Julie Shankland
General Counsel
Washington State Bar Association
1325 4th Ave., Ste. 600
Seattle, WA 98101
TORT CLAIM NOTICE
Dear Ms. Shankland:
Please accept this letter as Governor D a n Bridges’ notice of tort claim against the
Washington State Bar Association ("WSBA") for violation of the state whistleblower statute,
RCW 42.40, et. seq., and other torts including defamation and false light. This notice solely
pertains to claims against the WSBA and does not allege personal liability of the actors
involved in their individual capacities. Claims against individuals are reserved. The
following are the factual allegations providing the basis for the tort claim:
Mr. Bridges is a Governor on the Board of Governors and the WSBA treasurer. For two
years he has identified conflicts of interest, self-dealing, and irregularities within WSBA. He
asked elected leadership and executive staff to correct them.
They have retaliated,
marginalized, and harassed Governor Bridges for his whistleblowing activities.
As two examples, when Governor Bridges identified inaccurate information provided by
staff to the Board’s personnel committee to set the WSBA’s Executive Director’s raises, he was
removed by the President from that committee. Only two weeks ago Governor Bridges demanded
the current President stop threatening other Board members who have also brought forward
what they believe to be issues of poor WSBA management. Two days later the President
retaliated against Governor Bridges (now treasurer and an Officer), ordering him at a Board
meeting to sit on the periphery, removing him from the Treasurer’s position, where he would
be leading the meeting with the other officers. Governor Bridges does not care where he sits but
does care about being openly retaliated against for whistleblowing and coming to the defense of
Governors being harassed.
It is not in dispute that the WSBA is a state actor. Whether consideration of GR 12.2 is
made or the State Bar Act, the WSBA acts under the color of law either as a department of the
Supreme Court or a quasi-state agency.
Both GR 12.2 and the State Bar Act are clear the WSBA Board of Governors is responsible
for the oversight of all aspects of the WSBA subject to a few very limited and seldom used
1 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 exceptions not relevant here. Because the Board is made up of volunteer, practicing attorneys, it
does not have time to supervise day-to-day operations. For that reason, the Bar Act and GR 12.2
authorize the Board to hire staff, including an Executive Director who serves at the pleasure of the
Board, to run the daily business of the Bar and spend money collected through licensing fees. The
Executive Director by both GR 12.2 and the Bar Act answers to the Board. Without the Board’s
supervision, there is no supervision of those activities or spending.
The irregularities identified by Governor Bridges occurred because over time the WSBA
Executive Director and various Presidents have undermined the Board to the point it no longer has
any authority or ability to exercise meaningful oversight. Being a Governor takes a lot of time if
the job is actually done. While past Boards were technically responsible for oversight of the
WSBA, past Governors had been willing to delegate their duties to staff because it made their roles
easier. That dynamic effectively resulted in no Board oversight at all.
Thus, over time the power of the WSBA has been consolidated into the hands of only two
positions: the Executive Director and President. Whenever Governors have attempted to shift
oversight back to the Board as required by GR 12.2 and the Bar Act they have been met with
hostility and obstruction. Rubber-stamp approval by the Board is expected, questions are viewed
as hostile, and questions the answers to which reveal mismanagement are met with retaliation. Mr.
Bridges being removed from the personnel committee for asking such questions is only one
example.
Over time, newer Board members were elected to restore the Board’s oversight of WSBA.
In the Spring of 2018 Governor Bridges brought forward bylaw amendments that reaffirmed the
Board’s role and decentralize authority from the hands of only a few. Perhaps it should be no
surprise that he and other like-minded Governors were met with resistance for trying to restore the
Board’s statutory and court-ordered fiduciary duty to provide oversight. What should be a surprise
however is the degree of harassment and retaliation those in power have resorted to in order to
block those efforts.
1.

WSBA Leadership, Officers and Executive Director Have Engaged in A Long Course
Of Conduct To Centralize Power And Deprive The Board Of Its Supervisory
Authority

After Governor Bridges was elected, but before taking office, WSBA leadership proposed
a sweeping bylaw amendment package. Its overall purpose was to centralize the power and
authority of the WSBA in the Executive Director and President by disenfranchising the members
through the creation of three new unelected Board positions. The new positions would be
appointed, rather than elected as the Board is now constituted. In other words, WSBA leadership
sought to water-down the proportion of Governors elected by the members by adding new

