Background
Virginia Shogren, an attorney, represented the Washington Election Integrity Coalition United (WEICU) in filing a mandamus petition against Governor Jay Inslee in October 2021, alleging that the governor failed to uphold election integrity by permitting non-U.S. citizens to vote. The Washington Supreme Court dismissed the petition as frivolous in January 2022 and imposed sanctions on Shogren in the form of attorney fees.
In June 2022, the Washington Attorney General notified the WSBA’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) of alleged Rules of Professional Conduct violations by Shogren stemming from the mandamus petition. In May 2024, the ODC filed a disciplinary complaint against Shogren alleging violations of RPC 3.1, 8.4(d), and RAP 8.4(j) for pursuing a frivolous action and neglecting to pay court-ordered sanctions.
Shogren moved to dismiss the complaint and demanded a jury trial. The WSBA Disciplinary Board’s chief hearing officer denied both requests, concluding that the right to a jury trial does not attach to disciplinary proceedings. After the Disciplinary Board denied interim review, Shogren petitioned the Thurston County Superior Court under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) seeking to vacate the complaint and transfer the matter to superior court for a jury trial, claiming her constitutional due process rights were violated.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s dismissal, holding that the APA does not apply to the Washington State Bar Association. The court reasoned that the APA expressly excludes “any state board, commission, [or] department” that is “in the . . . judicial branch[]” from its definition of “agency.” RCW 34.05.010(2). The WSBA, despite being statutorily labeled an “agency of the state,” operates as an arm of the judicial branch because it exercises a function exclusively reserved to the Washington Supreme Court: lawyer discipline.
The court emphasized that the Washington Supreme Court possesses inherent constitutional authority over lawyer admission, conduct, and discipline—a principle established since 1918. The WSBA administers disciplinary proceedings and makes recommendations, but the Supreme Court alone imposes discipline. Because the WSBA’s disciplinary function is an integral part of the judicial process, not an executive or administrative function, it falls outside APA authority. The court rejected Shogren’s argument that the legislature could override the Supreme Court’s exclusive constitutional authority through the broadly worded RCW 34.05.030(5).
The court further held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shogren’s motion to amend her complaint to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Any amendment would have been futile because it would still seek relief regarding a disciplinary matter over which the superior court lacks authority. The court noted that the Supreme Court remains fully capable of addressing constitutional claims regarding jury rights in disciplinary proceedings if it chooses to do so.
Key Takeaways
- The WSBA is a judicial entity exempt from APA review despite being created by statute and labeled an “agency of the state.”
- The Washington Supreme Court’s exclusive constitutional authority over lawyer discipline cannot be overridden by legislative provisions or end-runs through superior court review.
- Disciplinary proceedings against attorneys are not subject to jury trial rights, and the superior court has no jurisdiction to review WSBA disciplinary decisions on this ground.
- Proposed amendments to complaints that seek relief over non-justiciable matters are properly denied as futile.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the structural separation between judicial and administrative functions in Washington. It establishes that even constitutional claims cannot be used as an end-run around the disciplinary process through superior court review. Attorneys challenging WSBA disciplinary decisions must do so through the established appellate process before the Washington Supreme Court, not by seeking APA review. The ruling also clarifies that the legislature cannot deprive the Supreme Court of its inherent constitutional authority to regulate the legal profession, regardless of how comprehensively a statute purports to apply to state agencies.
For practitioners, the decision forecloses a potential strategy of seeking jury trial rights or broader due process protections by transferring disciplinary matters to superior court. Any constitutional challenges to WSBA disciplinary procedures must be addressed within the Supreme Court’s disciplinary framework or appealed directly to the Supreme Court itself, not pursued through parallel administrative or civil proceedings in other courts.