Final Bar Complaint against Mark Lindquist 06 11 15.pdf

Preview of PDF document final-bar-complaint-against-mark-lindquist-06-11-15.pdf

Page 1 2 345103

Text preview

Nearly another year went by while Dalsing was in jeopardy of new charges and still she
was trying to obtain discovery in her civil law suit. She had not yet been provided with Detective
Ames’ e-mail, the e-mail that would expose the Prosecuting Attorney’s wrongdoing. The “new”
criminal charges were eventually dismissed with prejudice by a Superior Court Judge who found
that the prosecution was vindictive.
Dalsing has obtained a copy of the e-mail in question and the depth of the Prosecuting
Attorney’s wrongdoing has now been exposed.
The Pierce County Prosecutor and his deputies have abused the power and authority of
the prosecutor’s office. The Pierce County Prosecutor and his deputies filed criminal charges
against a civil litigant to cover up their own wrongdoing, to seek advantage in a civil lawsuit, and
to avoid liability. The Pierce County Prosecutor’s abuses of office violate the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the
representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of
interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be
materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client
or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under
paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide
competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;