Opinion ID: 2622873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Admission of Impeachment and Reputation Evidence

Text: ¶ 29 Mr. Burtch objects to the admission of character and reputation evidence at the hearing. Yet Mr. Burtch called his own character and reputation witness, Judge. John Kirkwood, at the beginning of the hearing, thus opening the door on the subject of his character. Judge. Kirkwood was asked questions by Mr. Burtch's counsel pertaining to his reputation and character. An example is shown below: Q: Did you have any reason to question [Mr. Burtch's] representations to the court on any given case? A: Never. Q: What other observations did you make with regard to Mr. Burtch's career, what have you been personally aware of? A: He was a good lawyer, and I had no problems with him. TR at 36. ¶ 30 Mr. Burtch alleges there was no opinion asked of Judge Kirkwood as to his honesty. Asking a witness whether he had any reason to question a lawyer's representations in his courtroom is a question inquiring into the reputation for honesty of that lawyer. Judge Kirkwood's answer is essentially that he had no reason to question Mr. Burtch's honesty. Allowing later witnesses to testify concerning Mr. Burtch's reputation as a lawyer and his reputation for honesty was rebuttal testimony after Mr. Burtch's own character witness testified. ¶ 31 Mr. Burtch further objects to the cross-examination and impeachment of Judge Kirkwood. It was appropriate on cross to attack the credibility of a character witness who attested he had no reason to question Mr. Burtch's honesty or legal reputation where Mr. Burtch's former acts of misconduct were publicized in a small community. ¶ 32 Mr. Burtch alleges the hearing officer committed egregious error in allowing alleged specific acts of misconduct to be put in evidence. Br. of Pet'r at 11. Hearing officers should be guided in their evidentiary and procedural rulings by the principle that disciplinary proceedings are neither civil nor criminal. ELC 10.14(a). The hearing officer admitted, for impeachment purposes, a newspaper article containing a story about a prior sanction against Mr. Burtch and later admitted documents connected to the same case. ¶ 33 Mr. Burtch argues that extrinsic evidence showing prior acts of misconduct may not be admitted for impeachment purposes. The hearing officer admitted this evidence not only for impeachment of Mr. Burtch and Judge Kirkwood but to show intent and the question of absence of mistake under ER 404(b). TR at 637. Mr. Burtch had stated during his testimony that various statements during prior disciplinary proceedings and district court were mistakes or unintentional, and statements made during these proceedings were at issue here. It was within the hearing officer's discretion to admit ample evidence to help her determine the credibility of the witnesses and the mental state of Mr. Burtch during multiple acts of misconduct. ¶ 34 The Washington Rules of Evidence are guidelines in this type of hearing. ELC 10.14(e) also states the evidence standards in this rule are based on the evidence provisions of the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, which . . . should be looked to for guidance. (citation omitted.) The evidence rules do not require strict adherence in a hearing such as this one which is neither civil nor criminal in nature, although generally the rules do apply. The hearing officer should err on the side of allowing in evidence in order to examine the full record when determining whether a sanction as serious as this, disbarment, is appropriate. ¶ 35 Further, any argument that the article prejudiced the trier of fact in the hearing is without merit. First, the substance of the article was brought in by testimony later during Mr. Burtch's cross-examination regarding the Vissers case, [4] and second, the trier of fact, the hearing officer, is not as easily prejudiced as a jury would be in a criminal or civil proceeding. The hearing officer addressed the ER 403 balancing test [5] at the beginning of day four of the hearing, stating that the evidence admitted was highly probative of Mr. Burtch's conduct during judicial proceedings at issue in this hearing. This probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. The introduction of this extrinsic evidence did not prejudice Mr. Burtch in any way and did not affect the fairness of the hearing overall. ¶ 36 Mr. Burtch also objects to the testimony of Gary Randall, who was questioned concerning Mr. Burtch's reputation for honesty in the community. However, the issue of character and reputation testimony was brought up in the beginning of the hearing. ER 404(a)(1) makes it clear that testimony about a person's good reputation may be rebutted with testimony about the person's bad reputation. 5A KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: EVIDENCE LAW AND PRACTICE § # 405.7 (5th ed.2007). The hearing officer informed parties from the beginning of the hearing that reputation was a factor in the proceedings and that limited character and reputation testimony would be admitted. Mr. Burtch did not object to the ruling, and his counsel immediately called his first character witness, Judge Kirkwood. Admission of character and reputation evidence by the hearing officer was not an abuse of discretion. [6]