Opinion Information Sheet

			

       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

ROBERT RUSSELL, an individual,              )
                                            )       No. 65523-0-I
                      Respondent,           )
                                            )       DIVISION ONE
              v.                            )
                                            )
DEBRA LYNN MAAS,                            )       PUBLISHED OPINION  
                                            )
                      Appellant,            )       FILED:   March 5, 2012
                                            )
              and                           )
                                            )
DOES 1 through 10; ROE COMPANIES )
XI through XX,                              )
                                            )
                      Defendants.           )
________________________________)

       Becker, J.  --  Under Mandatory Arbitration Rule 7.1(a), only an "aggrieved 

party" may appeal an arbitration award through a request for trial de novo.  This 

requirement is satisfied when an attorney files a request for trial de novo on 

behalf of an aggrieved client.  

       The issue presented by this appeal arose when an arbitrator found in 

favor of Robert Russell, plaintiff in a personal injury suit.  Counsel for defendant 

Debra Maas filed a request for trial de novo.

       Russell's injury occurred when he fell off a ladder while painting Maas's  

No. 65523-0-I/2

house, in which he and Maas lived together.  Russell believed that Maas did not 

really want to contest the arbitrator's decision.  Counsel for Russell tried to get 

Maas to admit this by taking her deposition.  At the deposition, counsel for Maas 

objected that the questions asked of Maas impinged upon confidential attorney-

client communications.  He instructed her not to answer such questions.  The 

deposition ended quickly.

       Russell then moved to strike Maas's request for trial de novo.  He alleged 

that it had been filed because Maas's insurer demanded it, not because she 

wanted it.  Maas opposed the motion.  Her declaration said she did not object to 

trial de novo and she felt her attorney was representing her best interests.  

       The court scheduled oral argument on the motion and asked that the 

clients be present in addition to counsel.  At the hearing, counsel for Russell 

argued that the request by Maas for a trial de novo should be stricken because 

she did not personally sign it.

       The trial court decided it was necessary to undertake a factual inquiry to 

determine what Maas wanted to do.  Over her lawyer's objections, Maas was 

sworn in to testify.  By this time, Maas also had independent counsel who was 

advising her on coverage issues; this attorney participated by telephone.

       Maas was questioned first by opposing counsel and then by the court.  

              [Counsel for Russell]: At any time since you learned of the 
       arbitrator's decision in this case has it been your personal desire to 
       have this case appealed and put in front of a jury?
              A:  I've -- on a personal level I've gone back and forth.  My 
       own conclusion is I'm not sure that I care.  I was hoping a decision 
       would have been made or would have been accepted but it's not 
       and I accept that.

                                           2 

No. 65523-0-I/3

              Q:  I'm unclear.  You accept the arbitrator's decision?
              A:  I --
              Q:  Or you accept the de novo request?
              A:  Both.
              . . . .
              Q:  Well, the question is, did you request a trial de novo? 
       Did you do that?  Did you want that?
              A:  I did not do that. But did I -- I don't know how to answer 
       the second question.  It was -- I did not direct anyone to make that 
       happen.

       The court asked Maas if she had been threatened with loss of insurance 

coverage:

              Is it your concern, Ms. Maas, that if you were to do 
       something else other than where we are today that you would lose 
       your insurance coverage?
              MS. MAAS:  I don't know and it's a concern that I don't know.
              THE COURT:  I don't know how else to ask this in a way 
       other than have you been threatened that you might lose your 
       insurance coverage if you were not to proceed?
              MS. MAAS:  No.

       Unpersuaded that Maas was the individual who made the decision to 

request a trial de novo, the court granted Russell's request to strike the request, 

thus leaving the arbitration award intact.  The court awarded Russell attorney 
fees and costs under MAR 7.3.  Maas appeals these rulings.1

       Application of court rules to the facts is a question of law reviewed de 

novo on appeal.  Kim v. Pham, 95 Wn. App. 439, 441, 975 P.2d 544, review

denied, 139 Wn.2d 1009 (1999).  The mandatory arbitration rules, like any other 

court rules, are interpreted as though they were drafted by the Legislature and 

are construed consistent with their purpose.  Wiley v. Rehak, 143 Wn.2d 339, 

       1 Russell renews an argument that the appeal is untimely.  A commissioner and 
panel of this court have already resolved this issue against Russell.  We do not address 
it again.
                                           3 

No. 65523-0-I/4

343, 20 P.3d 404 (2001).

                                           4 

No. 65523-0-I/5

       Under the mandatory arbitration rules, an aggrieved party may request 

trial de novo:

       Within 20 days after the arbitration award is filed with the clerk, any 
       aggrieved party not having waived the right to appeal may serve 
       and file with the clerk a written request for a trial de novo in the 
       superior court along with proof that a copy has been served upon 
       all other parties appearing in the case. 
Former MAR 7.1(a) (2001);2 see RCW 7.06.050.

       A notice for trial de novo filed by a nonaggrieved party is a nullity.  Wiley, 

143 Wn.2d at 347.  It is undisputed that Maas was an aggrieved party, while her 

attorney was not.  The question here is whether a request for trial de novo

signed only by the aggrieved party's attorney is effective.

