STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL – EMBARGOED UNTIL FILING

To: Washington State Bar Association – Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Subject: Disciplinary Complaint Against Counsel for the State of Washington (Meta Litigation)

I. IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS
The following Assistant Attorneys General for the State of Washington: Todd Sipe, Elana Matt, Paul Crisalli, Cristina Sepe, and Jeff Grant.

II. BASIS OF GRIEVANCE
This complaint alleges that the named Respondents may have violated the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) by pursuing an unconstitutionally excessive, improperly calculated penalty under the Fair Campaign Practices Act. While resolution of this case might best wait until the state supreme court clarifies these issues, the suspicion is that Respondents went beyond zealous advocacy into a lack of candor or other misconduct. The pursuit of this $35 million judgment represents an indefensible use of state power that undermines the principles of comity and federalism.

III. ITEMIZED COUNTS

Count I: Meritorious Claims and the Zero Fine Rule (RPC 3.1)
The only lawful penalty in this matter is zero. Meta is immune from these state-level mandates under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment [2, 3]. Pursuing any fine for a federally preempted administrative failure is an unreasonable and unethical legal position.

Count II: Indefensible Multiplicity and the Excessive Fine Standard (RPC 3.3)
Respondents improperly multiplied a singular course of conduct into 822 individual violations. Under the unanimous holding in Wooden v. United States (2022), a single course of conduct cannot be unconstitutionally stacked into multiple offenses [4]. Furthermore, the resulting $35 million penalty constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, as incorporated against the states in Timbs v. Indiana (2019) [1].

Itemized Count	Specific RPC Clause	Relevant Precedent/Authority
Indefensible Multiplicity	RPC 3.1: Meritorious Claims	Wooden v. United States (2022): Course of conduct cannot be stacked [4].
Unreasonable Fees	RPC 1.5: Unreasonable Fees	In re Kagele (2003): Discipline for unreasonable fee collection [5].
Rapacious Demands	RPC 3.8: Special Duty of Prosecutor	Timbs v. Indiana (2019): Prohibition on excessive fines [1].
Candor to Tribunal	RPC 3.3: Candor to Tribunal	In re Hartl (2023): Suspension for misleading a court [5].

Respondents had no meritorious basis to argue that a $35,000,000 fine satisfies constitutional limits. Treating one database failure as hundreds of separate violations was a manifest error that misled the court as to the lawful unit of prosecution.

Count III: Unlawful Tripling of Fees and Fines (RPC 1.5, 3.8)
Respondents unethically moved to triple the fine and the $3.5 million legal fee based on a claim of intentional conduct [2]. It was improper to seek tripling for intentionality when the defendants maintained a reasonable belief that their conduct was lawful under Section 230 and the First Amendment—a belief made definitive by the Supreme Court’s NetChoice rulings [2, 3, 6]. Legal fees should not be used as punitive damages, and it was unethical for state lawyers to seek or accept fees as such. The resulting $10.5 million fee award violates the American Rule and creates a punitive profit center for the state, far exceeding the actual salary costs of the attorneys involved [2, 7]. The Commission has experience with complaints about high fees and can determine the merit of this claim. I have no direct financial stake in this matter.

Count IV: Breach of Comity and Federalism (RPC 8.4(d))
Respondents' actions caused constitutional harm nationwide. While Congress has the power to regulate the internet, individual states, towns, and neighborhood associations do not. A $35 million fine anywhere affects free speech everywhere by setting an indefensible precedent for localized speech codes. By successfully using these multiplied tactics to drive digital platforms out of Washington, Respondents effectively restrained political thought across the entire United States, conduct that is inherently prejudicial to the administration of justice.

IV. CONCLUSION
Respondents had a duty to seek justice over victory. Instead, they pursued a record-breaking windfall through a miscalculation of the law that was inconsistent with their professional responsibilities. While Respondents enjoy civil immunity for their work as AG staff, their claims and tactics must remain consistent with their professional responsibilities. The WSBA should investigate this bad-faith use of the legal system to silence political interchange through economic warfare.

Sincerely,

Hilton U. Brown
1 N. Emerson Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46219

---