2 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 Governors chosen by the leadership, allowing them to nominate and appoint individuals friendly
to their positions to make it harder for elected Governors to provide oversight.
Membership began to realize what was happening and protested. Leadership sought to
rush the amendment package. While still a Governor-elect, Governor Bridges wrote a letter to the
Board with two other Governors-elect asking leadership to slow down and not shortcut due
process. Ex. #1.
WSBA leadership did not only disagree, it threatened Governor Bridges. Leadership
accused Governor Bridges, simply for asking them to not short cut the process, of “circulating
false material” (the letter was only sent to the Board) and said even making the suggestion was a
“material breach of your fiduciary obligations to this organization.” Ex. #2. The letter closed with
a veiled threat implying Governor Bridges and the others should not even be Governors and
questioning if they were capable of taking the oath of office. All that for suggesting leadership
might not want to rush a process that deprived the WSBA members of their representation.
The harassment intensified once Governor Bridges took his position. Leadership
(Executive Director and President and Officers), repeatedly attempted to “train” the Board that its
sole and only loyalty was to the WSBA, not the membership. By then, the WSBA was effectively
controlled by the Executive Director and President. From one of the training handouts:

Ex. #2.
Governor Bridges and others spoke out against that prioritization, citing the Bar Act and
GR 12. Leadership derided them saying they could not express any disagreement with Leadership
to the members or they would be breaching their fiduciary duty to WSBA, e.g., to them.
As a new Governor, Governor Bridges was appointed to the Board’s budget and audit
committee. He identified what appeared to be extraordinarily large expenditures for two-day
meetings in the WSBA’s own office, some in excess of $50,000. He asked the treasurer for
documentation showing how the money was spent, but, despite his role as a member of the budget
and audit committee, he was repeatedly told he did not need to know. When Governor Bridges
raised this at the following budget and audit meeting, he was told by the then-President, the
treasurer, and the Executive Director, that Governors did not need to know the specifics of
expenditures unless they were “material.” Conveniently, they defined materiality as being in
excess of $100,000. Governor Bridges rejected the idea that materiality can be quantified, but
even if it did, the expenditures are recurring and therefore exceed $100,000.

3 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 It was clear the Executive Director and leadership did not want Governor Bridges to
investigate further. The Executive Director stated that the Board did not need to know about the
expenditures because it increased the likelihood of members discovering those expenditures,
which, in turn, would lead to members questioning how WSBA spends their money. She said the
members will go so far as to scrutinize how much leadership spends on lunch. Governor Bridges
did not ask to find out how much was being spent on lunch. However, the point was clear: the
Executive Director would block any attempt at oversight. The information was never provided.
2.

Governor Bridges Was Retaliated Against for Identifying Irregularities In The
Process To Determine The Executive Director’s Raises

