Suspended Seattle Attorney Loses Latest Appeal Over ‘Scorched Earth’ Divorce, Contempt Charges
Sean Patrick Kuhlmeyer, 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.
In an unpublished opinion authored by Chief Judge Cecily Hazelrigg and filed on April 20, 2026, the appellate court unanimously affirmed a contempt order originally issued by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 Kuhlmeyer 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.
As the Olympic Herald reported in February, 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: “From the outset of this case, [his former spouse] has presented credible evidence regarding Mr. Kuhlmeyer’s actions to coercively control her 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.
During the contempt hearing before Judge O’Donnell, Kuhlmeyer attempted to argue that he was allowed to pause his domestic violence treatment because a related appeal was pending. Judge O’Donnell flatly rejected this defense, stating in the contempt order that “pausing therapy because of a pending appeal is nonsensical” and finding that Kuhlmeyer had “acted in bad faith by refusing to maintain compliance.”
The appellate court emphasized that under Washington law, attempting to condition the performance of a parenting plan upon another legal or procedural aspect “shall be deemed bad faith and shall be punished by the court by holding the party in contempt.”
Financial Defenses Rejected
Kuhlmeyer was also held in contempt for flouting his financial obligations under a 2018 child support order. He had repeatedly failed to pay his proportional share of his child’s extracurricular and educational expenses, which included private school tuition, work-related childcare, and other activities.
In his defense, Kuhlmeyer claimed an inability to pay, alleged he did not receive proper notice of the expenses, and argued the communication restrictions imposed by the DVPO hindered his ability to object.
Judge O’Donnell dismantled these arguments in the initial contempt order, noting that “Mr. Kuhlmeyer has been on notice of the expenses and has failed to assert any affirmative defense as to why a judgment should not issue.”
The judge further ruled: “Neither has Mr. Kuhlmeyer provided any documentation regarding his financial situation, thus the court rejects his statement that he is unable to pay.”
The Court of Appeals firmly backed these findings, noting that the trial court had reviewed evidence showing his former spouse provided Kuhlmeyer with a Google Docs link to a shared document actively tracking the child’s ongoing expenses.
The appellate judges affirmed that Kuhlmeyer had proper notice and simply failed to provide any written objections or alternative proposals as explicitly required by their parenting plan.
Legal Representation
During the appellate proceedings, Kuhlmeyer was represented by Brian Christopher Zuanich of Zuanich Law, PLLC.
His former spouse was represented by a legal team consisting of Karma L. Zaike of Lawgate Family Law, alongside Adrian Urquhart Winder, Rylan Lee Scott Weythman, and Benjamin James Hodges of Foster Garvey PC.
It’s dangerous for an attorney to have a fertile imagination. They can become their own worst enemy.