Opinion ID: 2451203
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did procedural errors deny Van Camp a fair hearing?

Text: ¶ 21 Van Camp argues that he was denied a fair hearing based on two decisions by the hearing officer. First, he argues the WSBA should not have been allowed to call a rebuttal expert after failing to list any experts on its witness list. His entire defense, he argues, was based on the WSBA's representation that it would not call experts, and after it was allowed to do so, he could not catch up. Although parties have a right under Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC) 10.13(d) [5] to submit rebuttal evidence, he argues this should be limited to exhibits or previously disclosed witnesses. A party should not be allowed to withhold evidence proper to its case in chief, only to cumulatively present it at the end of the defendant's case. ¶ 22 The WSBA explains that it initially chose to forgo expert witnesses, reserving the right to call rebuttal witnesses, but then sought to amend after seeing Van Camp's list of three experts to testify concerning the reasonableness of Van Camp's fee. The hearing officer denied the request as untimely, but allowed, as rebuttal evidence, the named expert to testify following Van Camp's expert's testimony. The WSBA analogizes this to character evidence, so that once Van Camp had opened the door, it had a right to rebut that testimony. Moreover, the WSBA argues, the motion to call the rebuttal expert was granted June 1, 2009, but the expert did not actually testify until July 9, 2009, giving Van Camp sufficient time to obtain discovery about the expert's testimony. Since he chose not to, he cannot establish error. See State v. Swan, 114 Wash.2d 613, 654-55, 790 P.2d 610 (1990) (defense had a full day to prepare for rebuttal witness, did not request a continuance or seek to reopen case, therefore no abuse of discretion). We agree. ¶ 23 Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Marshall, 160 Wash.2d at 341, 157 P.3d 859. Such abuse occurs only when no reasonable person would take the adopted view. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bonet, 144 Wash.2d 502, 510, 29 P.3d 1242 (2001). Van Camp does not explain how the hearing officer's decision was manifestly unreasonable. The hearing officer wanted to hear from a rebuttal expert regarding the fee, and without a specific articulation of why no one would think this a reasonable thing to do, we will not overturn her decision. ¶ 24 Next, Van Camp argues he should have been permitted to delve into the mediation, because doing so would have revealed Honkala's duplicity. But Van Camp was allowed to discuss the mediation. Van Camp was asked by his counsel, Deissner, whether Honkala was told he could settle by walking away, and Honkala still chose not to walk away. Van Camp so testified, and Deissner stated that was the only question he needed to ask. 3 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 726-30. It is unclear what else Van Camp feels should have been discussed to reveal Honkala's alleged duplicity, and again, he does not explain how the hearing officer's limiting the mediation discussion was manifestly unreasonable. As the WSBA points out, Van Camp does not cite to any specific ruling by the hearing officer and does not establish that error occurred. State v. Riker, 123 Wash.2d 351, 369, 869 P.2d 43 (1994) (objection to exclusion waived when party fails to seek final ruling following tentative ruling on motion in limine). Van Camp has not established grounds for a new hearing.