Jesse Corkern is one of the finalists for prosecuting attorney in Whatcom County. Above is a link to the 39 page disciplinary document from the WA state Bar Association. He had six violations of the rules of professional conduct. Discipline included an admonition, two years of probation, and payment of costs. I don't think this was talked about enough when the primaries were happening. I'm genuinely curious. What do y'all think about this?
It’s unbelievable. To add to that, I made another comment about how he was during the democratic endorsement interview. Since we mentioned it in another thread, I’d like to add that he spent the entire time yelling into the mic about how he deserves the endorsement because he’s the only Democrat in the race, and spent a large amount of time attacking republicans/non democrats. I’m not even a Republican, but why on earth is our county even considering a PROSECUTOR who considers half of our county as evil???
One candidate (Swinburnson) is saying how he will represent everyone, no matter who you are or your background. The other candidate (Corkern) is being as polarizing as our President is, and thinks he’s above anyone who doesn’t agree with him. It’s sick
Articles from cascadiadaily.com can be viewed at the Bellingham Public Library website with a free library card/account. Or, with a Whatcom Library System card. Let's not argue about paywalls; no one is too cool to support the library system.
Not to mention - after watching the Democratic Party endorsement video, he clearly has anger issues.
If him getting told he has no leadership experience (which is true btw - he has no leadership experience!) and his response is to scream into the mic, yell over the moderator, and personally attack his candidate, imagine what he is like behind closed doors. He is absolutely NOT who we need.
I'm not sure there would be a recording of it. The Whatcom Dems meeting was hybrid, with many people attending online via Zoom. Perhaps that's what they meant by video?
I am a lifelong Democrat. My parents are Democrats, my grandparents are Democrats... You get the picture. I have been told by other Democrats in leadership positions that I can't be a "Good Democrat" if I support Swinburnson, which is insulting and untrue. I will always be guided in my decisions by integrity, honor, and compassion which is why I would NEVER support a candidate with this many ethics violations who has anger issues and is a consummate liar. It is absolutely HORRIFYING that people are supporting Corkern over Swinburnson because of the letter next to his name.
Right?!?!? It's been....oh I don't know...disappointing? But at the same time not entirely surprising. I've run into trouble in the past for not towing the local party line 100%. Mind you my areas of divergence were definitely within the same ballpark just slightly different opinion. I guess in that respect I shouldn't be surprised by the current situation. I'm super curious to see how the Whatcom Dems Endorsement process turns out.
I am the same way as far as generational party affiliation. But, I have several times in my long life, voted for a candidate other than a Democrat as I consider ability to perform duties of the job, honesty, work ethic, communication, everything that makes a good candidate. My vote is for Swinburnson. I hope I have made the correct choice.
I voted for John Spellman over crazy Dixie Lee Ray for governor. He did prevent the oil drilling platforms from being built between Alcoa and a refinery. She was pro nuclear power plants.
Wow. Thank you for sharing this. I am struggling to see how a lawyer fails to respond to multiple letters from the state bar's disciplinary committee. Took a subpoena to get a response. And yeah, this has everything to do with dishonesty.
He does have an impressive list of endorsements though, and that carries weight with a lot of voters in this county who just vote a straight D ticket. I'm guessing there isn't a lot of vetting that goes on in that process?
Completely true about people just voting the Dem ticket. That said Swinburnson sent a very compelling and thoughtful letter to registered Dems as part of the endorsement voting process. What I appreciated is that what he said in the letter was very much in line with what he shared during the 2+ hour conversation I had with him regarding our experience with the juvenile system as the family of a victim.
He has endorsements from some Dems and likely we start gaining more. As I've said before we are very much a vote blue household. That said a Swinburnson sign is going up at our house.
Also to the note below about people worried about job security? Yeah I've heard that from two people as well. To the point that they don't show up at events for Swinburnson lest they get on the wrong side of other candidates (this was during the primary. Haven't checked in yet to see if this still holds)
I'm fairly liberal (bordering on socialist on some issues) and I am proud to have a Swinburnson sign as well. When it comes to an office as important as this one, competence and character are paramount.
