title: Nonprofit and Court-Annexed Limited Legal Service Programs

text:
RPC 6.5 NONPROFIT AND COURT-ANNEXED LIMITED LEGAL SERVICE PROGRAMS (a) A lawyer who, under the auspices of a program sponsored by a nonprofit organization or court, provides short-term limited legal services to a client without expectation by either the lawyer or the client that the lawyer will provide continuing representation in the matter and without expectation that the lawyer will receive a fee from the client for the services provided: (1) is subject to Rules 1.7, 1.9(a), and 1.18(c) only if the lawyer knows that the representation of the client involves a conflict of interest, except that those Rules shall not prohibit a lawyer from providing limited legal services sufficient only to determine eligibility of the client for assistance by the program and to make an appropriate referral of the client to another program; (2) is subject to Rule 1.10 only if the lawyer knows that another lawyer or LLLT associated with the lawyer in a law firm is disqualified by Rule 1.7 or 1.9(a) or by LLLT RPC 1.7 and LLLT RPC 1.9(a) with respect to the matter; and (3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), is not subject to Rules 1.7, 1.9(a), 1.10, or 1.18(c) in providing limited legal services to a client if: (i) the program lawyers or LLLTs representing the opposing clients are screened by effective means from information relating to the representation of the opposing client; (ii) each client is notified of the conflict and the screening mechanism used to prohibit dissemination of information relating to the representation; such notice, may be given prospectively; and (iii) the program is able to demonstrate by convincing evidence that no material information relating to the representation of the opposing client was transmitted by the personally disqualified lawyers or LLLTs to the lawyer representing the conflicting client before implementation of the screening mechanism and notice to the opposing client. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2), Rule 1.10 is inapplicable to a representation governed by this Rule. (c) Prospective notice shall satisfy the requirements of (a)(3)(ii) only if the assistance provided to both conflicting clients is limited legal service as governed by Rule 6.5. [Adopted effective October 29, 2002; Amended effective September 1, 2006; April 14, 2015; September 1, 2021.] Comment [1] [Washington revision] Legal services organizations, courts and various nonprofit organizations have established programs through which lawyers provide short-term limited legal services--such as advice or the completion of legal forms--that will assist persons to address their legal problems without further representation by a lawyer. In these programs, such as legaladvice hotlines, advice-only clinics or pro se counseling programs, a client-lawyer relationship is established, but there is no expectation that the lawyer’s representation of the client will continue beyond the limited consultation. Such programs are normally operated under circumstances in which it is not feasible for a lawyer to systematically screen for conflicts of interest as is generally required before undertaking a representation. See, e.g., Rules 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, and 1.18. [2] [Washington revision] A lawyer who provides short-term limited legal services pursuant to

