Comments for BRUCE HANIFY

Comment on What Would Jack Do? by Bruce Hanify

Bruce Hanify — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 03:54:25 +0000

Man! I’m just happy I had a visitor!

0 likes

Comment on What Would Jack Do? by Steve Graham

Steve Graham — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 03:35:07 +0000

Nice post, Bruce. Who do you think is the modern iconic defense lawyer on L&O? As for the sportspages, I only know enough to know that Ichiro was traded.

0 likes

Comment on Talking Raven Interview, Seattle 1993 by website

website — Thu, 31 May 2012 05:02:58 +0000

Im getting a small problem. I cant get my reader to pick-up your feed, Im using bing reader by the way.

0 likes

Comment on Clallam County Age Discrimination Case Settled for $1.6 Million by Bruce Hanify

Bruce Hanify — Thu, 24 May 2012 23:39:42 +0000

Your input is appreciated.

4 likes

Comment on Clallam County Age Discrimination Case Settled for $1.6 Million by Michael A. Patterson

Michael A. Patterson — Thu, 24 May 2012 23:20:41 +0000

It’s hard to trust the writings of somebody that doesn’t even know the simple facts of the case. First, Kathy Nielsen was not a deputy prosecutor, she was a legal assistant. Robin Porter was also a legal assistant. Of the four plaintiffs, only one of them was an attorney, Carol Case, the others were all staff. Second, Nielsen did not resign “under extreme duress”. She resigned during a disciplinary hearing which was the result of an altercation she had with her supervising attorney where her behavior was aggressive, hostile and rude. Nielsen even admits that she behaved inappropriately during this altercation. Her resignation letter stated that she was giving two weeks’ notice and in her deposition, Nielsen explained that she would be willing to stay to clean things up and train her replacement. Somebody who is resigning “under extreme duress” would not voluntarily give 2 weeks’ notice and offer to train their replacement.
Third, you are misinformed when you state that “The allegations in the pleading, while not proven in a trial, apparently were sufficiently credible to induce the county to settle the lawsuit.” The County had no choice but to settle due to the business decision made by its insurance carrier. This decision had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Had the County decided to proceed to trial, it would have cost tax payers directly in that the County would have had to hire its own attorneys. For the benefit of saving tax payer dollars, the County decided to go along with the insurance company’s business decision. As it stands, the tax payers are only out $100,000, which would have been much more had the County hired its own attorneys to try the case.
Fourth, the turnover during Kelly’s term was not due to age discrimination, nor is turnover a sign that age discrimination exists. Only three employees resigned because of a conflict with management. The majority (14) of employees left because they found different jobs. Eight were terminated for various job performance reasons and/or misconduct and seven moved out of the area. Four employees quit due to medical issues. Also, the majority of the employees who left during Kelly’s tenure were not staff, they were attorneys. In fact, many of the staff have been employed by the prosecutor’s office since the 1980’s.
Kelly appointed Nichols as chief deputy because she recognized that she was not an effective manager. She needed somebody that could take on the task of effectively and efficiently managing a group of employees who were used to a freewheeling, unprofessional culture that did not require accountability to the taxpayers or to the elected prosecutor. It was a culture where employees were allowed to use profanity, call each other names, treat each other inappropriately, and basically not perform their jobs correctly, thus wasting taxpayer dollars. Kelly took serious issue with this and recognized the need for change. Only when she began to affect change did she face resistance. Nichols was able to step to the plate and assist Kelly with changing the office culture to one that was much more accountable and responsible. Part of this change was weeding out the poor performers and employees that fostered this inappropriate culture. Even though Nichols did not have as many years of experience as others within the office, he was the only one that possessed the skill and ability to properly manage long-term employees who were stuck in their ways. Nichols was loyal and willing to face hard issues. Moreover, Nichols was highly recommended by the former chief deputy. The County Commissioners also agreed that Nichols would be the best fit for the job.
