LAWCROSSING
THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF LEGAL JOBS ON EARTH
LAW STAR
www.lawcrossing.com
1. 800.973.1177
Adam P. Karp: Animal Law Offices of Adam P. Karp, Bellingham, WA [By Kenneth Davis] Adam Karp’s decision to practice animal law was motivated by a personal life change. In 1999, he became a vegetarian and then a vegan.
“I got more into animal rights and then
Jayson Anderson (20). The cat had to be
Spokane Superior Court Judge Jerome
realized that there was an absence in the
euthanized due to severe injuries. Karp’s
Leveque awarded Womack $5,000 for the
legal profession for advancing the interests
client, Bernadette Womack, filed a lawsuit
value of Max and her emotional distress, but
of animals,” he said. “So [it] made sense
against the three for several causes of
he dismissed various claims, including one
to me to take what was personal and make
action, including a civil animal cruelty
for outrage. Karp and Womack appealed
it professional.”
claim. Von Rardon’s and Brumback’s
Leveque’s ruling to the Washington Court of
parents were also named in the lawsuit
Appeals, claiming that he erred in several
Karp has taken on animal law cases since
for negligent supervision of their sons.
respects. The Court of Appeals recognized
he first began practicing law seven years
The Brumbacks and Womack settled out
a new cause of action for those whose
ago. He said he handled his first real
of court, but Womack obtained a default
companion animals have been maliciously
litigation case in 2000, and the following
judgment against the remaining defendants.
injured or killed. As a result of this decision,
year, he opened his own law office in Pioneer Square in downtown Seattle. He said that at that time 75 percent of his practice was animal law, and the remainder was collections. Karp said the collection work entailed “getting small judgments for [people] and then garnishing wages and things like that.” In 2003, he began taking on animal law cases exclusively. Karp discussed his practice: “I do all animal law,” he said. “So I’d break it down into about 80 percent injury and death claims, and the remainder, well, maybe 15-plus percent custody disputes. And the rest of it’s just sort of a mix of dangerous dog appeals, constitutional issues, initiatives, referenda, animal rights, standing, criminal prosecution…more of a private prosecutor kind of role. That would be the balance of it.” Karp has been involved in several landmark animal law cases. In May, he won a major decision in the Washington Court of Appeals. The case, Womack v. Von Rardon, involved his client’s cat, Max. The cat was abducted from his client’s property and then set on fire in a middle school field by Rusty von Rardon and Jason Brumback (both 17) and
PAGE
state criminal law and civil law have both
Advice to Young Lawyers
changed with regard to animal cruelty.
“Well, for those who want to do this, there are so many variables,” Karp said. “If that’s all they want to do, then they need to be careful about how they proceed. They need to be very calculating in the sense [that] there isn’t much of a demand yet, I think, to support thousands of us. So that means if you’re going to do it, you need to either do it as an incidental part of your practice, take a few cases here and there, or pro bono it. Or do it all or nothing and grab a geographical area and hit it hard... because you’re going to rely on a larger geographical base than, say, a PI [personal injury] lawyer will because there are people getting injured everywhere. But not everybody has an animal case, so you need to either go to a metropolitan center, or if you’re in the outskirts, extend your influence throughout a whole state or region.”
“The court recognized a new cause of action for malicious injury to a pet, and that was big,” Karp said. “There is no analog of malicious injury to a toaster, for example.” In a dangerous dog appeal, Mansour v.
King County, Karp’s client’s dog, Maxine, was accused of killing a neighbor’s cat. Karp said there were no eyewitnesses, and the evidence that he presented created significant doubt as to whether the dog killed the cat or simply came upon the cat already injured by another animal or hit by a vehicle. King County Animal Control issued an order requiring that Karp’s client, Peter Mansour, remove his dog from King County or give her up to be euthanized. The King County Board of Appeals upheld that order, and the superior court granted summary judgment for the county, affirming the board’s decision. On appeal, Karp argued that the board violated his client’s due process rights. In January, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the King County Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold King County Animal Control’s order
continued on back