The Stoner Precedent

The Washington State Court of Appeals has held that a non-attorney private citizen cannot sue the ACLU and a chapter of NORML over their respective roles in the decision to legalize marijuana.

 Arthur West appeals a superior court order dismissing his complaint that alleged a violation of the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA), ch. 42.17A RCW. The superior court ruled that West could not bring an FCPA action as a self-represented (pro se) litigant because the FCPA requires that such actions be maintained in the name of the state. West argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his suit because the FCPA contemplates that individuals may file “citizen’s actions” under the statute without representation of legal counsel. Although the FCPA speaks of “persons” and “individuals,” a citizen’s action under the FCPA precludes suits by pro se litigants because such actions must be brought in the name of the state. Therefore, we hold that the superior court did not err in dismissing West’s suit and we affirm…

West’s complaint alleged that the ACLU and NORML, in supporting I-502, had engaged in electoral politics without registering as political action committees in violation of state law. West alleged that by so acting, NORML violated its own articles of incorporation and engaged in conduct prohibited to entities registered as nonprofit organizations under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c).

Below

The superior court agreed that West could not sue in the name of the state as a pro se litigant and entered an order dismissing the action if West did not obtain legal representation within two weeks. The superior court ruled that it would not permit West to proceed without counsel in this action because doing so would constitute the unauthorized practice of law. A licensed attorney then appeared on behalf of West, but shortly thereafter withdrew.

The court here (without expressing irony) relies on a Ninth Circuit case – the Stoner decision.

As in Stoner, West can point to no language which permits him to proceed pro se and the legislature here did not specifically authorize citizen’s actions to be maintained by pro se litigants.  It appears as though the legislature envisioned that such actions would be carried on by licensed attorneys because the statute expressly provides for an award of attorney fees if the person who sues prevails. RCW 42.17A.765(4)(b).

We hold that no pro se exception applies here because West is not acting solely on his own behalf. Therefore, permitting him to maintain this action without representation by a licensed attorney would amount to the unauthorized practice of law.

(Mike Frisch)