Opinion ID: 2517933
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summons and Service of Complaint

Text: ¶ 23 Mr. King claims that the hearing officer had no jurisdiction over Mr. King because he was not personally served with the complaint in violation of ELC 10.3(a)(2) and he was only allowed 20 days to file an answer, in violation of Superior Court Civil Rule (CR) 4(d)(4). Mr. King is incorrect.
¶ 24 ELC 10.3(a)(2) requires that a lawyer subject to a formal complaint be personally served with that complaint and a notice of answer for a hearing to commence. If the respondent cannot be found in Washington State, personal service is accomplished by leaving a copy at the respondent's place of usual abode in Washington State with a person of suitable age and discretion then resident therein or by mailing via certified or registered mail to respondent at his last known place of abode, office address maintained for the practice of law, post office address, or address on file with the Association. ELC 4.1(b)(3)(B)(i), (ii). ¶ 25 The record shows that Mr. King was not found for purposes of service of process, either in or out of Washington State. Service by mail or by leaving a copy with a suitable person at Mr. King's abode is thus proper. ¶ 26 Here, Mr. King identified the Kenmore residence as his abode within the previous year and the roommate who received service verified that Mr. King lived there. Mr. King does not contest that the Kenmore address was his address, that Mr. Wolfrey was his roommate, or that service on Mr. Wolfrey satisfied ELC requirements. Mr. King was thus properly served in Kenmore, Washington on May 8, 2007. Mr. King agreed that service in the Philippines in June 2007 was also proper.
¶ 27 Mr. King is incorrect that civil court rules granted him more than 20 days to file an answer to the complaint. The CRs provide guidance for disciplinary proceedings and sometimes directly apply. ELC 10.1(a). However, ELC procedures trump conflicting CR procedures in disciplinary proceedings when the ELC does not expressly invoke CR procedures. ELC 1.1. Mr. King argues that because CR 4(d)(4) allows 90 days to file and serve an answer to a complaint served by mail, the 20-day limit imposed by the notice of answer was a due process violation. ELC 10.5(a) states that [w]ithin 20 days of service of the formal complaint and notice to answer, the respondent lawyer must file and serve an answer. ELC 4.1(b)(3)(B) and (C) govern service by mail in disciplinary proceedings for parties not found in Washington State and make no exception to the 20-day rule, nor do they invoke CR procedures. [5] Because 20 days is the proper time period for filing an answer to a complaint served by mail, imposing this time limit on Mr. King did not violate his due process rights. Further, though Mr. King was late in filing an answer, he received no sanction, so there is no harm to remedy.