A Seattle attorney currently serving a nine-month suspension for trust account violations and a barrage of frivolous lawsuits has lost his latest legal challenge in the Washington State Court of Appeals.

Unpublished opinion filed April 20, 2026

In an unpublished opinion authored by Chief Judge Cecily Hazelrigg and filed on April 20, 2026, the appellate court unanimously affirmed a contempt order originally issued by King County Superior Court Judge Sean O'Donnell.

The order held the attorney in contempt for failing to pay his child's extracurricular expenses and for violating the strict terms of a domestic violence protection order.

The ruling is the latest chapter in what has been nearly a decade of bitter litigation stemming from the 2018 dissolution of his marriage to his former spouse.

Earlier reporting in February indicated that Kuhlmeyer's handling of his own divorce proceedings directly contributed to his professional downfall.

After a binding arbitration decision awarded custody of their child and the family home to his former spouse, Kuhlmeyer launched a relentless campaign that a trial judge explicitly categorized as an "ongoing and present pattern of abusive litigation."

That legal crusade not only earned Kuhlmeyer a six-year ban on filing new cases without judicial approval but ultimately resulted in the Washington State Supreme Court suspending his license to practice law beginning in September 2025.

His suspension was tied to both the abusive litigation and severe financial mismanagement, including causing a deficit of over $83,000 in his client trust accounts and withdrawing $100,000 in client funds as a cashier's check to allegedly protect the money from being garnished during his divorce.

Bad Faith

The recent Court of Appeals decision centers heavily on Kuhlmeyer's failure to adhere to court mandates from his family law disputes.

In June 2023, his former spouse obtained a DVPO against Kuhlmeyer. When granting the order, the trial court found that Kuhlmeyer presented a "credible threat to the physical safety" of his former spouse and their son.

The ruling highlighted a deeply concerning pattern of behavior, stating that from the outset of the case, credible evidence had been presented regarding his actions to coercively control his former spouse, as well as verbal, physical, and emotional abuse directed toward her and her son.

The trial court noted that Kuhlmeyer's conduct manifested itself as well in years of scorched earth, abusive litigation which has far exceeded the description of vigorous advocacy, further observing that any reasonable person experiencing this conduct would be in fear for their mental, emotional and physical safety.

Kuhlmeyer's attempts to object to the characterizations were dismissed by the court as unpersuasive and unsupported by the evidence put before this court.

A central condition of that DVPO required Kuhlmeyer to enroll and participate in a state-certified domestic violence perpetrator program. However, his former spouse brought a contempt motion against Kuhlmeyer in May 2024 after discovering his provider had "paused" his participation in the program.

Judge O’Donnell issued a contempt order against a Sequim man, rejecting his argument that a pending appeal justified a halt to his domestic violence treatment. In the ruling, the judge characterized the decision to suspend therapy as illogical and determined that the man had acted in bad faith by refusing to stay compliant.

The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, citing Washington state law which stipulates that using other legal or procedural matters as a condition for fulfilling a parenting plan constitutes bad faith. Under the statute, courts are directed to punish such conduct by holding the responsible party in contempt.

Financial Obligations

The appellate panel also affirmed the contempt finding related to the man’s failure to meet financial duties established in a 2018 child support order. The individual had repeatedly neglected to pay his designated share of the child’s extracurricular and educational costs, a category that encompassed private school tuition, childcare related to work, and other activities.

In his initial defense, the man cited financial hardship, a lack of proper notification regarding the expenses, and communication restrictions imposed by a domestic violence protection order that allegedly prevented him from raising objections.

Judge O’Donnell dismissed these points in the original order, observing that the man had been aware of the expenses yet failed to present any affirmative defense against the judgment. The judge further noted the absence of documentation regarding the man’s financial status, leading to the rejection of his claim of inability to pay.

The appellate judges supported these findings, pointing to evidence that the man’s former spouse had shared a Google Docs link to a collaborative document that tracked the child’s ongoing costs. The higher court concluded that the man had received adequate notice and simply failed to submit the written objections or alternative proposals mandated by the parenting plan.

Legal Counsel

The man was represented during the appeal by a Clallam County attorney from Zuanich Law, PLLC.

The former spouse’s legal team included a partner from Lawgate Family Law and three associates from Foster Garvey PC.