should come as no surprise to Harline, because Barker and Whyte in their brief specifically discussed Harline’s instruction to Whyte not to amend the statement of affairs and schedules, and Harline in his reply brief did not mention the evidence, let alone dispute it. This evidence demonstrates that Harline chose not to pursue his available legal remedy of amending his statement of affairs and schedules prior to his bankruptcy discharge hearing in August of 1988. “ We do not believe it would be wise judicial policy to allow one party to create legal liability in another by a voluntary exercise of the complaining party’s own personal business judgment not to seek to protect his rights in the legal forums provided him.’ ” Horn v. Moberg, 68 Wash.App. 551, 844 P.2d 452, 456 (1998) (<HOLDING>) (quoting King v. Seattle, 84 Wash.2d 239, 525
recognizing an attorneys right to conduct the clients case with a certain degree of privacy holding clients independent voluntary decision to dismiss products liability suit precluded finding that attorneys alleged negligent preparation of case proximately caused clients injury holding that attorneys and not clients choose the arguments to present holding an attorney violated his duty of candor to the tribunal by changing his clients interrogatory answers without the clients knowledge holding that loss of substantial clients does not amount to an unconscionable injury