Judicial Appointment Sparks Debate Over Impartiality and Costs in Clallam County Murder Case
A high-stakes murder trial in Clallam County is unfolding under unusual circumstances after Superior Court Judge Brent Basden selected his long-time associate, Lane Wolfley, to lead the defense for accused killer Aaron Fisher—a choice that has drawn attention for both its professional and personal dimensions.
Wolfley’s appointment, which carries a $250-per-hour fee funded by county taxpayers, comes as the public defender’s office and two conflict attorneys—Alex Stalker and William Payne—stepped aside due to overlapping interests. With the local pool of conflict counsel depleted, Basden assumed authority to appoint new counsel and opted for Wolfley rather than turn to out-of-area attorneys or rely on standard rotation systems.
The judge will also oversee the trial proceedings, reinforcing the dual role he now holds: selecting counsel and serving as the ultimate arbiter in the same matter.
Case Background and Charges
Aaron Fisher, 37, is charged with second-degree murder in connection with the May 2025 assault on 70-year-old Richard Madeo. Prosecutors say Fisher attacked Madeo at a Safeway fuel station in Sequim, inflicting injuries severe enough to result in Madeo’s death two days later at Harborview Medical Center.
In addition to the homicide charge, Fisher faces a separate docket involving alleged possession of sexually explicit images depicting minors. Wolfley has also been assigned to defend Fisher in this companion matter, with the trial schedule set so that the murder case proceeds first, followed by the evidence-related charges.
Delays and Witness Challenges
Since joining the case in late October, Wolfley has secured two key delays. The trial, initially scheduled for mid-December, was rescheduled to January 26, 2026, after Wolfley cited the need to hire a fresh investigator and complete case preparation.
At a January 9 hearing, Wolfley voiced confidence in the revised timeline but acknowledged difficulties in tracking down critical witnesses. Among them is a transient individual whose testimony is central to the defense’s narrative. “It’d be hard for us to go to trial without [them],” Wolfley told the court, adding his office had pursued all viable methods—calls, texts, visits—to connect with the person.
Prosecutor Michele Devlin responded with concerns about the defense’s preparedness, pointing out the absence of a formal witness list and delayed responses to subpoenas. Given the $250 hourly rate, each postponement translates directly into added county expenditure.
Ethical Considerations and Perceived Conflicts
Legal scholars note that while judges retain broad discretion in naming conflict counsel, the selection of someone with deep personal ties—especially a former business partner—can create an “appearance of impropriety” even when no formal conflict exists. Such dynamics may influence public confidence, particularly in high-profile prosecutions.
Earlier reporting highlighted overlapping contracts between Basden and Wolfley beyond the Fisher case. In addition to the Fisher engagement, Wolfley receives a monthly retainer of $6,250 from the Superior Court, suggesting a sustained financial relationship between the two.
Professional History Raises Concerns
Beyond their personal rapport, Wolfley’s professional record includes documented incidents of misconduct during the years he and Basden collaborated. These experiences, which fall within the same timeframe as their joint ventures, are presumed known to Basden and add another layer to the appointment’s implications—particularly as the defense team navigates both legal complexity and public scrutiny.
A public unraveling of the legal career of Sequim attorney Lane Wolfley traces back to late 2003, when he penned a column for the Peninsula Daily News. In that piece, he characterized himself as a victim of malicious community rumors alleging he had misappropriated church funds and participated in drug dealings. Although he strongly refuted these claims, formal legal inquiries began shortly thereafter.
On February 10, 2004, members of the Olympic Peninsula Narcotics Enforcement Team (OPNET) entered Wolfley’s office pursuant to a search warrant. The operation was linked to an investigation of his client, a realtor named Paul Pendergrass, who was under suspicion for laundering proceeds for a cocaine syndicate. Law enforcement officers confiscated various financial records during the raid. Wolfley responded to the incursion with visible frustration, describing the search as absurd and excessive in a statement to local press.
The subsequent investigation lent credibility to the law enforcement focus. Wolfley eventually dropped Pendergrass as a client, citing a belief that the narcotics team was attempting to draw him into a criminal conspiracy. In May 2005, Pendergrass entered a guilty plea to three counts of money laundering. During the proceedings, he acknowledged that he had acted recklessly by accepting substantial cash payments from the syndicate’s leader, Bernard “Pete” Barnes. Court documents and press archives indicate that a local attorney, identified as Basden, represented Barnes in that case.
The financial scandal was followed by a rigorous disciplinary process from the Washington State Bar Association in 2005. Following a formal complaint and a determination that sufficient evidence of unethical conduct existed, the Bar suspended Wolfley from practicing law for a period of three years. The Disciplinary Board concluded that during a personal injury matter, Wolfley had knowingly and intentionally made sexual advances toward a female client. The Board’s findings detailed that he had kissed her, fondled her, touched her breasts and buttocks, and inserted his hands into her clothing.
When questioned by the Bar, Wolfley testified that these events had not occurred, leading to a finding that he knowingly and intentionally provided false information to the regulatory body. His path to reinstatement was contingent upon attending meetings for Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous and submitting to an independent psychiatric assessment.
It is noteworthy that during the majority of this timeframe—including the narcotics investigation, the office search, the sexual misconduct allegations, and the resulting suspension—Wolfley was in a business partnership with Basden. Despite this history involving a vulnerable client, false statements to regulators, and ties to a money-laundering probe, Judge Basden has assigned Wolfley to defend a defendant in a significant murder case, with fees covered by public funds.
