Washington State Court of Appeals says persons who have never been members of the bar are not active

Nov. 27, 2012 - PRLog -- On October 1, 2012, the Court of Appeals ruled in re State v. Steven Andrew Janda, any person who has never been a member is not an active member of the bar.  Since persons who are not active members are members of the bar, the ruling is oxymoronic.  Somehow the court reasons "not active" and "never" are synonymous, rendering the legislative use of the term "active" superfluous.  However, since not active membership requires prior active membership, the ruling is an obvious contradiction, and is now before the Washington State Supreme Court.  


RCW 2.48.180 is in the middle of the state bar act, so the location of the statute does not give notice to persons who are not bar members.  Steven was charged under this statute as not having active bar membership, which he contested repeatedly and which, resulted in the court ordering him not to argue the essential element before the jury.  Nice windfall for the state. However, the story behind the story is that the court has been holding out the oxymoron since 2001 by exchanging the statutory definition of nonlawyer in the statute, which most succinctly is an ex-legal provider, for the ordinary meaning of nonlawyer, which is merely any person who is not a lawyer.  The ruling violates the different definition of nonlawyer provided by the legislature specifically for the malpractice statute, not to mention every rule of construction followed by the courts, thereby excelerating the due process violations under color of law.


The ruling also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution for similar treatment of dissimilarly situated persons; that is, everyone is classed with disbarred and suspended attorneys.  How sweet. This ruling is just plain ugly. However, until it is overturned, anyone can say, I am not an active member of the bar.  Get your "not active member of the bar" t-shirts now.  Merry Christmas.