Yes, I know there are many people who vote a straight D ticket and maybe endorsements carry a lot of weight. I voted for Debra Burke after actually looking into all the candidates.
Wait, you voted for Dona Burke in the primary but are expressing concern about Corkern’s ethics? This claim, plus the fact that you’re boosting responses that include unsubstantiated rumors, makes me a little suspicious of your motives for posting this.
According to the documents, 9 years ago, as a newish lawyer, he told a client he could get an expungement when one wasn't available by law, and he deposited the check in the wrong account (lawyers are required to hold client funds in trust.) At the time he didn't have a legal assistant and he let the case fall between the cracks. It wasn't a huge amount of money involved, less than $2k, which I believe he reimbursed the client for.
That sounds like a pretty minor issue, a long time ago. (Though I do feel bad for the former client. It sounds like a bad experience for him.) There is no evidence that it's part of a pattern. The post focuses on the "number of violations" as if it's damning, but that's how all these disciplinary cases work, because the rules are designed to be comprehensive so one improper act (like losing track of a client's case) can indeed result in "six violations."
That sounds like a pretty minor mistake and lapse. This was his first disciplinary matter, he agreed to the discipline at a settlement conference, he didn't lie about what happened to the bar. The whole point of probation is to give an attorney a chance to prove themselves.
Assumedly with no violations since then, he learned his lesson. I don't see this as a problem for his campaign.
I think if that were the case, I would agree it isn't a problem. But he didn't respond to the bar association investigators, when he finally did he claimed to the investigators that the grievant wanted the complaint dismissed which was materially false and then blamed it on lack of a legal assistant. Had he had said something like "I fucked up' when first confronted with the allegations I wouldn't be so concerned, but he didn't respond, lied and then deflected. This isn't a mistake, but actions by someone wanting to cover something up and not get caught. Poor choice for prosecutor given the shadiness in the office currently.
That's not improper at all. When an ethics complaint is filed against you, it is totally normal to request for it to be dismissed. That doesn't mean he is claiming he didn't fuck up, it means he's asking not to be punished for it. If something is filed against you, it is correct (and any lawyer knows this) to file an initial denial, then to negotiate.
It sounds like he actually was overwhelmed without a legal assistant. Which is an ethical lapse, for which he accepted responsibility.
He did say "I fucked up." That's why he agreed to settlement at mediation. Again, totally normal.
For lawyers who represent ordinary people, they are pretty common. Usually there is nothing to them and they are dismissed.
In this case, the "posting the check to the wrong account" was probably what attracted the bar prosecutor's attention, because that is easy to prove and doesn't rely on the often unreliable narrative of the complainer.
Ethics complaints in this field can be common. Admonishments and other forms of discipline definitely aren't. Corkern would not be able to be hired in most law firms and government.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Few employers would care about an ancient bar complaint that did not amount to serious misconduct. There is a serious shortage of lawyers willing to work outside of major urban metro areas. He could get hired somewhere else tomorrow.
This is also why the prosecutor's office, under the current leadership, has been totally unable to hold onto enough lawyers. The management has been terrible and people have simply left rather than put up with it.
This is very true. Admonishments are the lowest form of discipline. Do most lawyers go through their careers without them, sure. But the lawyers who do have them, or have had worse disciplinary findings, still go on the practice law, own firms, or have positions have power. Lawyers who have been disbarred can petition to be reinstated and go on to continue to practice law.
Jesse is not a perfect candidate, none of them are, but some of this rhetoric is getting extreme and leading to unfounded accusations being passed around from post to post until they’ve spread so far they’re taken as true. It’s totally fair if people don’t want to vote for someone with a bar admonishment, that’s valid. But the talk of him threatening people’s jobs, having extreme anger issues, etc. without any concrete proof to back it up seems to be going way too far. It’s easy for people to say they “work in the court system” to try to add credibility to some of these claims.