Governor Bridges was also appointed to the personnel committee. That committee is
responsible for reviewing the Executive Director’s performance, compensation, and making
recommendations on those issues to the Board. Governor Bridges was removed from that
committee in retaliation for discovering discrepancies involving a compensation package that now
totals nearly $300,000 for the Executive Director.
The first discrepancy was discovered in PowerPoint slides presented by staff and an outside
consultant hired by staff to advise on raises for the Executive Director. The slide identified pay
components (bonus, deferred compensation) the committee was told were “averages” of
“comparable” bar associations. Staff and the consultant suggested the Executive Director be given
a raise to keep pace with those “averages.” Ex. #4.
Governor Bridges asked for the data (an ABA report) on which the slides were based; it
was not produced for months, after the raises were approved by the committee. Once provided, it
was obvious the numbers presented had been skewed. (The raw report is not attached because
staff have protested it is private. That is disputed but it is not necessary to make the point. It can
be provided on request).
The report shows one of the “averages” of “comparable bar associations” was an average
of only two Bar Associations, one of which was the WSBA. The second “average” provided was
revealed to be an average of three Bar Associations, again, one of which was WSBA. Staff
presented each as broad-based averages, even though they were not. Governors openly discussed
those “averages” as such throughout the year without staff disclosing the truth of the numbers.
The committee relied on that information and recommended the Board approve a raise based on
them. The Board gave the raise.
The Executive Director was already one of the highest-paid Executive Directors in the
nation at the time her staff was skewing numbers to support another raise, and worse, staff was
presenting “averages” to the committee that were not averages at all. They were bootstrapping
WSBA’s already high compensation levels into those “averages” without telling the committee
4 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 the WSBA was a part of that survey and its own already high numbers were the primary reason
those “averages” were as high as they were.
All of that was known by staff when they presented the numbers. Once Governor Bridges
obtained the report it only took minutes to understand what the numbers were. But in caution, he
asked the staff member responsible for the power point slide to confirm his reading of it. It was
immediately confirmed. That email is an exhibit hereto. Ex. #3
Governor Bridges reported on the newly-discovered data in executive session to the Board
with supporting documents. Even if considered in its best light, the information was materially
skewed upward. Governor Bridges’ primarily concern was simply to identify the issue, not to take
away the Executive Director’s raise, and use it as a “teaching moment” to prevent similar
occurrences. In overseeing the WSBA, the Board relies exclusively on information staff provides.
The Board has no direct access to any WSBA information itself.
In response, the WSBA President and Executive Director refused to consider the issue.
Even assuming it was an honest mistake, there was a clear need to determine how the
representative samples of data became so selective and narrow and the data became so skewed.
Instead of addressing those merits, the Executive Director violated executive session privilege by
openly reporting the contents of executive-session discussions to staff not privy under the
executive session privilege. She criticized the discussions had during that meeting and told staff
that Mr. Bridges was trying to “criticize [her] staff.” After much persistence, Governor Bridges
persuaded the President to simply sit down with the staff person responsible for the PowerPoint to
determine what happened. The staff person refused. The Executive Director also refused. In other
words, the Executive Director refused oversight by the Board.
Governor Bridges urged the President (then Brad Furlong) that he had a duty to to direct
the Executive Director to produce the staff person so he (the President) could ask why the numbers
were presented as they are and the Board could discharge its duty of oversight. The President
refused.
What was originally framed as an honest mistake was beginning to look like a cover-up.
Governor Bridges continued to press in an attempt to vindicate the Board’s duty of oversight and
ensure information was presented in a better fashion going forward.
Not only did the President refuse to take action, he retaliated against Governor Bridges by
removing him from the personnel committee. Governor Bridges was the only person removed
from the committee he or she had served upon the previous year. Every other Governor continued
on the same committees from the previous year. The President singled out Governor Bridges,
removing him because of his whistleblowing investigation of misleading data presented to the
Board. When approached with the proposition he was retaliating against Governor Bridges,
5 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 President Furlong denied doing so and asserted alternatively no person should be on the committee
who had a negative opinion of the Executive Director, which is nonsensical criterion considering
the Board’s role to oversee the Executive Director. Further, Governor Bridges did not have a
negative opinion of the Executive Director as such. He had material questions and a duty to find
answers. In all practical senses, President Furlong was trying to stack the committees with
Governors who would not investigate the Executive Director or her staff, despite the Governors’
obligations to provide oversight. In other words, the Executive Director had no supervision.
After being removed, Governor Bridges continued to ask for closure. Later he was joined
by Governors newly elected also asking the issue be resolved as well as for the President to justify
his retaliation. He did not. The President and Executive Director continued to ignore the issue for
months. Finally, President Furlong devised a rather novel solution.
President Furlong directed staff to select and hire its own investigator to conduct an
investigation the scope of which staff determined, and to have the investigator report back to staff
with the findings. Not surprisingly, the staff’s investigation cleared the staff, without addressing
numerous complaints against the staff. It contained none of the information sought by the Board
members: 1) no response was provided as to the Executive Director’s breach of the executive
session privilege, 2) the refusal of staff and the Executive Director to respond to the Board’s
oversight by refusing to meet with a representative of the Board, 3) nor was there an explanation
to the ultimate question of how staff could have presented the information as they did.
When those “findings” were finally presented, WSBA had a new President, Bill Pickett,
who unilaterally announced the staff’s investigation cleared the staff, the issue was closed, and he
would not allow any further discussion. Governor Bridges indicated he did not believe the issue
had been properly addressed and that the report did not address the actual issue. He also indicated
he anticipated information would be provided in a more accurate manner.
The second discrepancy regarding the Executive Director’s pay identified by Governor
Bridges occurred after he was removed for the personnel committee but continued to attend as a
Governor. The same consultant identified above regarding the PowerPoint slides told the
committee a survey she created several years earlier to evaluate the Executive Director’s
performance for the bonus structure (the consultant had been charging the WSBA for years to
administer the survey) was no longer “a valid way to evaluate the ED” because it was now
returning negative results. The consultant had stopped being an independent consultant and had
become an advocate for the Executive Director. Yet again, this was a consultant hired by the
Executive Director’s employees and reported directly to staff, not the Board. This is another
irregularity of WSBA management. By any basic concept of governance, that type of consultant
should be reporting to the Board, not the staff who answer directly to the very person (here the
Executive Director) the consultant is supposed to be reporting on.

