OLYMPIA -- A trial lawyer suspended today by the Washington Supreme Court for dishonestly billing his clients should instead be commended, claims a dissenting judge.

Justice Richard B. Sanders says attorney Bradley Marshall committed no ethical breaches despite today's six-judge majority ruling in the Supreme Court review case In re: Discipline of Marshall (docket# 200,302-8).

Marshall had represented a group of longshoremen in a civil rights lawsuit against the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. He won the plaintiffs an $800,000 settlement in the suit.

The Supreme Court's opinion today agreed with most charges leveled against Marshall by the Washington State Bar Association and its Discplinary Board, which had recommended disbarment. The case was brought by the original plaintiffs in the longshoremen case.

But the Supreme Court, on appeal, reduced Marshall punishment to 18 months suspension because of a disputed fee-splitting charge.

The Supreme Court ruled Marshall "acted dishonestly" for requesting fake invoices "to hide a fee arranagement that appeared to be fee-splitting" and kept several thousand dollars in "improperly overcharged costs," wrote Bobbe J. Bridge.

Sanders' dissent notes that both the Bar and the Court referred to Marshall's "potential conflict" in that case. Yet neither ruling "explain[s] where this mysterious, amorphous conflict lies," he notes.

"What Marshall did was successfully settle his clients' civil rights claims, earning them nearly a million dollars." Sanders wrote, joined in dissent by Associate Chief Justice Charles W. Johnson. "Rather than punish him, we should commend him."

Justice Bridge was joined in the majority decision by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justices Tom Chambers, Susan Owen, Barbara A. Madsen and James M. Johnson.