Two Types of Lawyers - Those Who Think, and Those Who Follow

I had the most interesting exchange yesterday with an attorney who works for the State of Washington. Our discussion was about the law of adverse possession and whether it need be changed. Without question, she was well-qualified to discuss the law. But, what surprised me was her inability to apply logic and reason to her argument (or even to counter mine). Sadly, all she could do was to regurgitate what she learned in Property (law school) rather than look at the issue at hand, which is should Washington change its adverse possession laws? So, I thought it would be a good idea to send her a note following up on our talk.

Just wanted to express my appreciation in talking with you yesterday about adverse possession. Clearly, we have differences of opinion about the law.

As you know, it was 1881 since the last time Washington's adverse possession law was changed. If you believe that we should keep laws stagnant and unchanged as to what they were in 1881, then I guess then that you subscribe to the view that women should not have the right to vote. For after all, in 1881 it was Constitutionally settled law that women did not have the right to vote.

In fact, it took 133 years for that change to occur. For 200+ years, people could legally justify owning slaves. I'm sure you do not believe that the Dred Scott decision was right. Legal, yes... but was it right? Other laws, that I'm sure you touched upon in law school, like dowry and curtsy no longer exist because society has moved beyond their need. Heck, can you imagine what our jails would be like if we still enforced "debtor's prison" today?

If there is anything that I can convince you of, it is this: the original need for adverse possession has faded. It is a law whose time has come and gone. As a country, we do not face starvation, and we no longer live in the wild west. Times have changed, needs have changed, society has changed. It is time for the law to change, too.

Because of this, both New York and Colorado have recently made substantive changes to their adverse possession laws. I suggest you read up on what they have changed and why. Obviously, this was not a trivial matter for these jurisdictions and their legislators. But, they did it because the people voiced their concern that current adverse possession statutes were outdated and in need of improvement. It is time for Washington to move beyond 1881 and catch up to today's standards.

If you have any other questions about adverse possession or why other people in Washington support House Bill 1026, please let me know.

Sincerely, Chris

What I've learned in talking with attorneys about the law (and yes... I've talked to A LOT of attorneys) is that there are basically two types of lawyers out there. Those who are great at knowing the law and reciting cases, and others who are great at thinking logically and are emotionally unbiased. I prefer the latter. We need logic and reason if society is to move forward. Appeals to history, appeals to authority, false dilemmas simply should not be used as legal justification. The law needs to be thought of as being alive. It changes and needs to change as society grows. I just wish there were more attorneys who applied logic and reason to their work, rather than who can just recite cases.

Who do Representatives Really Support?

Last week, I had the pleasure of talking with Representative Ed Orcutt, who is the Washington state sponsor of bill HB 1479, which is an act that would end legalized land theft (aka adverse possession) in Washington state.

All politics aside, Mr. Orcutt is one top-notch representative (all other representatives, please take note).

Last time I checked, we live in a representative democracy, where the PEOPLE elect those to represent OUR needs, wants and desires. This way, laws are passed that reflect the majority of the population.

In sponsoring HB 1479, Mr. Orcutt is doing exactly what his duty requires - to create laws that the populace wants.

In fact, Mr. Orcutt was kind enough to provide End Adverse Possession Now with a quote regarding his views on HB 1479 and ending legalized land theft.

“I have seen the cost and headaches suffered by homeowners as they try to defend their property from taking via adverse possession and the resulting heartache when they lost it anyway – for no valid reason,” says the bill’s prime sponsor, Rep Ed Orcutt (R) Kalama. “It is a law that made sense in ancient times but has little or no value today. It is an issue which needs to be addressed by the legislature to fit modern times – before it tears apart more families and neighborhoods."

This stands in stark contrast to Rep. Jamie Pederson, whom I have also shared communications with. Mr. Pedersen, a lawyer by trade and Yale Law School graduate, advocates legalized land theft, and despite numerous e-mails and calls to his office by many constituents in Washington, Mr. Pedersen instead sides with the attorneys who have so much to lose if HB 1479 passes.

And, that is the issue... instead of being a representative of the PEOPLE, Mr. Pedersen prefers to represent his attorney friends (the same, which by the way who contributed significantly to his election).

We stand on the cusp of new legislation, HB 1479, which would end legalized land theft. It is time that our representatives do the right thing, and show their support of this bill that represents fairness and justice for all.