Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Revisiting The Client Conundrum: Whom Does Lawyer For A Government Represent, And Who Gives Direction To That Governmental Lawyer?, Hugh D. Spitzer
Revisiting The Client Conundrum: Whom Does Lawyer For A Government Represent, And Who Gives Direction To That Governmental Lawyer?, Hugh D. Spitzer
Articles
The issue of identifying a government attorney’s client is age-old, and Washington’s Rules of Professional Conduct provide somewhat different answers for lawyers who are government employees and for those who are with private firms. The matter becomes even more interesting when a government entity’s attorney is a publicly-elected legal official: an attorney general, prosecuting attorney, or city attorney in the case of Seattle and a number of other cities around the country. Others have written thoughtful pieces on the topic from a national perspective, and there is at least one excellent but slightly outdated piece by District of Columbia municipal …
"Home Rule" Vs. "Dillon's Rule" For Washington Cities, Hugh D. Spitzer
"Home Rule" Vs. "Dillon's Rule" For Washington Cities, Hugh D. Spitzer
Articles
This Article focuses on the tension between the late-nineteenth-century “Dillon’s Rule” limiting city powers, and the “home rule” approach that gained traction in the early and mid-twentieth century. Washington’s constitution allows cities to exercise all the police powers possessed by the state government, so long as local regulations do not conflict with general laws. The constitution also vests charter cities with control over their form of government. But all city powers are subject to “general laws” adopted by the legislature. Further, judicial rulings on city powers to provide public services have fluctuated, ranging from decisions citing the “Dillon’s Rule” doctrine …
A Local Government By Any Other Name, In Proceedings Of The Washington State Association Of Municipal Attorneys, Hugh D. Spitzer
A Local Government By Any Other Name, In Proceedings Of The Washington State Association Of Municipal Attorneys, Hugh D. Spitzer
Articles
This paper reviews the categories that Washington legislators and the Washington State Supreme Court have used to classify and describe local government units. It then describes how the large array of classifications—and the lack of consistent interpretation and use of those labels—leads to confusion and unnecessary litigation. After presenting several case studies of the effects of confusing definitions, the paper suggests that legislation reducing the number of terms classifying local governments would benefit lawyers, judges, local government and the general public. It specifically recommends that "municipal corporation" become the standard category for almost all local governments, and that "governmental body" …