6 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 During that meeting which occurred in 2017, Governor Bridges asked the consultant
whether their opinion on the survey would be different if it continued to return positive results.
The consultant could provide no answer. She sat for an extended period of time saying nothing.
The “answer” was obvious: if a survey is valid, it cannot be considered “invalid” because a person
does not like the result. Here, the consultant told WSBA for years this was a valid methodology
and charged a large amount of money to do so. Now that the results disfavored certain WSBA
employees, that methodology was claimed to be problematic. The committee moved to the next
topic having already determined to move in a different direction, not bring the consultant back,
and had already told the consultant as much.
Later the consultant claimed she did not want to return. She asserted Governor Bridges
bullied her by asking questions during the meeting. That is not unlike a person already fired,
yelling on their way out of the door that they quit. The only contact Governor Bridges ever had
with the consultant was in the personnel meeting. Asking her that question was not bullying her.
No person present thought the question was inappropriate.
Despite that, after Governor Bridges proposed bylaw amendments to restore balance to the
Board, Governor Athan Papailiou has repeatedly claimed Governor Bridges “bullied” the
consultant, inserting that claim into all manner of unrelated discussions. Governor Papailiou was
at the meeting when Governor Bridges asked his question and expressed no concern at the time.
Governor Papailiou is a proponent of the Executive Director, has aggressively spoken out
against Governor Bridges’ bylaw amendments calling them a “waste of time,” and has engaged in
all manner of personal attacks against Governor Bridges whenever he sees an opportunity.
3.

Governor Bridges’ Identification of Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing

In 2017 the General Counsel position for WSBA came open. It is one of the highest paid
positions after the Executive Director and one of the pinnacle jobs with the Bar. A sitting Governor
applied for the position. That presents a conflict of interest on a variety of levels. The Executive
Director makes the hiring decision, but the Executive Director is supposed to answer to the
Governors. For the Executive Director to even consider a sitting Governor for that job creates a
Hobbesian choice. If he or she does not hire the Governor, the Governor remains in a supervisory
role over the Executive Director. Therefore, the Executive Director is influenced lest the un-hired
Governor take out their displeasure over not being hired. The sitting Governor creates a conflict
for themselves because if not hired, they are compromised: they must either temper their
independent oversight of the Executive Director lest they appear to be retaliating, or they may
actually retaliate for not being hired. Finally, no Board member may profit from their position.
There may be some precedent to that type of transition in for-profit companies. However, given
the unique role of the WSBA and its duty to the Court and the public, to seek employment at that
level while an active Governor has a very bad appearance indeed.
7 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 Mr. Bridges identified those conflicts and said it was not appropriate to consider a sitting
Governor for that position. He was told by the Executive Director, President, and Officers that he
was wrong because the Governor being considered was a good person and would not do anything
wrong. Governor Bridges replied that conflicts are not evaluated by whether the person is likable.1
Conflicts must be evaluated objectively. Governor Bridges used the oft-repeated example of the
soccer mom who makes off with the league’s money; no person would have suspected the conduct.
The Executive Director hired the still-sitting Governor. That is notable not only for the
conflict but the decision itself. That Governor, while an able lawyer, was only an eight-year lawyer
with no particular job experience for the role. However, he had been a long-time ally of the
Executive Director’s and one of the chorus telling new Governors to “defer” to staff. It is not
credible that out of the entire state and adjoining states, that an 8-year lawyer with no relevant
experience was the only, the one, the best qualified person for the job. A key responsibility of
general counsel is to advise the Board including advice that the Executive Director may be taking
action contrary to the Bylaws or Court Rules. The Executive Director was seeking to insulate
herself from oversight by hiring a close ally with no appreciable experience for the job.
There are too many instances of conflicts and self-dealing to identify. As another example,
the Executive Director is in a personal relationship with the chairperson of the Limited License
Legal Technician Board (a WSBA committee). In 2018 the Executive Director approved a
summer, overnight retreat in Wenatchee for the LLLT Board. That Board already meets once a
month in Seattle, since most members reside in the Puget Sound area. However, the chairperson
of the LLLT Board’s office is in Cashmere, Washington - a few miles from Wenatchee. That onenight retreat, with plus-ones (the Executive Director attended as well), cost WSBA over $10,000
in hotel rooms, food, including mileage reimbursements for Seattle-based members to drive to
Wenatchee. Governor Bridges has been actively investigating this self-dealing use of WSBA funds
albeit he must go through staff for the information- staff who answer to the Executive
Director.
Several years ago, the same person (current head of the LLLT Board), while in a
relationship with the Executive Director, chaired a committee to suggest bylaw changes. Those
are the bylaws identified above that centralized power in the Executive Director and President.
One of the proposals was to change the Executive Director’s position from an at-will employee,
serving at the pleasure of the Board, necessary for the Board’s independent oversight, to effectively
a for-cause discharge requirement insulating the Executive Director from Board oversight. In other
words, he sought the change the bylaws of the entire Washington State Bar Association in ways
that favored an employee with whom he has a personal relationship.