There was no “campaign of ‘going younger’”. The only “campaign” was that of cleaning up the office and bringing it to standards in professionalism, productivity and accountability. The plaintiffs were the epitome of unprofessional behavior, unproductivity and therefore, unaccountable in their actions both towards the elected as well as the taxpayers. In fact, Case’s behavior was more often than not hostile towards her co-workers and unprofessional towards people outside of the office. She even went so far as walking out of a courtroom in the middle of oral argument. A judge often complained that she would behave disrespectfully in court by rolling her eyes and muttering under her breath. Law enforcement complained about how she treated their staff in a condescending and rude manner. Defense counsel didn’t particularly enjoy working with Case either. Porter, Nielsen and Sundt also fostered a hostile environment towards co-workers as well. Nielsen even went so far as calling her supervising attorney a lonely old woman who was a waste of the State’s money. Porter wasted tax payer dollars by frequently using the internet and County email system for personal use. Sundt fostered a hostile environment by failing to properly discipline the employees she was charged with managing when they acted in inappropriate ways towards others. Sundt also was not accountable to the taxpayers. She failed to maintain the budget properly and even overdrew on it and frequently failed to pay invoices in a timely fashion or not at all. She also did not maintain records properly which are key to having an efficient and effective prosecutor’s office. Sundt was not placed on administrative leave in retaliation to receiving the letter from her attorney. She was placed on administrative leave for failing to pay a very overdue invoice and for failing to properly handle an employee misconduct issue the previous week following several discussions with management that Sundt needed to improve in the area of overall office management. Sundt, along with Nielsen, had been progressively disciplined, informally and formally, and yet, both failed to remedy their behaviors. Porter was also progressively disciplined, yet she continued to have a pattern of extreme absences and continued to misuse County resources.
Case was placed on administrative leave and required to undergo a fitness for duty evaluation after a string of events where she behaved inappropriately. One event led to a staff member having to leave the office early because she was so upset by Case’s actions towards her. Upon Case’s return to the office following administrative leave, Case seemed to target this staff member. Case’s inappropriate and harassing behavior continued towards this staff member for months, despite being counseled time and time again to cease. Case also targeted other employees and made others feel extremely uncomfortable in her actions. Finally, it became apparent that Case was not capable of behaving appropriately towards others and Kelly had no other choice but to terminate her. Case fostered a hostile environment that Kelly was trying to eliminate and Case left her with no other option but termination. Kelly admits that Case was an excellent and very capable attorney, but that her behavior was simply intolerable and toxic to the office.
Mr. Hanify, I would also like to point out that you even admitted in your deposition that you never witnessed anything that would support any kind of allegation as it relates to age discrimination. You even admitted that one of the reasons why you left was because Case’s behavior was making your life uncomfortable and that you had your own style of prosecuting and were not going to follow the mold that Kelly wanted you to follow. You also stated that you felt the office had no professional camaraderie of any kind, which is exactly what Kelly was trying to change and improve.
In regards to Porter’s death, she did not die of a “broken heart”. She died of a very aggressive form of brain tumor which had a very quick onset, and unfortunately, was not curable. She died within days of diagnosis and her employment with Clallam County did not cause this brain tumor.

1 likes

Comment on Clallam County Age Discrimination Case Settled for $1.6 Million by Ralph W. Anderson

Ralph W. Anderson — Thu, 24 May 2012 00:20:02 +0000

you are 100% right on that. Ms. Kelly is big on consequences for others, but not so much for her transgressions.
I enjoy your writing, Bruce. Between you and John Jay, I am educated when I read your posts. Keep it up.
I grew up 2 miles from where they hanged Nathan Hale. We had a print of Martin Luther telling the Holy Roman Emperor (and the Pope) he would not change his opinion even on threat of excommunication. Getting pushed around is not for me.

