Caruso v. Wixom
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtFearing, J.
¶1 As the noblest calling, the legal profession demands the highest ethical behavior of its members. A supreme commandment of attorney ethics is undivided loyalty to a client and the shunning of any self-interest that would conflict with the interests of the client. Because appellant’s counsel violates this command*885ment, we take the unusual step of disqualifying him, on our own initiative, from representing appellant.
¶2 The trial court ruled that Richard (Rick) Wixom and Robert Caruso, his attorney, violated CR 11 and held them jointly liable for $55,000 in attorney fees and costs incurred by…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Wheat v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- In Re RubenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
- John A. Healey, Michael S. Press v. Chelsea Resources, Ltd., Dominick & Dominick Securities, Inc. And Dominick & Dominick, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- United States v. Dolan, John E.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- Universal Athletic Sales Co., a Corporation v. American Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equipment Corporation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- In re the Marriage of Richard Todd Wixom & Linda Buchholz WixomCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- Litster Frost v. Idaho Injury Law GroupIdaho Supreme Court · 2022
- Friends of North Spokane County Parks v. Spokane CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- Docklight Brands Inc v. Tilray IncDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2023
- Friends of North Spokane County Parks v. Spokane CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.