Mild enough to avoid detection by any medical testing used in a clinical setting but severe enough to preclude the plaintiff from ever enjoying a productive and meaningful life again. This is the most common fact pattern in the mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) cases that we receive calls on these days. The force of impact is often minor. We have seen mTBI claims born out of 8 mph rear-end collisions where the damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle was only $500-$1,000 but the damage to the plaintiff, according to their attorneys, was in excess of $30M. 

“The best public policy is made when you are listening to people who are going to be impacted.”
— Senator Elizabeth Dole

When the Board retooled KCBA’s mission statement recently, we contended with an issue that surely challenged past boards: trying to create a sleek, concise statement reflecting KCBA’s tri-faceted mission of professional development for members, pro bono service to the community, and public policy advocacy to improve our laws and systems. The exercise was a good reminder that although KCBA’s member services and pro bono programs are more high-profile aspects of our mission, public policy advocacy is also a critical facet of KCBA. In fact, public policy engagement enhances KCBA’s ability to meet our other two missions: improving the legal profession and providing legal services.

Each year on May 1, our nation observes Law Day, a time to reflect on one of the most fundamental founding principles of our democracy: the rule of law. Established by the American Bar Association in 1958 during a period of global uncertainty, Law Day was created to affirm the importance of legal institutions in protecting liberty, ensuring justice, and preserving the freedoms we often take for granted. Today, Law Day continues to serve as a powerful reminder of the essential role that law plays in shaping a fair and equitable society.

Update & Editor’s Note: Justice Barbara A. Madsen (2026). When the profile below appeared in the October 1993 Bar Bulletin, Justice Barbara A. Madsen was described as a rising jurist whose “meteoric rise” from Seattle Municipal Court to the Washington Supreme Court reflected hard work, risk-taking, and quiet determination. More than three decades later, that early promise has become a defining judicial legacy.

Eric Gillett demystifies why mediation often succeeds where traditional litigation stalls, showing that its power is in a fundamentally distinct, human-centered approach to resolving disputes. Drawing on his vast experience, he explains how confidentiality, flexibility, and interest-based problem-solving allow parties to move past entrenched positions and create solutions that courts cannot provide.

Nicholas Bartels reviews proposed amendments to Washington court rules that would modernize and simplify citation practices, including potentially ending mandatory parallel citations and requiring precise record citations in appellate filings. He says the changes would improve readability and reduce unneeded work, and suggests practitioners weigh in before the public comment period ends.

As in years past, the federal courts are weighing competing interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. When working with the Constitution, some judges and justices increasingly say they are “originalists.” This is an approach to viewing the Constitution based on their understanding of its text at the time it was written.
 

Kevin R. Boully and Thomas M. O’Toole explain that effective witness testimony is less about reciting facts and more about communicating in ways jurors can understand, remember, and trust. Drawing on principles of jury economics, they explain how witness preparation should account for jurors’ multifaceted decision-making to make testimony credible, compelling, and useful.

Some lawyers believe they are not good writers but are good public speakers: if given the chance to talk to the judge, they’d win their case. It makes sense that speaking is more natural. Speaking feels alive. It allows us to have a dialogue with the court, and thus to try out our best arguments and see how they land. If they don’t, we can pivot mid-sentence. That creates efficient and effective communication.
 

Judge Averil Rothrock reflects on how to honor Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy through intentional action and describes how the Superior Court tackles systemic racism and embeds diversity, equity, and inclusion into its operations. She outlines what the court has done — including adopting trauma-informed practices and hiring a DEI program manager — to make sustained institutional change.