1

Mr. Bridges’ emphasizes that Governor was likeable and seemingly a person of high character. However, that
is not the point.

8 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 As a final example of material irregularity, without Board authorization, the Executive
Director testified in front of the State Legislature on behalf of WSBA against a measure being
advanced by WSBA members, in violation of WSBA rules. WSBA has bylaws and procedures
strictly restricting presentations to Legislature because the Supreme Court by GR 12 forbids such
comments subject to a few limited exceptions. Thus, to protect against inappropriate lobbying,
the WSBA has an entire committee whose only purpose is to evaluate WSBA statements to the
legislature, which then must be approved by the entire Board before they may be made. Instead,
the Executive Director and leadership testified to the legislature against the WSBA members'
proposal without submitting their testimony to the committee or getting approval from the Board.
They claim to have testified in their personal capacities, but introduced themselves to the
legislature by their WSBA titles. Worse, they did not even advise the Board about it. The Board
only learned after the fact because members alerted some Governors. Governor Bridges has
spoken out against this type of ongoing disregard of WSBA bylaws and Court Rules. Similarly,
only a few months ago the Executive Director again actively lobbied in Olympia, with the same
LLLT Board chairperson identified above, to expand the LLLT program. Not only was that a
violation of WSBA bylaws and Court Rules, it openly flaunted the authority of the Supreme Court
because the Court has authority and jurisdiction over that program, not the Legislature. The
Executive Director and the LLLT chairperson were lobbying in the event they could not get what
they wanted for the LLLT program from the Supreme Court. 2
4.

Governor Bridges as Whistleblower
The issues identified above are only examples. There are others.

Those who believe they are losing power and authority because of Governor Bridges’
whistleblowing have undertaken a course of conduct to retaliate against him.
The current WSBA President stated he was hostile to the bylaws proposed by Governor
Bridges to decentralize power before they were passed, and has repeatedly stated after passage that
he views them as a reduction of his power. They do not take away the President’s power but even
if they did, he should not have had such power in the first place. The President also has opposed
Governor Bridges’ bylaw amendment to align voting rights in Board committees with those who
can vote on the Board: Governors. That was necessary because, for years, important policy and
oversight of WSBA was being decided not by the Board, but by staff and non-voting officers in
committees, that then passed recommendations to the Board, that in turn rubber stamped those
recommendations. That problem was exacerbated by the fact that for years WSBA disregarded its
2

The head of the LLLT Board has openly stated at LLLT meetings that if the Supreme Court does not approve
expansions as he has asked, he will lobby in Olympia including the Governor to get what he wants. This team of
the Executive Director and her friend have long leveraged the Executive Director’s position to advance his agenda
without any oversight and are undeterred by Court Rules or the bylaws.

9 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 quorum requirements, conducting meetings without a quorum of Governors present. 3 Another one
of Governor Bridges’ bylaw amendments made it clear WSBA business may not be transacted
without a quorum. Governor Papailiou has repeatedly opposed the amendment and criticized
Governor Bridges’ efforts to adhere to quorum requirements – a requirement that specifically
affects Governor Papailiou, who is frequently missing from committee meetings. At a committee
meeting after that bylaw passed, Governor Papailou again openly criticized the amendment and,
when less-than a quorum showed up, asserted it was Governor Bridges’ fault they could not hold
the meeting.
Once the amendments were proposed, leadership and staff openly abused their power to
block them.
Governor Bridges brought his proposed amendments to the Board’s executive committee
because it sets the Board’s meeting agenda. The then-President (Furlong) refused to put them on
the agenda, claiming there was not enough time in the meeting, which was untrue. Instead, the
President and Executive Director filled the time by having an outside lawyer give a presentation
on why the Board should not be too involved in oversight. President Furlong ignored the proposals
for so long that Governor Bridges and several others had to call a special meeting to address them.
Under WSBA bylaws, five governors may call a special meeting, but that is not effective
unless posted two days in advance on the WSBA web site. Once notice is given, there is no
discretion on the part of the Executive Director to post the notice – the Executive Director must
do so. The Executive Director refused do so in violation of the rules. Thereby, the Executive
Director blocked the special meeting from taking place – a special meeting that proposed
amendments to restore the Board’s oversight of the Executive Director. Yet again, the Executive
Director was directly blocking Board oversight.
After months of delay, the bylaws were finally placed on an agenda for a vote. Governor
Bridges moved for a vote and was seconded. The WSBA President was Bill Pickett. The new
President refused to allow a vote. Governor Bridges moved again, was seconded again, and still
President Pickett refused. Governors objected and another moved, was again seconded, and the
President again refused. He offered no excuse other than he was President and that was how it
was going to be. While the fault for that lays with the President, it is notable that neither the
Executive Director or her newly hired General Counsel did or said anything to the President to
“suggest” his approach was inappropriate, presumably because he was defending their agenda.
And saying nothing that particularly highlights why the Executive Director hired that particular
person as General Counsel. That person’s duty was to the entity, and by extension the Board. That
3