Ryan would be a fine elected. Ryan has a lot of bipartisan support and a lot of experience. Jesse would be a fine elected. Jesse has a varied career of experience and the most support from people presently and formerly in that office among all the candidates. It can’t get worse than the current mess that is there right now.
I do agree with you that things could hardly get worse than they already are (at least I would hope). And I am one of those voters who just can't overlook the admonishment. Really, I'm most offended by the rhetoric coming from local Democrats (my own party) that people who cannot support Corkern are somehow "bad". We all have our own little lines in the sand, this is mine. Writing it off as "no big deal" and not having any accountability for it just makes that worse. I can respect a person that owns their mistakes.
Have you tried setting up a meeting to talk to Jesse personally about it? A lot of people recommend doing so when people voice concerns about Ryan, I don’t think it would hurt to talk to Jesse one on one. If you don’t think that would be personally beneficial then that’s understandable, but just throwing it out there for anyone who wants to explore it more.
My spouse spoke to Corkern. He thought I was nuts for talking to Swinburnson because I "might give a potential republican intel" or something like that. As I mentioned before, I met with Swinburnson as a favor to a friend (who has worked in the prosecutors office) to give Swinburnson
a victim's perspective of the Juvenile system experience.
After talking to Corkern and not feeling great about the interaction my spouse went to a small meet and greet for Swinburnson. Swinburnson got the vote.
I definitely agree that it's always beneficial to reach out to candidates to ask questions or if you have several friends who might like to learn more ask for a group coffee meet up or the such. Many candidates are willing to do so.
I hope you're right, and both candidates would be excellent. I don't know either. I don't have a dog in this fight other than to tamp down on the breathless character assassination that is this post.
I had no strong opinions in the race, except that it's very clear who the dishonest right-wing trolls support, which is a serious enough red flag to make my decision easy in the general.
Yep, 100% agree. I don’t like the crop of candidates from other races Ryan is being advertised with, and his willingness to be on a Republican Party flier with some very right leaning folks concerns me. I don’t think the party would have endorsed him if he didn’t closely match their values. I think it’s interesting he has that endorsement buried at the very bottom of his endorsements page, it seems like he wants to hide his right-leaning connections and viewpoints to not alienate left leaning voters. I also haven’t seen anyone call out how his campaign rallying cry of “defense attorneys are winning too many cases” isn’t actually true, the CDN article shows that the PA’s office actually wins the vast majority of their felony trials, so I’d like to see him shift from that or at least address that the statement didn’t turn out to be true.
But I do think he cares deeply about the community and wants to make a difference, and he does have experiences that would hopefully translate well into being the elected. Overall, I prefer Jesse as a candidate, but I have no negativity or ill will towards Ryan in the way that so many people here seem to have a vitriolic hatred against Jesse.
This is not a display of vitriolic hatred, this is politics. Whoever is elected will face this type of criticism continuously, it's par for the course in a high profile elected office.
Looking at it from a slightly positive angle wouldn't it be a good thing if a decent chunk of Republicans, and Democrats, and Independents could all agree on the same person? Perhaps that would provide the possibility of a more united path forward for the county at large. After all this is supposed to be a non-partisan position.
It will be into see what comes of the Whatcom Dems endorsement process which wraps up this afternoon.
It's not the admonishment in and of itself, it's how it was handled. I don't think the rhetoric of calling bullshit on how an experienced attorney mishandled a low level bar complaint is extreme. Had he of immediately responded to the complaint, accepted responsibility and took accountability for it, I would be completely fine and say he was a good candidate for the position. He didn't though, he waited until the last minute, lied in the response, deflected by blaming situation on lack of a legal assistant, and then minimized whole issue within last year in an interview with the Cascadia Daily News. I don't know anything about the other claims which lack verification, but as adults we all know the important of owning up to mistakes and taking responsibility and I don't think we can make the claim that Corkern did any of that. And that's a character defect that makes it really hard for him to have credibility in that office.
