COVID-19 Notice: We Remain Here For You. Learn More.

Representative Case Results (Continued)

Post-Conviction Relief Attempted Burglary 2nd Degree - Conviction Vacated

In October of 2019, we were retained to vacate a 1995 Attempted Burglary 2nd Degree conviction in the King County Superior Court. The order granting our Motion to Vacate was signed by the court in February of 2020.


Motion to Seal Criminal Court Record - Granted.

In August of 2019, we were retained to seal a dismissed criminal record in King County District Court- Redmond Courthouse. We worked with the client to draft a declaration describing the hardships she faced because the charges were still showing up on her record and impacting her employment opportunities. Our office filed a motion to seal, drafted a brief in favor of sealing the record, and made oral argument before the court. In December of 2019, the court granted the motion to seal the criminal record.

Motion to Modify Maximum Sentence - Granted

In August of 2019, we were retained to file a motion for modification of sentence on a misdemeanor conviction in the Kent Municipal Court. As the conviction dated back to the year 2000, the maximum penalty for the offense at that time was 365 days in jail, which put our client at risk of deportation. We were able to persuade the judge to modify the sentence to reflect a maximum penalty of 364 days in jail, thus removing the potentially devastating consequence of deportation.


Attempted Forgery - Conviction Vacated

In November of 2019, we were retained to vacate a 1995 Attempted Forgery conviction out of the King County Superior Court. After being retained, we immediately gathered the case records, drafted the necessary legal paperwork and filed a Petition to Vacate. In December, the court granted our client’s petition, less than 30 days after we had filed the paperwork.

VUCSA (Possession of Marijuana) - Conviction Vacated

In October of 2019, we were retained to vacate a 2002 VUCSA – Possession of Marijuana conviction out of the King County District Court, East Division, Redmond Courthouse. We promptly obtained the case records, drafted the required legal paperwork and filed a Petition to Vacate with the court, serving a copy on the prosecutor. In December, the court granted our client’s Petition, less than 30 days after we had filed the paperwork.


Attempted 2nd Degree Theft - Conviction Vacated

In October of 2019, we were retained to vacate a a 1995 Attempted 2nd Degree Theft conviction out of the King County District Court, West Division, Seattle Courthouse. We quickly secured the relevant case records, drafted the required legal paperwork and filed a Petition to Vacate with the court, serving a copy on the prosecutor. In December, the court granted our client’s Petition, less than 30 days after we had filed the paperwork.


Trespass 2nd Degree & Simple Assault Convictions - Vacated

In October of 2019, we were retained to vacate 2013 convictions for Trespass 2nd and Simple Assault out of the Pasco Municipal Court. We immediately gathered the relevant documents, drafted the necessary paperwork and filed a two serrate motions to vacate. Those motion was granted by the Court, one month after we were retained.


Breach of Peace Conviction - Vacated

In April of 2019, we were retained to vacate a 2014 Breach of Peace conviction in the Renton Municipal Court. We gathered the relevant documents, drafted the necessary paperwork and filed a Motion to Vacate. That motion was granted by the Court one month after we were retained.


Third Degree Theft Conviction - Vacated

In September of 2019, our firm was contacted by an individual who was seeking to vacate a 1999 gross-misdemeanor conviction for Theft in the Third Degree, out of the Lynnwood Municipal Court. We agreed to take the case, collected the necessary documents and promptly filed a motion and proposed order to vacate. A hearing was set by the court and the judge signed our proposed order, less than 60 days after we had been hired.


3 Separate Misdemeanor Convictions - Vacated

Our client had three criminal convictions: Reckless Driving (1999), Reckless Endangerment (2004) and Negligent Driving in the First Degree (2004), each in a separate division of the Snohomish County District Court. We were able to gather all the necessary documents and file a motion to vacate in each individual court. As of November of 2019, each of these motions to vacate has been granted and our client now has no criminal convictions.


Reckless Driving Conviction - Vacated

In March of 1999, our client plead guilty to criminal charge of Reckless Driving, filed in the Snohomish County District Court, Cascade Division. In November of 2019, the court granted our motion to vacate that conviction.


Disorderly Conduct Conviction - Vacated

Our client had a 2014 conviction for Disorderly Conduct in the King County District Court, East Division, Bellevue Courthouse. In October of 2019, the court granted our motion to vacate that conviction, less than 30 days after our firm was retained.


Duty to Register as a Sex Offender - Terminated

In 2001, our client was convicted of Child Molestation in the First Degree, a class A offense, in the King County Juvenile court. The conviction required our client to register as a sex offender. In 2015, our client asked us to prepare and file a motion to terminate the duty to register as a sex offender and to vacate and seal the conviction record. In preparation for filing, we had our had our client submit to a Risk Assessment and Sexual History Polygraph, which demonstrated that he was at low risk to re-offend.


Assault 4th Degree DV Conviction - Vacated

In May of 2005, in the Kirkland Municipal Court, the court granted our motion to vacate our client’s conviction for Assault in the 4th Degree DV.