Recently Governor Bridges spot checked minutes of both the Board and committees and found them wildly
inaccurate. Staff are noting governors as present who are not, or as being present for Board meetings that are two
days when they were only present one day. The Board typically rubberstamps the minutes amongst over 500
pages of new material for every meeting.

10 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 duty required giving advice that blocking the vote was wrong. Nothing was said. This is yet
another example of how leadership has abused power to block reforms.
Governor Bridges had to call another special meeting. The bylaws were passed by the
Board at that meeting without the President because the current Board, fortunately, is governed by
a majority who want to discharge its duty to provide oversight of the WSBA.
After the passage of those bylaws President Pickett has been, according to multiple
accounts, creating a dysfunctional environment in meetings by exploding with anger, openly
calling Board members liars, and demanding those same Board members be impeached because
of the content of their speech, which, given the nature of the WSBA constitutes political speech.
According to multiple accounts, two weeks ago at a personnel committee meeting he resorted to
yelling, again demanded that the Board remove two Governors because he disagreed with the
content of some of their emails to their WSBA-member constituents.
That same day, Governor Bridges took President aside and gave him notice why the attacks
on Governors must stop. Governor Bridges explained not only was the conduct not becoming the
President of the Bar, it was inappropriate for him to not appreciate he was demanding nothing less
than censorship over the content of speech, and worse, political speech. Governor Bridges said if
anyone should be aware of the impropriety of that it is the President of the State Bar. Governor
Bridges reminded the President the governors he was attacking also supported Governor Bridges’
bylaw amendments and have identified issues of irregularities by leadership, and that this was the
same pattern of retaliation against whistleblowers that had been going on for years against
Governors who ask questions including himself. Despite receiving that notice, the President would
not be deterred. He said if the Board did not stop those two Governors, he would. How he was
going to stop them was left unsaid.
Governor Bridges interceding with the President on that issue is no less whistleblowing
than the actions identified above. The President threatening Governors with impeachment because
of their criticism of the WSBA is retaliation not only against those two Governors but the entire
Board. It is nothing less than a statement that if a Governor speaks out, the President will retaliate
by any means whether or not within his authority.
5.

President Pickett Has Engaged In Public Retaliation Against Governor Bridges

The Board’s November 2018 meeting was the first where Governor Bridges assumed his
duties as treasurer and an officer. For years, Board officers have been seated at the front to lead
the meeting. Governor (now treasurer) Bridges found a first-year Governor in his seat. He asked
him why and was told the President told him to sit there. The President was walking by, simply
smiled and said, “because I decided that is the way it is going to be for now on.” Not wanting to