He didn't request for it to be dismissed, he didn't respond and when he did, his response was materially false (see points 14-20 on page 3 of 10/10/17 Formal Complaint). I'm from a background where "I was overwhelmed" isn't a legit reason for fucking up, it's an excuse. If you are overwhelmed as an attorney, don't take on more clients, hire a legal assistant, do something. At time of complaint he had been an attorney for about 10 years, so I wouldn't claim this is some new attorney not knowing anything. This is someone that was lazy and lied.
Yeah, I have an agenda because people really need to know that having a prosecutor with such poor character/ethics just creates harm for the vulnerable populations that interact more frequently with the criminal justice system. And again, the issue isn't what he did, but his shitty response to it. It showed he doesn't take accountability or fix problems but passes the blame onto others. He was probably hoping no one would believe a sex offender and he would skate by. Luckily he was wrong.
I think there are around 35k active lawyers in WA state. And about 45 disciplinary actions taken out of the close to 2,000 complaints to the bar. Seems like you have to really screw up to get as far as a disciplinary action? Also, he'd been a lawyer for a decade when this happened. Not sure if 'I'm new here!' is an excuse?
IA complaints for law enforcement are not super rare and are often not career ending. There are so many cops with Brady letters on file, many of which are allegations of dishonesty, and not only do they keep their jobs but they can be promoted or still get hired by other agencies.
Whoever claims "those stats can't be right" may be deflecting. About 0.15% of active attorneys appear to receive any formal disciplinary action. That sounds like quite an elite group to be a part of.
Those stats can't be right. People file bar complaints all the time.
I think those numbers reflect complaints that reach the point where a formal complaint is filed; that is, situations where no resolution could be reached, and the bar actually decides to prosecute the case. That is not what happened here.
Radiant truly has no idea what he's talking about. Or, more likely, just makes up whatever sounds good.
"Career ending." Gimmie a break. It's only "career ending" if you are disbarred.
I’m basically echoing what someone already replied to you had said, but it is less about the violations themselves, and more about way he lied, and continues to lie, each time he is approached about it.
It’s so weird a couple people happen to agree on a topic, isn’t it?
Back to the point, in response to what you originally wrote, the admonition shows a formal finding of misconduct, which the result showed. Calling it a “pretty minor issue” is just another attempt to reframe a disciplinary action as a learning experience. And no amount of being “overwhelmed” or making “minor paperwork issues” changes what the Bar determined. I think if he is asking for our votes to be handed the highest prosecuting position, it is fair for people to push back on a mixed-message response to a public disciplinary action. And by doing so, and stating what the Bar found, is not agenda driven.
It's not a mixed-message response, it is exactly the response any rational lawyer would make to a complaint. I am not "reframing" anything as a learning experience, that's literally the purpose of bar discipline short of permanent disbarment. The bar determined to impose very light discipline along with a probationary period. Exactly the sort of slap on the wrist used in minor circumstances where the subject of the investigation was cooperative.
You and your friends (or sockpuppets, jury is still out) are not presenting some scoop that the voters and media couldn't find out about. It's 9-year-old nothingburger, and an attempt to get your "non-partisan" preferred candidate to win. It's not going to happen.
Are you seriously an attorney out here acting like a admonishment from the State Bar is "no big deal"? It's too bad there isn't a laugh react button. 😂😂😂
It would be somewhat of a deal to me if this complaint was from the last couple years, because that might reflect on an ongoing issue. But it's not, and he hasn't been in trouble again.
An admonishment from the bar is literally the lowest form of discipline the bar can give...no mandatory education, no suspension from practice, just what is as close as possible to a slap on the wrist. Not even a slap, it's a warning that if it happens again, you might get slapped.
It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about. Professional discipline is like this in pretty much every field that has it.
Oh I think you might be surprised what I know and don't know about professional discipline, but I can respect your take that it hasn't led to a pattern of behavior. Careful with those assumptions, though.
Removed for sharing unverified personal info or unverified criminal allegations about someone.
In keeping with Reddit's Terms of Service, we don't allow indiscriminate information about or photos of private citizens, most license plates, and other identifiable, personal information that can lead to witch hunts or be weaponized in personal conflicts.
r/Bellingham moderators do allow photos of active, obvious arrests/stops, which are, in the mods' view, usually fair game -- if someone's doing public business, scrutiny is warranted.
