Opinion ID: 2638876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proper Investigation

Text: ¶ 31 Whitney avers that the complaint filed against him should be dismissed because the hearing officer erred in denying his motion to continue the hearing date [b]ecause the Bar hasn't completed their investigation. Hearing Before Hearing Examiner at 26. Under ELC 10.12(f), [e]ither party may move for a continuance of the hearing date. The hearing officer has discretion to grant the motion for good cause shown. Generally, a reviewing court will not disturb a discretionary act absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bonet, 144 Wash.2d 502, 510, 29 P.3d 1242 (2001) (citing 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. Id. (citing State v. Castellanos, 132 Wash.2d 94, 97, 935 P.2d 1353 (1997)). ¶ 32 Whitney cites no authority for the proposition that a respondent attorney has standing to move for a continuance on behalf of the WSBA. If the WSBA had felt the need for additional time in which to prepare its case, it could have so indicated. It made no such request and indicated, rather, that it did not need additional time to prepare its case. It also noted that the review committee had declined to order further investigation and ordered that a hearing be held to address the allegations within the Cienega and Dorn grievances. As there were no reasonable grounds upon which Whitney's motion should have been granted, we conclude that the hearing officer did not abuse his discretion in denying the continuance motion.