(The Center Square) – An attorney challenging Justice Theo Angelis on the primary ballot is calling the recent appointee’s experience into question, as Angelis meets with his predecessor nearly every week.
Greg Miller, an appellate attorney challenging Angelis for Washington Supreme Court Position 5, says the arrangement highlights gaps in Angelis’ resume. Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed Angelis in March, without any judicial experience, to replace Justice Barbara Madsen, who sat on the bench for about 33 years.
Madsen wrote in a statement to The Center Square that she initiated their arrangement as a professional “courtesy” on her own time and expense.
In a separate statement, Angelis told The Center Square that the meetings are preparing him to succeed Madsen as chair of the Judicial Information Systems Committee next year.
“It certainly could be considered ‘tutoring’ on the administrative aspect of the court,” Miller said Friday.
He gave an analogy comparing Angelis’ appointment to sending a student to French school before the student had learned the language. However, Angelis is already serving on the Supreme Court and has far more experience with federal and intellectual-property litigation than Washington appellate courts.
“But it begs the question [Angelis’] answer raises of his substantive knowledge and experience, since the Washington Supreme Court’s primary duty is to decide appeals of state law, not serve as a case management administrator,” Miller told The Center Square regarding the arrangement with Madsen.
Angelis replaced Madsen in April, but he said she will continue as the JISC chair until the end of 2026.
JISC oversees court technology and is implementing a new case-management system for roughly 137 courts and probation departments in 2026 and 2027. Angelis said Chief Justice Debra Stephens, who didn’t respond to a request for comment, selected him as the next chair, so he wants to be ready first.
“We also have talked about our judicial philosophies, reasons for newly implemented internal rules, areas of particular emphasis in the Court’s rule-making process, lesser-known history of some of the Court’s commissions and committees, and the court’s governance structure especially as it bears upon JISC issues,” Angelis told The Center Square when asked what he and Madsen talk about each week.
Madsen said the arrangement isn’t “uncommon,” and that other justices should consider doing it too.
“No judge at any other level of court has this oversight responsibility,” Madsen told The Center Square.
In his statement, Angelis emphasized that he has litigated appeals in state and federal courts for over 25 years; Miller said that description “misrepresents” the justice’s experience in state appellate cases.
Miller said his initial search on the legal research platform Westlaw identified six state appellate cases involving Angelis. He later acknowledged that it missed a case Angelis argued in January before taking over for Madsen.
Still, Angelis’ application lists 21 state appeals and 32 federal appeals for his career.
“Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said correctly that the life of the law is not logic, it is experience,” Miller said. “I was a judicial law clerk helping my judge decide 75 Washington cases, half civil, half criminal.”
“I have completed over 135 appeals and given 80 merits oral arguments in the Washington appellate courts as a practicing attorney representing a wide range of clients,” he said regarding his experience.
The application obtained by The Center Square via a records request lists Angelis as “counsel of record” in 21 state appeals: six in the Supreme Court, 13 in Division I of the Court of Appeals and two in Division II.
It also reports one appeal at the county superior court level and 32 federal appellate cases as the “counsel of record.”
On trial experience, Angelis’ application lists two cases he litigated in Washington District Court, three U.S. District Court cases, six federal administrative tribunals and one case listed under “other” courts.
“I typically have 1-2 Washington State cases, 4-10 U.S. District Court cases, 1-3 ITC cases, and 1-2 appeals pending in a typical year. My current caseload is heavier on ITC litigation and a bit lighter in other categories, but I just presented oral argument to Division I in January, and I had three Federal Circuit arguments in 2025,” according to Angelis’ judicial evaluation questionnaire updated Jan. 30.
Miller said Westlaw finds merits decisions, not every appearance or filing, so his search doesn’t show Angelis’ complete record, nor does Angelis’ application list every appellate matter he reported either.
He doubted whether Angelis would meet the Washington Appellate Lawyers Association’s membership criteria, which require people to act as lead counsel in at least 25 appeals and orally argue 15 appeals.
Miller acknowledged that Angelis could potentially qualify by combining his state and federal matters, since WALA counts federal appeals too. However, Miller said he didn’t believe that Angelis had served as lead counsel or presented oral argument in enough cases according to his application and Westlaw.
“To say that he has extensive experience is not correct,” Miller said regarding Angelis’s appellate work.
Ballot boxes close on Aug. 4, in the primary election, with former Federal Way Judge Dave Larson and Thurston County Judge Sharonda Amamilo also challenging Angelis along with Miller. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes next Tuesday will advance to the November general election.