Seattle Times profiles Adam Karp

Susan Gilmore of the Seattle Times has a nice profile of animal law practitioner Adam Karp (hat tip: AnimalLaw listserv). The article hits on a number of issues related to companion animal law practice, including how difficult it is for potential clients to find attorneys willing to take their cases, and the motivations of those clients in seeking justice. Karp calls $45K+ damages awarded in one case where a dog mauled a cat a "symbolic victory." Although there is a tendency in the media, and not just the conservative parts of it, to question the motives of plaintiffs with novel legal theories, many (probably most) people whose companion animals have been injured or killed just want to "send a message" to the tortfeasor or for the court to recognize the wrong. They are not in it for the dough because, generally, there is none to be had. We wonder if this will change as animal law goes more mainstream.

The article highlights the recently decided  Mansour v. King County (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2006), which concerned the due process rights of a man who was ordered by local animal control to remove his companion dog from the jurisdiction or give it up to be euthanized. In order to challenge a government action under the due process clauses of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, you must prove you have an interest at stake, either in life, liberty, or property. Mansour argued that he had both a property interest and liberty interest in the dog, but the court found the property interest sufficient and did not reach the more interesting question of whether a liberty interest was at stake (perhaps akin to the liberty interest in family arrangements, see Moore v. East Cleveland.) In a discussion of what standard a reviewing court should use for animal control decisions, though, it treats the relationship between Mansour and the dog, named Maxine, somewhat confusingly:

A determination of removal does not sever the relationship between dog and owner; as long as Mansour moves out of King County, his relationship with Maxine can continue uninterrupted.  While this is certainly a burden on Mansour, it leaves it up to him to determine whether the relationship can continue.  Even a dependency proceeding, where a parent may lose custody of a child, requires proof only by a preponderance of the evidence. The government's decision to remove a child, even if temporary, cannot warrant less protection than the government's order to remove a dog, no matter how beloved, to another county.  And although we have recognized the emotional importance of pets to their families, legally they remain in many jurisdictions, including Washington, property.

Property, yes (in all jurisdictions), but why analogize to a child custody hearing when there a world of other hearings in the annals of administrative law?  We suspect this analogy was following the lead of counsel Karp.

Finally, Gilmore's piece notes rather prominently that Karp is a vegan. Kudos to Karp for being out about it. Given how conservative law culture is, there is a tendency among many lawyers, pony-tailed Legal Aid and PDs aside, to dress and act as if the judge is from 1955 (or 1855). Although half of HB&C has not been able to put aside his wool suit before heading into court or job interviews, he feels inspired to follow Karp's lead.