       Once a party has designated an attorney to represent the party in regard 

to a particular matter, the court and the other parties to an action are entitled to 

rely upon that authority until the client's decision to terminate it has been brought 

to their attention.  Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wn.2d 539, 547, 573 P.2d 1302 (1978).  

Absent fraud, the actions of an attorney authorized to appear for a client are 

generally binding on the client.  Haller, 89 Wn.2d at 545-47; Rivers v. Wash. 

State Conference of Mason Contractors, 145 Wn.2d 674, 679, 41 P.3d 1175 

(2002). For example, under MAR 5.4, clients who are represented by counsel at 

the mandatory arbitration hearing need not attend the hearing personally to 

preserve their right to request a trial de novo. Trowbridge v. Walsh, 51 Wn. 

App. 727, 730, 755 P.2d 182 (1988).  

       2 MAR 7.1 was amended on September 1, 2011.  Former MAR 7.1 (2001) 
applies here.  
                                           5 

No. 65523-0-I/6

       An attorney may not, however, surrender a substantial right of a client 

without special authority granted by the client.  Graves v. P.J. Taggares Co., 94 

Wn.2d 298, 303, 616 P.2d 1223 (1980).  For example, an attorney needs the 

client's express authority to accept service of process, Ashcraft v. Powers, 22 

Wash. 440, 443, 61 P. 161 (1900); to settle or compromise a claim, Grossman v. 

Will, 10 Wn. App. 141, 149, 516 P.2d 1063 (1973); and to waive a jury trial, 

Graves, 94 Wn.2d at 305. 

       Russell contends that a request for a trial de novo surrenders a 

substantial right and accordingly falls into the category of actions for which a 

client's express authority is required.  We disagree.  Unlike settling a claim, filing 

an appeal does not terminate a litigant's rights to recovery.  By timely requesting 

a trial de novo, counsel for Maas exercised and preserved his client's right to a 

jury trial.  The right to a jury trial would have been surrendered completely had 

counsel failed to file.  If Maas disagreed with the decision to file the request, she 

did not lose anything substantial.  The opportunity for Maas to withdraw her 

request for trial de novo remains open to her until trial.  Hudson v. Hapner, 170 

Wn.2d 22, 35, 239 P.3d 579 (2010).  

       Russell points out that a trial de novo is a "substantive right" for purposes 
of RAP 2.2(a)(3),3 such that a trial court's decision to deny a trial de novo may 

       3  RAP 2.2(a)(3) provides: 
       Unless otherwise prohibited by statute or court rule and except as 
       provided in sections (b) and (c), a party may appeal from only the 
       following superior court decisions:
              . . . . 
              (3) Decision Determining Action.  Any written decision affecting a 
                                           6 

No. 65523-0-I/7

be appealed as a matter of right rather than as a matter of discretionary review. 

Faraj v. Chulisie, 125 Wn. App. 536, 542, 105 P.3d 36 (2004).  This authority is 

not on point as it involves an issue of appellate procedure, whereas the present 

appeal involves an issue of the authority of counsel.

        An attorney's procedural acts accomplished in the regular conduct of the 

client's case are ordinarily considered to be the act of the client and binding on 

the client.  This includes signing procedural documents on behalf of the client.  

Clay v. Portik, 84 Wn. App. 553, 560-61, 929 P.2d 1132 (1997).  The act of 

requesting trial de novo for a client who is an aggrieved party is a procedural act 

and therefore is considered to be the act of the client.

       The use of the term "aggrieved party" in MAR 7.1(a) is analogous to the 

use of the same term in RAP 3.1:  "Only an aggrieved party may seek review by 

the appellate court."  This court regularly accepts appeals signed only by a 

party's attorney.  We see no reason why the practice should be different with 

respect to the filing of a request for trial de novo, which is also a type of appeal.

       The only proper question Russell presented to the trial court was a legal 

one:  When an aggrieved party's attorney timely serves and files a request for 

trial de novo, is MAR 7.1(a) satisfied?  The answer to that question is yes.  The 

circumstances did not call for fact-finding.  Counsel's request for trial de novo 

was effective without his client's signature because requesting trial de novo does 

not surrender a substantial right.  

       substantial right in a civil case that in effect determines the action and 
       prevents a final judgment or discontinues the action.
                                           7 

No. 65523-0-I/8

       When a purely legal question is presented, it is improper for the court to 

inquire into attorney-client communications.  State v. Marshall, 83 Wn. App. 741, 

749-50, 923 P.2d 709 (1996).  Maas had not terminated her attorney's 

representation, and there was no reason to suspect fraud.  Hence, the trial court 

erred in conducting a factual inquiry to find out if counsel for Maas was carrying 

out his client's wishes.  The objection by counsel for Maas to the questions his 

client was being asked was well taken and should have been sustained.  

       The order striking trial de novo is reversed.  The award of costs and 

attorney fees to Russell is reversed.  We remand for trial de novo.

WE CONCUR:

                                           8