improper encroachment on the judicial branch’s regulatory authority by the Washington Legislature. While it is true that the Washington Supreme Court “has an exclusive, inherent power to admit, enroll, discipline and disbar [Washington] attorneys,” Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wash.2d 52, 62, 691 P.2d 163, 169 (1984), this power does not preclude the Washington Legislature from regulating the “entrepreneurial aspects” of the practice of law which implicate the public interest. Id. at 65, 691 P.2d 163, 170. Indeed, requiring attorneys to comply with the DAA and CPA when providing debt-adjustment services “is no different than applying other generally applicable statutes, such as the criminal laws, to attorneys.” See Lang v. Daniel N. Gordon, PC, 2011 WL 62141, at *3 (W.D.Wash. Jan. 6, 2011) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Court concludes that requiring
recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers holding that adam walsh act does not violate procedural due process require excessive bail or violate separation of powers recognizing separation of powers doctrine holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act holding that requiring attorneys to comply with the washington collection agency act and the cpa when attempting to collect debts on behalf of a third party does not violate separation of powers principles