Stalking Convictions – Vacated & Sealed

In March of 2005, in Kirkland Municipal Court, the judge granted our motion to vacate client’s conviction for Stalking, and to seal the record of a another, previously dismissed charge of Stalking.


Allegation of Probation Violation - Denied

In January of 2005, our client was alleged to have violated the terms of her deferred sentence in the Seattle Municipal Court. After full evidentiary hearing, the Court found that our client had committed no violation, withdrew the previously entered “Guilty” finding, entered a “Not Guilty” and dismissed the case.


Back to Top

Civil Protection Orders Petition for Domestic Violence Protection Order - Denied

In July of 2019, client hired our office to represent him as a Respondent in a Domestic Violence Protection Order case in Lewis County. Our office reviewed the petition and allegations our client and met with our client to discuss how to proceed. We assisted our client in drafting a responsive declaration and filed a brief stating the legal reasons why the court should deny the DVPO petition. On August 3 of 2020, we appeared in court and argued on behalf of our client. The court denied the DVPO.


Petition for Anti-harassment Protection Order - Granted

In August of 2019, client hired our office to represent him as a Respondent in a Domestic Violence Protection Order case in Snohomish County. Our office reviewed the petition and allegations our client and met with our client to discuss how to proceed. We assisted our client in drafting a responsive declaration and filed a brief stating the legal reasons why the court should deny the DVPO petition. After filing our responsive documents, the Petitioner voluntarily requested to withdraw her petition. On August 10 of 2020, we appeared in court with our client and the court dismissed the DVPO.

Petition for Domestic Violence Protection Order - Denied

In August of 2019, client hired our office to represent him as a Respondent in a Domestic Violence Protection Order case in Snohomish County. Our office reviewed the petition and allegations our client and met with our client to discuss how to proceed. We assisted our client in drafting a responsive declaration and filed a brief stating the legal reasons why the court should deny the DVPO petition. After filing our responsive documents, the Petitioner voluntarily requested to withdraw her petition. On August 10 of 2020, we appeared in court with our client and the court dismissed the DVPO.


Petition for Vulnerable Adult Protection Order - Denied

In April of 2020, our client was served with a Petition for Vulnerable Adult Protection Orders (VAPO), and a Temporary Order of Protection issued by the King County Superior Court. We worked with our client to draft a detailed response to the petition, specifically denying the allegations, and gathered additional witness declarations which we then filed with the Court and severed on the Petitioner. At the hearing, we were able to persuade the Court to deny the VAPO action on the basis that the Petitioner did not meet the legal definition of a Vulnerable Adult.

Petition for Anti-Harassment Protection Order- Granted

In April of 2020, client hired our office to represent for a Petition for an Order for Protection-Harassment. We worked with our client to draft the petition and gathered evidence, including relevant text messages and social media messages, to bolster the Petition. At the hearing for the full order in April of 2020, the Court granted our client’s request for an order and signed a 1-year Anti-Harassment Protection Order.

Petitions for Domestic Violence Protection Order and Sexual Assault Protection Order- Both Dismissed

In March of 2020, a Respondent hired our office to represent for a Petition for an Order for Protection-Domestic Violence. Both the Petitioner and Respondent were under 18. We worked with our client to draft a responsive declaration and gathered evidence, including relevant text messages and social media messages, to bolster the response to the petition. At the hearing for the full order in April of 2020, the King County Superior Court denied the request for a Domestic Violence Protection Order.

In April of 2020, the Petitioner filed a Petition for an Order for Protection- Sexual Assault. Once again, we worked with our client to draft a responsive declaration and provide the full story to the court. In late April of 2020, the King County Superior Court denied the request for a Sexual Assault Protection Order.

Petition for Domestic Violence Protection Order - Granted

In March of 2020, our office for representation in a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) matter. Our client was the Petitioner and had already filed in the King County Superior Court. Although she had obtained a Temporary Order and a date for the Full Order Hearing, she did not feel comfortable appearing before a judge and speaking while Respondent was standing at the podium next to her. In addition, she had more evidence that she wanted to provide to the court prior to the next hearing. We assisted her in drafting a supplemental declaration with exhibits, filed those documents for her with the court and had a copy served on the Respondent. We then appeared at the Full Order Hearing, arguing on her behalf for issuance of a protective order. The granted our client a 2-year protection order.

Petition for Anti-Harassment Protection Order- Granted

In June of 2019, client hired our office to represent for a Petition for an Order for Protection-Harassment. Both our client and the Respondent were under the age of 18. We worked with our client to draft the petition and gathered evidence, including video records held by the police and declarations from relevant witnesses, to bolster the Petition. On the advice of our client, we contacted the Respondent in an effort to come to a resolution but could not come to a mutual agreement. At the hearing for the full order in December of 2019, the Court granted our request for an order and signed a 1-year Anti-Harassment Protection Order.

