Karp has taken on animal law cases since he first began practicing law seven years ago. He said he handled his first real litigation case in 2000, and the following 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."
 |
| "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." |
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 Jayson Anderson (20). The cat had to be euthanized due to severe injuries. Karp's client, Bernadette Womack, filed a lawsuit against the three for several causes of action, including a civil animal cruelty claim. Von Rardon's and Brumback's parents were also named in the lawsuit for negligent supervision of their sons. The Brumbacks and Womack settled out of court, but Womack obtained a default judgment against the remaining defendants. Spokane Superior Court Judge Jerome Leveque awarded Womack $5,000 for the value of Max and her emotional distress, but he dismissed various claims, including one for outrage. Karp and Womack appealed Leveque's ruling to the Washington Court of Appeals, claiming that he erred in several respects. The Court of Appeals recognized a new cause of action for those whose companion animals have been maliciously injured or killed. As a result of this decision, state criminal law and civil law have both changed with regard to animal cruelty.
"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 declaring the dog vicious and demanding her removal from King County within 48 hours. The Court of Appeals agreed that the board violated Mansour's procedural due process rights because he wasn't allowed to subpoena witnesses and records. (In order for pet owners to effectively present their cases and rebut evidence against them, due process requires that they be able to subpoena witnesses and records.) Mansour v. King County is important because its outcome could affect how animals deemed to be vicious are treated by courts.
"I tried to subpoena witnesses and medical records, and they refused," Karp said. "So I wasn't able to get the full veterinary record or the X-rays. I couldn't put on my own expert because I didn't have those records. The burden of proof was placed on us to prove that we were innocent, basically, which is not how it's supposed to work. So it was a mess, but the Court of Appeals clarified it. It was a very positive constitutional type of decision."
In May of last year, Karp won $45,480 for one of his clients in the Seattle District Court. The judgment was for the death of his client's 12-year-old cat, Yofi, who was killed by a neighbor's dog. The award is believed to be the largest in the history of the State of Washington relating to the wrongful death of a nonhuman companion. It is also believed to be the largest award in the nation relating to the death of a cat.
"The $45,000 judgment was significant [...] because it signifies symbolically that the value of a person's companion animal is immense," he said. "It's not just 'buy another one for 50 bucks and go home.' [That's] not an appropriate response. This judge essentially honored the bound."
Karp said his decision to go to law school did not stem from a lifelong ambition to become a lawyer.
"I think it was more of [a] default," he said. "I just liked my college classes on the Constitution [and] civil rights, and I didn't really know what else to do."
In 1995, Karp graduated with honors from Gonzaga University in Spokane with a degree in political science. He earned his law degree from the University of Washington School of Law in 1998. Karp then went on to complete a master's degree in science and statistics at the University of Washington in 2000.
Karp also teaches animal law. He's an adjunct professor of animal law at both the University of Washington School of Law and Seattle University School of Law. However, he admitted that teaching is not one of his favorite things.
"You know, I don't really enjoy it that much," he said. "I know it sounds crazy, but the reason is that I'm a solo, and I'm overwhelmed. I'm doing it more because I think I need to. It's sort of more I feel obligated to do it, to share information with the new generation and encourage them."
Karp said that in the last 10 to 15 years, animal law has become increasingly popular among law students.
"There are probably 70 law schools offering it…Harvard, Yale, George Washington, Georgetown, everyone," he said. "And then you have the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapters, and I'd say there are probably more."
He had the following advice for law students who are interested in going into animal law:
"Well, for those who want to do this, there are so many variables," he explained. "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."
In addition to running his law practice and teaching, Karp writes regularly for bar association bulletins on the topic of animal law and routinely speaks to groups across the country on the subject. He's also a vice chair of the American Bar Association's Animal Law Committee. And in 2002, he founded the Washington State Bar Association's Animal Law Section.
Karp occasionally appears on radio and television shows. He appeared on Seattle television personality Tony Ventrella's show back in 2003. He was also featured in TIME magazine a few years ago, in an article discussing an animal custody case.
Karp said what he enjoys most about his job as an animal law attorney is the challenge it presents.
"It's [...] the challenge of trying to move the law forward," he said. "Many attorneys spend their lives just applying existing law, and that's important [...]. But I'm not excited about that. I'm more interested at the academic level and trying to create new causes of action or allow the law to be more flexible and compassionate. Then it'll be applied incidentally to the
animal[s] in question or the people who care for them. But that's really the thirst. That's what drives me; it's being able to try to craft the law in better directions."
Karp and his wife, who runs a court reporter agency, have several cats that they treat on a regular basis.
"They're older and require a lot of daily care, which is worth it," he said.
Karp discussed some of his hopes and goals for the future.
"Every day there's a new issue, a new challenge," he said. "And I'm always looking for an angle that will move the law in a beneficent direction, so there's no big master plan I have. And from a vegan standpoint, I'd love for every slaughterhouse to be shut down and all fur facilities [to be] destroyed. And my Utopian vision is that animals will never be used again against their will."
