I need to tell you who was its first president of the foundation? You guessed it, Charles Goldmark.
The Supreme Court was unanimous in approving the IOLTA program, although two members of the court wished the program to be voluntary and not mandatory. I have to say that this was a courageous step that the court took back then. In 1984, I was a superior court judge toiling in Thurston and Mason Counties and I remember thinking that at the time that this was a bold and courageous step. But I am even more convinced of that today as I look back at what they did from a vantage point two decades later.
I say that because in that year, 1984, only 20 states had IOLTA programs and 4 states had actually rejected the establishment of such programs. And of the 20 states that had such programs only a few, most notably Minnesota and California, had mandatory IOLTA. History has shown us that the voluntary programs don't work very well and that probably accounts for the fact that presently 30 out of 50 states have mandatory programs. So it is safe to say that, characteristically, Washington was out in front on this issue. And, ladies and gentlemen, they couldn't have picked a better time to take this bold step because, as many of you will recall, in the ‘80s federal funding for civil legal services was in a free fall.
It is worth taking a minute to remind everyone who those justices were in 1984-it was really a great court. The chief justice was one of my judicial heroes, Bill Williams, from Spokane. The other members of the court were Hugh Rosellini, Charles Stafford, Robert Utter, Robert Brachtenbach, James Dolliver, Fred Dore, Carolyn Dimmick, and Vernon Pearson.
The Supreme Court extended IOLTA to the trust accounts of limited practice officers in 1995, again after receiving briefs and oral argument from interested parties on both sides of that issue. That step, of course, substantially increased the revenues coming into the foundation. The court's action also engendered a lawsuit in federal court in which the then-members of the court (including yours truly) were named as respondents along with the Legal Foundation of Washington. That case, which originally had the odd title of Washington Legal Foundation v. Legal Foundation of Washington, made its way to the United States Supreme Court and, happily, thanks to outstanding lawyering from Dave Burman and his team from Perkins Coie who represented the foundation and the office of the attorney general, who represented the court with the assistance of the former United States solicitor general, Walter Dellinger, we prevailed. The court ruled that the transfer of interest to the Legal Foundation was a taking for "public use" which had no adverse impact on the owner of the principal and, thus, no just compensation was due. Therefore, the court said there was no violation of the just compensation clause. With this decision in hand, we breathed a collective sigh of relief, recognizing, as the Washington Supreme Court had in 1984, that our IOLTA rule rested on a solid legal foundation. The foundation's source of revenue was, thus, secure.
With this background in mind, I think that today we can we say without fear of contradiction that what the court did in 1984 was not only courageous and wise, it was significant. In a very practical sense, the IOLTA rules have resulted in over $90 million dollars coming into the coffers of the Legal Foundation of Washington-money which has been disbursed over the years to a variety of legal service providers.
But more importantly, perhaps, the step that the Washington Supreme Court took in 1984 set a standard and has served as inspiration to a lot of people in this state, including those of us who followed those justices on to the court. If the court hadn't acted as it did in 1984, we might still have an Access to Justice Board, an Access to Justice Conference, and law fund. Our court might have created the Task Force on Civil Equal Justice Funding and ordered a civil legal needs study. The BJA and the bar might have pushed the justice in jeopardy initiative and sought creation of the Office of Civil Legal Aid-all things that we have accomplished. But I'm not sure of any of that. What I am sure of is that by taking the bold action it did in 1984, the court was making a statement, albeit impliedly, that in Washington the provision of legal services to the poor among us is important and essential to the proper administration of justice. The fact that it said that then established a beacon for all of us who care about this to follow. We have followed that beacon pretty well, and when I say "we," I mean the WSBA, the specialty bars, the legal services community, our courts at all levels, and lots of others. We have, as I said earlier, a ways to go in pursuit of that beacon, but working together we will complete the journey.
Thank you again, everyone, for this wonderful award.
Peter J. Goldmark opened the program with these remarks
My congratulations to the members of the Washington State Supreme Court, as this year's recipient of the Goldmark Award. Equal access is a cherished dream of Americans. Access to legal aid is an important cornerstone of the foundation of equality in our society. These justices have been very visible and persuasive advocates for equal access to justice and are most deserving of our recognition and thanks.
To make a positive difference in our communities is to be successful. Today, we thank the Supreme Court Justices for making a difference and celebrate the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Legal Foundation of Washington. As we celebrate, we remember. We remember the leadership of my brother, Chuck, in the creation of this successful effort to delivery equal access to legal aid. We remember that helping those in need is a wonderful gift and that giving is the ultimate kindness. To give of one's time and creative energy on behalf of the public, the poor or the neglected, that is a great gift. That is what Chuck and the many others who have followed have done. We also remember, in the clutter of today's world, that such a gift that Chuck and others have given, is a fine and often neglected American tradition.
I am sure that Chuck would be very proud of the accomplishments of the Legal Foundation and the annual award given in his name. He would be most honored by the broad and enthusiastic support exemplified by the incredible attendance at these events and the fact that other states have adopted similar programs. He would be most pleased that others have continued to carry the torch of equal access to justice.