11 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 cause a scene, Governor Bridges sat on the periphery, where the President ordered his name
placard be placed.
Removing Governor Bridges from the Officer’s podium and ordering him to sit on the
periphery was retaliation. It was a public humiliation of now-Treasurer Bridges in front of the
staff and the Board and a clear message that if Governor Bridges, or any Governor, challenged the
President or continued to identify issues, they also would be retaliated against, their positions
minimized, and publicly humiliated. To engage in such an act, in such a public manner, was
intended to send a message.
After taking his new seat, it took Governor Bridges a few minutes for the shock of what
happened to wear off and understand the act of retaliation for what it was. He located the President
and asked that they step into a conference room.
Again, Governor Bridges gave notice to President Pickett that his conduct was retaliation.
He identified the issues outlined above with emphasis on the President’s ongoing mistreatment of
Governor Bridges over proposing bylaw amendments to restore the oversight of the Board and his
defense of Governors over whom the President had been demanding the removal. Other issues
were identified. Governor Bridges laid out his whistleblowing activities, told the President he was
retaliating against him as a whistleblower, and demanded that he stop, starting with not demeaning
him by removing him from the officer’s podium.
Upon receiving notice, the President refused to change his mind, offered a variety of
pretexts that were patently untrue, and said “I am President, I can do what I want, and that is the
way it is going to be.”
The conversation was going nowhere. Governor Bridges said they should return to the
Boardroom.
The Board was engaged in approximately one hour of training and resumed business. The
meeting went for about 30 minutes with Governor Bridges consigned to the periphery seat where
President Pickett put him. One Governor spoke up and demanded to know why the President
“retaliated against Dan by removing him from the officer’s table.” That Governor was Paul
Swegle, he is one of the Governors President Pickett had been demanding the Board impeach.
President Pickett denied he was retaliating and offered the same pretexts he told Governor Bridges
earlier.
After discussion, Governor Swegle moved that “President Pickett be instructed to stop
retaliating against Governor Bridges and move him back to the Officer’s table.” Governors
immediately seconded the motion. President Pickett would not acknowledge the motion.
Governor Swegle asked if he was going to call a vote. President Pickett asked Governor Swegle
12 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 if he “wanted to run the meeting.” He replied, “sure.” He called for a vote and it passed
unanimously except for the abstention of Governor Papailiou.
6.

Executive Staff and President Picket Have Leveraged A Personnel Issue to Further
Retaliate Against Governor Bridges

Shortly after Governor Bridges announced his bylaw amendments, a lower-level staff
member asserted Governor Bridges hit on her two and half years earlier at a Board retreat in Walla
Walla when he was not yet even a Governor. He was invited to attend as a guest to meet the Board
team. The staff member did not make a complaint. Instead, Governor Papailiou while at a bar
with the staffer asked what she thought of Governor Bridges and she related Governor Bridges
asked her to his room or asked to go to hers. She indicated she was not overly bothered by it and
that is why she did not complain.
Governor Bridges adamantly denies the allegation. He has taken and passed a polygraph
administered by a Washington Department of Corrections-certified technician, affirming his
truthfulness that the alleged overture did not occur. Importantly: an independent investigation
determined what was alleged was not harassment, that no person (female staff or Governor) ever
witnessed Governor Bridges engage in a single inappropriate act his entire time with the Board,
and concluded that no action should or need be taken. The issue of this “complaint” was not raised
until after Governor Bridges offered his proposed bylaw amendments that not only the Executive
Director but others on staff saw as undermining the authority the Executive Director had
accumulated for staff over the years. Regardless, Governor Papailiou took this information to
President Pickett. The two of them brought this information to the Executive Director.
It is not Governor Bridges’ position the WSBA should have ignored the information.
However, instead speaking to the staff member and Governor Bridges as would be the reasonable
response of any reasonable employer given the nature of the claim, the President and Executive
Director retained an investigator and over the course of months dragged Governor Bridges through
an investigation wholly disproportionate to what the issue was even if admitted. President Pickett,
Governor Papailou, and executive staff have since exaggerated the claim beyond all bounds. The
entire process became a subterfuge to make an ongoing attack on Governor Bridges.
Despite that, the investigator determined nothing inappropriate happened, even assuming
the alleged conduct occurred. No WSBA rules were broken much less the law of discrimination.
The investigation revealed no person (with an emphasis on women interviewees) among staff or
the Board ever witnessed Governor Bridges engage in inappropriate behavior. Even the staff
member who “complained” admitted that at all times Governor Bridges acted appropriately during
the intervening 2.5 years. Not a single person could be found corroborating the claim. The staff
member could not even identify a person she told this to in confidence at the time. She told no

