Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/961328.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,783 chars

enormous if an attorney attempted to act as a minister and a lawyer at the same

time. This conflict is likely if the necessary legal advice conflicts with the

7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, No. 96132-8
(Yu, J., concurring)

religious message of the lawyer. SUGM provides legal counsel to clients

regardless of clients’ own religious views, creating a high risk of conflict between

SUGM’s religious mission and the client’s goals for representation. And because

SUGM is providing desperately needed civil legal aid to vulnerable populations,

the likelihood that a client would feel coerced into acquiescing to SUGM’s

religious purposes would be very high if an ODLS staff attorney attempted to

simultaneously play the dual roles of lawyer and minister. To provide just one

example, if a same-sex couple had the goal of facilitating an adoption, a lawyer

would be required to provide the clients with legal advice for achieving their goal,

while a minister promoting SUGM’s religious beliefs may be required to

discourage the clients from pursuing such an adoption. When ODLS staff

attorneys are faced with such situations, they properly respond as lawyers, not as

ministers, because, as the ODLS director confirmed, “[o]ur legal advice is our legal

advice.” CP at 149-50.

Thus, in the particular context presented here, if SUGM raises the ministerial

exception as an affirmative defense on remand, the facts asserted in this record

strongly support a conclusion that an ODLS staff attorney cannot qualify for the

ministerial exception as a matter of law. Unlike the educators in Our Lady of

Guadalupe School, these staff attorneys are not charged with the responsibility of