May 30, 2007

Felice P. Congalton

Senior Disciplinary Counsel

Washington State Bar Association

1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600

Seattle, WA 98101

Dear Ms. Congalton-

I have received your form letter dismissal of my Bar complaint. You claim to have reviewed my complaint but the only part of the letter which addresses the specific case makes it clear you have not. This is not a complaint about Mr. McKay’s prosecutorial judgment as you state, it is a conflict of interest complaint regarding a government attorney’s responsibilities to their clients, the public of their jurisdiction. Only in very narrow cases, of which I believe this is not, is a government attorney’s responsibility limited to prosecution decisions this case addresses specifically those other areas.

The exercise of authority of the profession is not limited to the courts, nor therefore is your responsibility to oversee same. Justice happens in many places in our society and all aspects are ‘your’ responsibility. Please do not continue to make excuses about ‘limited authority and resources’.

The fact is that there is, practically speaking, no accountability within the profession, officers of the third branch of the US system of government, to the public. Although ‘you’ go to great lengths to maintain the illusion that there is this is false, you are in fact acting as a representative of Mr. McKay and are therefore also demonstrating a conflict of interest, one of a more serious nature than Mr. McKay’s, and most likely a root cause of his problem as well. Though you are claiming a lack of relevancy in my complaint you are instead documenting your complicity and senior responsibility for the problem.

I have considered dropping these charges based on my investigation into this matter as one instance of decay and self-management ability within the profession. Personally I believe that McKay’s firing from his public office would be sufficient discipline, however that is not documented as cause. His choosing to enter private practice also reduces, but does not eliminate, his responsibility on this particular type of governmental accountability. Affixing a justified determination of cause for termination to Mr. McKay’s Bar record, even though not cited by the agent of his client, would be acceptable to me. Monetary damages are not, nor will not, be sought against Mr. McKay . I do not preclude financial recompensation to the people of Washington State from the Bar as a whole as a result of the general problem demonstrated, nor to myself as an egregious instance of same.

It is a fact that I am using this case as a high profile specific incidence of a general problem. Mr. McKay, as a lawyer, does share that general responsibility- more so as a Senior member. I was positively influenced by Mr. McKay’s CLE event at Seattle University which I was fortunate enough to attend. If it were not for these general problems I would have dismissed this complaint. As said previously, the complaint is minor in nature – it is important solely because of the pervasiveness of the general problem and the accumulated effects of same upon our system of government and way of life, as protected by the US Constitution and subsidiary documents.

If you wish me to explain this complaint further to you I would be happy to. Please feel free to call – I would also welcome the opportunity to discuss the RPC’s with you. (I’d also be happy to attend a CLE event on Bar Rules should you, or any other party, organize one.) Absent such a conversation I will be documenting your reply as another incidence of conflict of interest within the profession over all clients and consider action against ‘you’.

It is the case that my specific knowledge of RPC rules is evolving and your putting forth a process that allows my due diligence to articulate my general concerns more specifically is also a responsibility of yours in a case such as this. The profession as well as my knowledge, is evolving. I do seek to be a constructive critic in that regard, including on the important issues of gender and racial equality and the implementation of information technologies. This particular type of case, by its nature, is one that does not require a lawyer, in fact I would go so far as to postulate that accountability cases regarding the profession’s responsibility to the public, as a whole and individually, should require a due process absent legal representation and matching procedures.

Hopefully you are professional enough not to accuse me of harassment for holding you accountable to the standards of the RPC, including the fundamental principles and preamble. I do understand this is hard – the ‘justice’ you receive for these endeavors includes a high level of compensation and status. You are not entitled to that ‘justice’ unless you fulfill the responsibilities associated with them.

Given the nature of these problems and the proceedings to date, I also request your credentials as Disciplinary Counsel and certification of the Bar’s own election procedures. I also inquire as to what capacity you yourself act under, as specified in RPC 1.2

Thank your time, and, if evidenced, your commitment to the rectitude of legal process.

Douglas Tooley

422 South Wright Avenue

Tacoma, Washington 98418

P.S. It is possible that there is some law that limits the US Attorney’s responsibility solely to prosecutorial authority that I am not aware of. If so, please inform, and I will reconsider based on a responsive reply to my complaint. Please note also that there is continuing evidence that there was a Prosecutorial misstep as documented in the Blogs Sound Politics (Stefan Sharkansky) and CrossCut (Chuck Taylor). I would encourage you to monitor those investigations, and, if Prosecutorial malfeasance was indicated, act without complaint.