Court Opinion

ID: 9581233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:12:51.37141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:48.008129
License: Public Domain

Pearson, C.J.
(concurring) — I concur in the analysis made in the majority opinion, and offer some additional reasons. Public policy should not condone the action of counsel for one party to a lawsuit in acquiring ownership of the interest in the lawsuit of the client’s adversary. It is noteworthy that such practice is now specifically prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility, (CPR) DR 5-103(A).
Furthermore, if the attorney acquires such interest of his client’s adversary for the sole purpose of winning the lawsuit by means other than on the merits, the action borders on abuse of legal process. See Fite v. Lee, 11 Wn. App. 21, 521 P.2d 964 (1974). This is particularly true where a great disparity exists between the potential value of the cause of action levied upon as compared with the amount of the judgment debt.
Finally, to illustrate the disturbing consequences of respondent’s contention, let us suppose that the cause of action levied upon is a personal injury action in which the injured plaintiff, because of severe injuries, suffers great *149economic hardship while his lawsuit is pending. Let us suppose further that counsel for the defendant acquires by assignment a judgment debt for medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of his injuries. Should the law permit counsel for defendant to destroy plaintiff’s cause of action by becoming the owner of it? To ask the question is to answer it. The law should never be interpreted so as to subvert justice.
I would reverse the two orders and remand with directions to nullify the sheriff’s sale. The judgment creditor has adequate protection via his judgment lien. Furthermore, he is entitled to garnish the proceeds of any judgment Breskovich obtains in his action against Martinolich, or if Martinolich is in fact the assignee of the judgments against Breskovich, they may be asserted as setoffs.
Petition for rehearing denied June 10, 1974.
Review denied by Supreme Court July 30, 1974.