Opinion ID: 2633460
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Significant Question of Law

Text: The WSBA asserts that we should grant discretionary review of the Board's dismissal of Counts II and III on the basis that a significant question of law is involved. RLD 7.3(a)(2). It argues here that the Board's failure, sua sponte, to deem Counts II and III amended to conform to the evidence that there was an offer, rather than an agreement, involves a significant question of law. RLD 4.1(a) [5] incorporates CR 15(b), which provides that amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence ... may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment. (Emphasis added). The granting of a motion to amend a pleading is a discretionary act. Herron v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 108 Wash.2d 162, 165-69, 736 P.2d 249 (1987). The denial of such a motion will not be disturbed unless the reviewing court concludes that the denial was a manifest abuse of discretion. Del Guzzi Constr. Co. v. Global N.W. Ltd., 105 Wash.2d 878, 719 P.2d 120 (1986). An abuse of discretion occurs only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted. State v. Castellanos, 132 Wash.2d 94, 97, 935 P.2d 1353 (1997). It is significant that the WSBA never sought an amendment of the pleadings before the Board. [6] That being the case, the Board was clearly not under any legal duty to consider the complaint amended to conform to the evidence. We reach that conclusion because if a trial court, or an administrative tribunal operating under the rules of court, has discretion to determine if a motion to amend a pleading should be granted, it should have even greater discretion in determining if it should amend a pleading sua sponte. We can easily say that the Board did not act unreasonably in failing to deem the pleadings amended. In setting forth its reasons for declining to do so, the Board indicated that considerations of procedural due process dictate that the Disciplinary Board, sua sponte, cannot amend the charges in the Formal Complaint to conform to the evidence. Pet. for Review app. A at 3. We are satisfied that this decision was reasonable and that the Board did not abuse its considerable discretion. Indeed, the fact that the WSBA itself did not seek an amendment of the pleadings before the Board supports our conclusion that the Board acted reasonably in not amending the pleadings sua sponte. In short, the Board can hardly be faulted for declining to do something that it was never asked to do. We conclude, therefore, that the WSBA has not presented a significant question of law justifying review of Counts II and III under RLD 7.3(a)(2).