Petitions for Vulnerable Adult Protection Orders – Dismissed

In January of 2020, our clients were served with Petitions for Vulnerable Adult Protection Orders (VAPO), and a Temporary Order of Protection issued by the King County Superior Court. We worked with our clients to draft detailed responses to the petitions, specifically denying the allegations contained in the Petitions and were then able to persuade the petitioner to agree to a dismiss the VAPO action.


Petition for Domestic Violence Protection Order – Denied

In September of 2019, our client was served with a Petition for Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) and a Temporary Order of Protection issued by the Snohomish County Superior Court. We worked with our client to draft a detailed response to the petition, specifically denying the allegations contained in the Petition and provided text, email and photographic evidence in support of that response. At the hearing for a full order, the Court was persuaded that the Petitioner had failed to met the burden of proof necessary for an order to be issue and dismissed the Petition.


Petition for Domestic Violence Protection Order – Denied

In July of 2019, our client was served with a Petition for Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO), and a Temporary Order of Protection issued by the King County Superior Court. The order had was being sought by our client's ex-housemate. We worked with our client to draft and file with the court a detailed, written response to the petition, specifically denying the allegations contained in the Petition. At the the full-order hearing, the Petitioner appeared but left the courtroom without going before the judge, when we would not agree to her request for a continuance. As a result, the court granted our request for a denial and dismissal of the DVPO.


Petition for Anti-Harassment Order – Denied

In July of 2004, our client appeared at the Regional Justice Center in Kent, as the Respondent in a Petition for Anti-Harassment Order. After oral argument on behalf of our client, the court denied the order and dismissed the Petition.


Back to Top

Title IX Defense

In February of 2020, our client, a student at the University of Washington, was accused of violating the sexual assault, intimate partner violence and/or sexual harassment provisions of the Code under WAC 478-121-150, 478-121-140, and 478-121-155. After a lengthy investigation that included 2 interviews with our client, and dozens of exculpatory exhibits, the Title IX investigator found that our client’s conduct did not violate these provisions.


In February of 2020, our client, a Student at Central Washington University, was accused of violating the following provisions of the Student Code of Conduct: WAC 106-125-020 (2a), WAC 106-125-020 (13a), WAC 106-125-020 (13c), WAC 106-125-020 (15) and WAC 106-125-020 (9). Although our client was untimely found to be responsible for these violations, the sanction was a deferred suspension. Meaning, our client would not be suspended unless he committed similar violations in the future.


In February of 2019, our firm helped a client prevail against allegations of sexual assault, sexual harassment and abuse of others, brought by fellow student at the University of Washington. After a lengthy investigation, full hearing and appeal for administrative review, the University found our client “not responsible for violating provisions of the student code of conduct.”


In September of 2017, our client, a student at the University of Washington School of Medicine, was accused of violating the Student Code of Conduct by committing abuse of others, discriminatory harassment, harassment or bullying and intimate partner violence. After a lengthy investigation and negotiation, we were able to reach a settlement agreement with the University that did not negatively impact our client’s academic career or future employment opportunities.


Back to Top

School Discipline

In October of 2019, our client, a middle-schooler in the Renton School district, received an emergency expulsion for allegedly showing another student an air-soft pistol that had been brought to the school by someone else. Our firm reviewed the disciplinary paperwork and student handbook and determined that the school had not followed the mandated disciplinary procedures. We provided a detailed advisory letter to our client, who was then able to use that information to persuade the school to remove the emergency expulsion and transition the matter to a short-term suspension.


Back to Top

Client Reviews
★★★★★
Mark C. Blair has no rival in his field in Seattle. A consummate professional. Communication was brief, straightforward, easy to understand, and without a typical condescending tone you can sometimes experience from attorneys on top of their field. Correspondence was timely and always affective. Any in need of criminal defense, should have a conversation with Mr. Blair, and you will quickly see and feel, no further contacts, referrals, or phone calls need be made. The money and time that can be saved by streamlining future contact and collateral damage in the sentencing process will far and away be worth every penny of the fee structure. Thank you very very much Mark Blair. N.Mark French
★★★★★
Sara Kim of BlairKim is a great attorney. I had never before had representation or dealt with the legal system and she made it very easy for me. She converted the legalese into laymans terms for me and helped me to understand the steps of the process. When I hesitated on certain decisions, Sara gave me the confidence and encouragement to proceed – especially since it was most beneficial to me in the long run. Sara is very straightforward and professional while also being personable and pleasant to deal with. Tamara
★★★★★
Sara Kim was the perfect lawyer for our situation. We were determined not to involve the courts in our divorce. Within the first 30 minutes of consultation, Sara proposed an equitable formula for division of property which we used to negotiate an agreement that felt fair to both of us. Our flat fee arrangement with Sara covered the filing of paperwork which alleviated much pressure for us during a very stressful time. I highly recommend Sara for her flexibility, professionalism, and efficiency. Carrie