Wolfley’s Controversial Business Partner Prior to Basden
Before joining forces with Basden, Lane Wolfley was a law partner with Theodore “Ted” Ripley, an attorney who has since retired. On February 1, 1989, the Clallam County Sheriff’s office executed an arrest warrant for Ripley on charges of second-degree statutory rape. The charges stemmed from accusations that Ripley had sexually molested a blind 12-year-old girl from Guatemala who was residing in his home.
Wolfley defended Ripley’s public image, telling the Peninsula Daily News that he had been aware of allegations regarding children for some time, an effort that appeared to downplay the severity of the claims. In court filings, the prosecutor, David Bruneau, alleged that the young victim had informed investigators that Ripley had sexually abused her between ten and 15 times prior to a specific incident in January 1988.
Charges Dropped
The prosecution moved to end the proceedings after the accuser became unavailable to provide testimony. Despite the dismissal, officials highlighted that accounts from various parties involved indicated a recurring pattern of sexual conduct, which serves to reinforce the accuser’s ongoing narrative. Court records indicate the presiding judge was reluctant to drop the matter and initially declined to sign the dismissal papers submitted by Bruneau.
Relationships and Church Roles
The association between Judge Basden and Lane Wolfley extends well beyond their history as law partners and personal acquaintances, reaching into the leadership structure of the local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This relationship has prompted questions regarding the judge's potential reluctance to address misconduct by his associate.
Basden previously held the role of President of the Port Angeles Stake, a senior position that granted him substantial authority over area congregations. During that same timeframe, Wolfley, a former Bishop, occupied a sensitive and prominent role within the church, despite describing himself as a "non-believer" and "ex-Mormon" for decades.
Online Activity
Thousands of online posts authored by Lane Wolfley have been recovered and archived to ensure they remain accessible. In discussions regarding trauma posted four years ago, Wolfley, identifying himself as a retired trial attorney, characterized repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse as "fantastical and so harmful." In that thread, he advised an individual to "sue the hell out of this therapist" over the implantation of "false child sexual abuse" memories.
Other writings appear to normalize exploitation by figures in authority. Regarding the sexual predation of Joseph Smith, Wolfley posted: “Every charismatic prophet of every religion will have sex with multiples of his followers given time and opportunity. No exceptions; JS was just one of many, they all do it.” This perspective is notable given his suspension for sexually exploiting a client; it suggests he may perceive such actions not as a violation, but as an inherent consequence of power—a “perk” of being a “charismatic” leader.
Wolfley also claims a 45-year tenure as the church Santa, asserting: “They won’t replace me because I’m so dang good at it.” He attributes the success of the event to his performance, noting: “It’s at the party that everyone shows up... the two wards in the building now show up together to keep things full.”
Leadership Oversight
This arrangement highlights a lack of strict oversight from Basden in his capacity as a church leader. The Washington State Bar Association suspended Wolfley from practicing law after determining he had “knowingly and intentionally made sexual advances” toward a female client, including fondling and placing his hands inside her clothing.
Despite this documented misconduct, Basden—who held the highest leadership authority during much of this period—permitted Wolfley to continue serving in a role providing direct access to children and families.
Wolfley himself acknowledged the unusual nature of his "free pass" in writing, stating, "I wonder from time to time why I get the free pass on this stuff… I just learned early on to do what I want and ask forgiveness later, which probably terrorizes my loved ones from time to time…"
Basden’s history with Wolfley establishes a long-standing precedent: whether acting as a Stake President supervising a holiday party or a Superior Court Judge overseeing a murder trial, Basden has repeatedly chosen to empower Wolfley, ignoring "conduct concerns" that would disqualify almost anyone else.
Is Basden Hiding His Relationship With Wolfley?
Despite the flow of public funds, Basden appears to hide his deep ties to Wolfley. For instance, Basden’s Linkedin profile does not disclose his relationship with Wolfley, and he specifically leaves Wolfley’s name off of the firm name, only mentioning "Basden & Hansen."
Through the Internet Archive, we recovered an announcement from the early 2000s in the Peninsula Daily news, where Basden is listed as "an attorney with Wolfley, Basden & Hansen."
By retroactively scrubbing Wolfley’s name from his resume while simultaneously awarding him no-bid, hourly contracts, Basden creates an optical dissonance: minimizing their past entanglement publicly, while maximizing it privately with taxpayer money.
A Crisis of Confidence
Court records reveal that since 2018, Basden has presided over a staggering 80 cases involving Wolfley, turning a blatant conflict of interest into standard operating procedure.
Basden’s decision to hand the high-stakes Fisher defense to Wolfley represents a total collapse of judicial norms. In bypassing standard protocols to appoint a former business partner —one with a documented history of sexual predation and lying to the Bar —Basden has prioritized personal loyalty over public safety. With taxpayers footing the bill at a premium of $250 an hour, the community is forced to confront an ugly reality: the Clallam County Superior Court appears less interested in dispensing justice than in sustaining the income of the Judge’s friends.
In a 2002 Commentary, written by Basden in the Peninsula Daily News, Basden defends this type of "’good ol’ boy justice."
Basden defended the Superior Court, stating, "These are good and honorable men and women."
Then, he apparently challenged the public, writing, "I look forward to hearing the evidence or a denunciation of the attack."
In a Commentary written by Basden a few months later, Basden defends what the public perceived as controversial conduct, writing, "if this conduct is unethical, then our county’s two Superior Court judges, along with most of the judges... are unethical."
Two decades later, it appears not much has changed in Clallam County Superior Court.