Disciplinary counsel asks Washington Supreme Court to suspend attorney Shannon McMenemy over alleged noncompliance

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel asked the Washington State Supreme Court on a show‑cause hearing to issue an interim suspension of attorney Shannon McMenemy, alleging she failed to provide deposition testimony and complete records needed for the disciplinary investigation.

“Only after this court became involved did the respondent provide ODC with any records, responses, or releases,” Francisco Rodriguez, counsel for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, told the court. Rodriguez said ODC has scheduled multiple depositions that did not produce substantive answers, has received records only piecemeal (including responses sent the morning of the hearing), and remains concerned that subpoenas have not been satisfied.

McMenemy, appearing on her own behalf, said she has produced what ODC asked for and disputed ODC’s account of the depositions. “I have provided ODC with everything it has asked of me,” she said, and said she executed releases for medical and mental‑health providers when those releases were requested. McMenemy told the court she has attended depositions but that two sessions ended after she suffered panic attacks and that she lacked access to some older files after a laptop motherboard failure.

The respondent described recent personal losses and medical challenges, saying they affected her ability to respond earlier. “I’ve experienced a tremendous cycle of personal loss … and I have struggled with significant PTSD and anxiety,” McMenemy said, adding she provided firm financial records dating to 2022 and other materials even when they were not requested.

Justices pressed both sides for specifics. One justice said an accurate history of earlier depositions would be necessary to evaluate whether further court intervention was warranted; Rodriguez said ODC has deposition transcripts that contain sensitive medical information and offered to file them under seal. Rodriguez also said ODC received few records for certain cases and no accounting of the respondent’s work on some matters, and reiterated that ODC believes an interim suspension is the appropriate way to ensure depositions can be completed.

A justice asked whether ODC would tell the court and support reinstatement if McMenemy later complied; Rodriguez said ODC typically would support or not oppose a motion to reinstate after compliance. The court did not announce a ruling at the hearing and adjourned after oral argument.

What happens next: ODC told the court it will proceed to schedule depositions and, if cooperation falls short, may renew a request for interim suspension; McMenemy said the petition should be dismissed because she has complied. The court’s next steps were not announced at the hearing.