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.

In the aftermath of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, several news reports identified them as “legal observers.” Fox News Channel entertainer Sean Hannity took issue with this label being applied to Good, arguing it was unlikely she was a legal observer because she did not have a law degree.

For more than 75 years, the King County Bar Association has conducted surveys and evaluations of judicial officers as part of its commitment to support an informed public, a strong legal profession, and a fair and effective judiciary. 

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 Rothrock was born in Bangalore, India, to young Philadelphians living abroad as teachers. The Judge has lived in Seattle since 1970.1 The Judge’s immediate family consisted of Mom, Dad, Son, and Daughter. Together with a beloved golden retriever, they were the West Coast contingent of a larger family network located on the East Coast and in Indiana. 

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.

Community volunteers are critical to our ability to serve clients through KCBA’s pro bono programs. This dedicated group includes students, legal professionals, and other community members who do not otherwise work in the legal profession and who want to give back, gain new skills and experiences, and support access to justice efforts.