13 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 person because it did not happen. This only “happened” after the bylaw proposals and Mr.
Bridges’ ongoing whistleblowing against her coworkers.
Despite the report’s conclusion, and before the report was read by the full Board, Governor
Papailiou began unsuccessfully demanding Governor Bridges be impeached. He phoned at least
one Governor asking if he moved to impeach, would they second the motion. The Governor
rejected the overture.
The following treads lightly because it occurred in Executive Session, but Executive
Session cannot be used as a shield for illegal behavior:
Not content with the conclusion of the investigator, Governor Papailiou repeatedly
demanded the Board take punitive action against Governor Bridges despite the report. He again
made the false allegation Governor Bridges “bullied” the compensation consultant (discussed
above) and made a variety of unsuccessful motions ranging from impeachment to demanding the
Board censure Governor Bridges. President Pickett encouraged the motions. Nobody seconded
them. Governor Papailious’s motions were in retaliation against Governor Bridges, consistent with
Governor Papailiou’s ongoing attacks over Governor Bridges’ bylaw reforms.
Discontent with the foregoing failure to impeach Governor Bridges, Governor Papailiou
recently, and in bad faith, made a complaint to the WSBA against Governor Bridges because, in
his capacity as treasurer, Governor Bridges sent a memo to the entire Board asking that all
Governors do a better job of personally attending committee meetings. The impetus of that memo
was the fact that at a recent budget and audit meeting, Governor Bridges was the only Governor
who attended (plus the then treasurer). The meeting had to be put off 45 minutes while phone calls
were made to get Governors on the phone to attend by phone.
Months after the investigation was closed, the staff member who had spoken to Governor
Papailiou filled a notice of tort claim against the WSBA. That claim is lacking in any substance.
It is approximately two pages trying to leverage the me-too movement, it relates some of the
content of the investigator’s report, while deftly omitting all the portions where the staff member
admitted Governor Bridges’ good conduct and that the report found nothing actionable took place,
followed by a demand for $150,000.
The complaint is not even against Governor Bridges. It is against the Board, claiming that
electing Governor Bridges to the position of treasurer was in retaliation against her making a
complaint. That defies reason, considering the treasurer has no more contact with that employee
than any member of the Board, and Board members have essentially no contact with her
themselves. The Board did not elect Governor Bridges for any reason other than the fact the senior
member of the budget and audit committee is always elected treasurer and he was that person.

14 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 We will not go into detail out of sensitivity to the employee’s still pending demand for
money. Suffice it to say the same people who retaliated against and blocked Governor Bridges’
whistleblowing are steering the staffer’s claim toward settlement, incorrectly suggesting it has
merit, having agreed to an immediate mediation instead of defending the claim. 4 Any rational and
reasonable decision maker would defend and move for CR 11 sanctions. Not only would the claim
not survive summary judgment, any attorney filing it would subject themselves to sanctions due
to its frivolity.
7.

Conclusion and Demand

This retaliation must stop immediately. The WSBA Leadership’s retaliation and
undermining of Governor Bridges within the WSBA will have the same effect of undermining him
as an attorney. Governor Bridges has been practicing law for approximately 25 years. He litigates
high-stakes cases against large entities attempting to vindicate the rights of injured persons. His
reputation and his word, to both his clients and the Court, is the only thing he has. The conduct of
the WSBA through the actions identified above are nothing less than an intentional character
assignation of Governor Bridges. Worse, the actors identified above are taking the very same
protected, whistleblowing acts of Governor Bridges and twisting them into asserting they are
misconduct by him. Those involved are so entrenched in their own poor actions they defensively
see Governor Bridges’ even asking questions about their actions as misconduct by him for even
raising the issue.
Beyond the economic impact and damage, the personal distress caused is immeasurable.
Although a litigator accustomed to fighting other people’s battles, these personal attacks have
taken a heavy toll that need not be detailed here. They are material.
Perhaps most importantly not only for himself but the Board, although he is functioning as
treasurer as well as any past as to the fundamental duties, his drive to take the extra steps of
research and investigation of irregularities much less bring them forward and face further
retaliation is curbed. These acts of retaliation have had exactly their desired effect.
Governor Bridges’ motivation in making this claim notice is to make the retaliation against
him stop. However, the notice of tort claim statute requires a specific demand be made. Thus,
while distasteful but to comply with the statute and give notice of the gravity of the misconduct
and the damage caused, Governor Bridges’ damages are an amount not less than one million
dollars. The actions identified above are nothing less than a professional character assassination
of Governor Bridges to destroy a career he has spent 25 years making, and worse, it is being done
to cover up and perpetuate their own mismanagement.

4

More could be said but will not so as to not disclose privileged information. The staffer knows WSBA agreed
to an immediate mediation. Identifying that violates no privilege.

15 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044

 Governor Bridges has asked me to make clear these issues do not run throughout the entire
WSBA. The Board is a very cohesive and cordial group notwithstanding the actors mentioned.
WSBA does an excellent job at many things by amazing staff members. Many in the executive
tier are enormously qualified, incredibly ethical, and only have the rule of law and what is right
as their motivating goal.

Sincerely,

Gregory Albert
Albert Law PLLC
3131 Western Ave., Suite 410
Seattle, WA 98121
(206) 576-8044

16 of 16
3131 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 410  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121  WWW.ALBERTLAWPLLC.COM  (206) 576-8044