Civil Rights and Pro Bono

Our lawyers are committed to civil rights and pro bono work and have received a number of pro bono awards. We believe our system of justice requires a commitment by the bar to represent those who could not otherwise afford access to our justice system, and we are very committed to that cause. Our lawyers have successfully tried class actions on behalf of juveniles confined in an overcrowded detention facility with inadequate educational resources, institutionalized persons who have been denied adequate mental health treatment, and farm workers who needed adequate medical monitoring when handling pesticides. We believe this work not only is socially useful, but it also enhances our reputation with the bench and bar when we represent large commercial clients. Significant civil rights and pro bono cases that we have litigated include:

• Zavala v. Zirkle Fruit Co., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (2008) (represented class of 597 Mexican guest workers in employment litigation against agricultural employer involving federal H-2A guest worker program and other state and federal employment laws; obtained class-wide settlement including compensation to all guest workers joining in collective action wage claims)

• Rios v. Washington Department of Labor & Industries, 145 Wn.2d 483 (2002) (represented Washington farm workers in class action involving state pesticide protection rules; won landmark decision from Washington Supreme Court requiring agency rulemaking for medical monitoring to protect farm pesticide handlers)
• Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming injunction and contempt against treatment center for adjudicated dangerous sexual predators for failure to provide treatment)
• Lainez-Ortiz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 96 F.3d 393 (9th Cir. 1996) (represented Honduran citizen seeking political asylum in United States)
• LightHawk, The Environmental Air Force v. Robertson, 812 F. Supp. 1095 (W.D. Wash. 1993) (obtained summary judgment that Forest Service's attempt to employ its statutory right to "Smokey Bear to prohibit environmental group from lampooning "Smokey" violates the First Amendment)
• Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Mohla, 944 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1991) (obtained Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of timber company's counterclaims against environmental group resulting from environmental group's lawsuit against the Forest Service to seek further environmental review on timber sales. The counterclaims were dismissed on Noerr-Pennington grounds, establishing precedent in the 9th Circuit to discourage institution of SLAPP suits)