0 likes

Comment on Clallam County Age Discrimination Case Settled for $1.6 Million by Bruce Hanify

Bruce Hanify — Thu, 24 May 2012 00:14:02 +0000

Methinks a trial would have turned the torch on the Inquisitors at no small cost to purveyors of sanctimony.

1 likes

Comment on Clallam County Age Discrimination Case Settled for $1.6 Million by Ralph W. Anderson

Ralph W. Anderson — Wed, 23 May 2012 23:57:25 +0000

John is right. They ran throught the primary carrier’s coverage and were into the excess carrier. The attorneys’ fees for the defense must have been astronomical, as well. You read the situation well: the carriers evaluated their chances and decided there was a substantial risk that the verdict would exceed the settlement by a good bit.
I understand that the Plaintiffs did a mock jury, with the video deps of the main players. Rumor has it that the panel of 22 hated Kelly and Nichols, and would have awarded a boatload of damages to all four plaintiffs. That makes sense, since Kelly and Nichols would likely not do well under a good cross. The plaintiffs had a fine law firm and top flight attorney on the case, and I was far less impressed with the defense minion who took my deposition. He objected to my responsive answers to his questions when he did not like the answers. Very amateurish and mindlessly contentious. Apparently Hayden and others were even more critical of the defense guy than I was, and that is going some.
Good result for the plaintiffs. My heart breaks to hear what a cess pool that office was. I now understand better while all the professionals like you, Bruce, Drew Lauer, Will Payne, Lauren Erickson, and the like were driven out. Like Gresham’s Law, the bad money drives out the good. Further your affiant sayeth not.
I would have enjoyed a trial, however.

0 likes

Comment on Clallam County Age Discrimination Case Settled for $1.6 Million by john joseph jay

john joseph jay — Wed, 23 May 2012 23:37:21 +0000

p.s. btw, the lawyers for the risk pool just don’t “give away” money to litigants.

you can bet you bottom bippy that for an award like this, the lawyers conferred with senior adjusters at the risk pool and a fairly flinty/glinty/hard eyed appraisal was made of the risk at trial.

and, it is quite likely that the risk pool has “reinsurers,” e.g., a layer of insurance protection they have purchased to protect against the likelihood of suffering a hit like this, and that senior adjusters for the reinsurers were likely involved in discussing the reasonable cost likely to be expected at trial, and the resultant reasonable cost of settling the case to avoid such risk.

insurance companies, and risk pool managers, don’t “give” this kind of money away. it is wrested from them, on a showing that they find compelling, that their clients have done serious damage to others, and that there is no legally defensible position to excuse such conduct before a jury.

kelly’s comments are, therefore, not well taken.

0 likes

Comment on Clallam County Age Discrimination Case Settled for $1.6 Million by john joseph jay

john joseph jay — Wed, 23 May 2012 23:18:16 +0000

bruce:

i’ll make one other comment, and then leave off for a little bit.–

ask any personal injury lawyer, and he will tell you that it is very hard to cause older people significant economic harm. the simple irreducible fact is, older folks do not have enough working years left for economic harm to compound.

the fact that these litigants got such a significant amount of money meant that the clallam county risk pool lawyers made the assessment that the harm suffered by these folks went way beyond mere economic harm, and their assessment was a jury would find that deb kelly’s & mark nichols conduct was so egregious as to have also caused significant emotional and psychological harm, so far out of the pale of decent conduct as to expose the risk pool to a very serious hit at trial.

in this context, (and i have supplied the correct context, … , ask any p.i. guy if what i’ve said holds up), kelly’s comment about the nature of the settlement implying money was willy nilly “given away” by the risk pool lawyers will surely cause those who represented her some consternation.

it is one thing to represent someone who fouls up. it is quite another to know that you quite likely have represented someone who will learn exactly nothing from the experience, and is quite likely to expose the risk pool to this sort of damage time and again.

is there no one who will run against her?

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

p.s. ask ralph anderson about his assessment of this situation. i’d be interested in what he says.

0 likes