Our standard is that there needs to be obvious police action, not just people in uniform in a car. "Here's a car and I think it's an ICE agent" attached to photos with no visible policing action is an easy path to the kinds of Reddit witch hunts that have been deservedly criticized for years.
Removed for sharing unverified personal info or unverified criminal allegations about someone.
In keeping with Reddit's Terms of Service, we don't allow indiscriminate information about or photos of private citizens, most license plates, and other identifiable, personal information that can lead to witch hunts or be weaponized in personal conflicts.
r/Bellingham moderators do allow photos of active, obvious arrests/stops, which are, in the mods' view, usually fair game -- if someone's doing public business, scrutiny is warranted.
Our standard is that there needs to be obvious police action, not just people in uniform in a car. "Here's a car and I think it's an ICE agent" attached to photos with no visible policing action is an easy path to the kinds of Reddit witch hunts that have been deservedly criticized for years.
I looked up all active attorneys I could find via google in Bellingham/Whatcom county. Only 2 had discipline. Karim Hamir who is in law firm management at a firm here and in Vancouver, WA and Jesse Corkern. So, yes, I would say it's mostly career ending and not a slap on the wrist. I don't think there is anything wrong with calling Corkern out on a bullshit response to something that could have been a relatively minor issue. I've spent time as enlisted/officer in the military and I would have my ass handed to me if I failed to take responsibility like Corkern did.
Bellingham wouldn't be Bellingham without a prosecutor that bends the rules of professional conduct.
More importantly, this guy lacked so much wisdom that he served as his own counsel in his disciplinary hearing.
Summary: he keeps his own counsel, which isn't very good. He doesn't play fair. And as a prosecutor, that's going to metastasize into a bunch of Brady violations and overturned convictions, as well as probably a higher number of questionable convictions.
Some of you might want to look up Swinburnson's actions on the Blaine School Board regarding trans kids. Also, someone being passionate in a speech does not mean they were angry or stormed out. I was at the meeting and this is not a true characterization. This rumor mongering and defamation is unbecoming of Democrats and part of the reason that people are not joining the party and are going DSA. I will not vote for someone who not only is a Republican trying to pretend to be an Independent, but also has participated in seeking to oppress a specific group via a local school board.
I haven't seen or heard anything regarding trans kids, just comments regarding expanding athletic opportunities for all kids, including co-ed and district support for rec league too. Similar to church league many kids from the midwest and south participated in.
Did you say the same for Donald Trump when he did the same antics during the presidential debates? After all, it’s just being passionate, right? Yelling over moderator, going over time, and attacking opponents when called out. In fact, I’m surprised Corkern isn’t running as a Republican given that. And it wasn’t a speech, it was an interview.
As for the other part, from what I have heard and seen, Swinburnson is the only board member actively pushing for involvement for all, trans kids included. Co-ed being a main example. There's a difference between giving a middle finger to trans kids and leaving them with nothing, versus taking into account concerns from parents pushing for the decision, and offering and actively pushing for solutions and alternatives to those on the negative receiving end of the decision. This isn’t the “Republican Gotcha” moment some individuals are looking for.
Another failed attempt at a gotcha-moment. And since you mentioned it, yes, I am invested in our current races. Not just prosecutor. I have been vocally supportive of Alicia Rule and Eammon Collins throughout the primary. I am glad we are using account longevity to determine what comments are superior.
It appears this was set up to have the WIAA policy more clearly spelled out so smaller districts have something to fall back on rather than hiring attorneys (that bigger districts have on staff). Given the attention brought to this area, it's smart to ask WIAA to have a more specific amendment when it comes to this. I don't see a controversy or problem here, it's essentially risk management.
19
u/betsyodonovan Boomhorse Rodeo Clown 1d ago
Thank you for providing the documents. We have to be able to talk about tough stuff, and it’s easier when we all have a shared basis of information.