this Rule must secure the client’s informed consent to the limited scope of the representation. See Rule 1.2(c). If a short-term limited representation would not be reasonable under the circumstances, the lawyer may offer advice to the client but must also advise the client of the need for further assistance of a legal practitioner. Except as provided in this Rule, the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c), are applicable to the limited representation. [Comment 2 amended effective April 14, 2015.] [3] [Washington revision] Because a lawyer who is representing a client in the circumstances addressed by this Rule ordinarily is not able to check systematically for conflicts of interest, paragraph (a) requires compliance with Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a), or 1.18(c) only if the lawyer knows that the representation presents a conflict of interest for the lawyer, and with Rule 1.10 only if the lawyer knows that another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is disqualified by Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a) in the matter. [4] Because the limited nature of the services significantly reduces the risk of conflicts of interest with other matters being handled by the lawyer’s firm, paragraph (b) provides that Rule 1.10 is inapplicable to a representation governed by this Rule except as provided by paragraph (a)(2). Paragraph (a)(2) requires the participating lawyer to comply with Rule 1.10 when the lawyer knows that the lawyer’s firm is disqualified by Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a). By virtue of paragraph (b), however, a lawyer’s participation in a short-term limited legal services program will not preclude the lawyer’s firm from undertaking or continuing the representation of a client with interests adverse to a client being represented under the program’s auspices. Nor will the personal disqualification of a lawyer participating in the program be imputed to other lawyers participating in the program. [5] If, after commencing a short-term limited representation in accordance with this Rule, a lawyer undertakes to represent the client in the matter on an ongoing basis, Rules 1.7, 1.9(a) and 1.10 become applicable. Additional Washington Comments (6–8) [6] Washington’s version of this Rule differs from the Model Rule. The differences accommodate the unique civil legal services delivery system, which uses a statewide centralized telephone intake and referral system for low-income persons to access free civil legal services. The Rule recognizes that lawyers who provide intake and referral services such as these will necessarily at times receive confidential information from adverse parties. The risk that such information will be used against the material interests of either party is relatively low in comparison to the need for services, and when such a risk exists, protections of lawyer screening and notice to the client are required by the Rule. [7] Paragraph (a)(3) was taken from former Washington RPC 6.5(a)(3) as enacted in 2002. The replacement of “confidences and secrets” in paragraph (a)(3) with “information relating to the representation” was necessary to conform the language of the Rule to a terminology change in Rule 1.6. No substantive change is intended. See Comment [21] to Rule 1.6. [8] Providing prospective notice of a potential conflict in accordance with Paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (c) would be particularly appropriate in situations where vulnerable client populations may be involved. For example, where a nonprofit or court-annexed limited legal service program is assisting a survivor of domestic violence and the perpetrator of the domestic violence seeks, or previously received, assistance through the same program. In such cases, notification to the perpetrator when the conflict arises could effectively advise the perpetrator that the survivor is contemplating legal action potentially affecting the perpetrator, thus putting the survivor at risk of retaliation.

[Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006; Amended effective April 14, 2015; September 1, 2016; September 1, 2021.]

citation: RPC RPC 6.5

rule_number: RPC 6.5


doc_type: court-rule

jurisdiction: wa

title: Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services

text:
RPC 7.1 COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING A LAWYER'S SERVICES A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 2006.] Comment [1] [Washington revision] This Rule governs all communications about a lawyer’s services. Whatever means are used to make known a lawyer’s services, statements about them must be truthful. [Comment 1 amended effective January 26, 2021.] [2] Truthful statements that are misleading are also prohibited by this Rule. A truthful statement is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the lawyer’s communication considered as a whole not materially misleading. A truthful statement is also misleading if there is a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation. [3] An advertisement that truthfully reports a lawyer’s achievements on behalf of clients or former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. Similarly, an unsubstantiated comparison of the lawyer’s services or fees with the services or fees of other lawyers may be misleading if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison can be substantiated. The inclusion of an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead the public. [Comment 3 amended effective September 1, 2016.] [4] [Washington revision] It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. RPC 8.4(c). See also Rule 8.4(e) for the prohibition against stating or implying an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. [Comment 4 adopted effective September 1, 2006; Amended effective January 26, 2021.] Additional Washington Comments (5–14) [5] To assist the public in learning about and obtaining legal services, lawyers should be allowed to make known their services not only through reputation but also through organized information campaigns in the form of advertising. Advertising involves an active quest for clients, contrary to the tradition that a lawyer should not seek clientele. However, the public's need to know about legal services can be fulfilled in part through advertising. This need is particularly acute in the case of persons of moderate means who have not made extensive use of legal services. The interest in expanding public information about legal services ought to prevail over considerations of tradition. Nevertheless, advertising by lawyers entails the risk of practices that are misleading or overreaching.

[6] This rule permits public dissemination of information concerning a lawyer's name or firm name, address, e-mail address, website, and telephone number; the kinds of services the lawyer will undertake; the basis on which the lawyer's fees are determined, including prices for specific services and payment and credit arrangements; a lawyer's foreign language ability; names of references and, with their consent, names of clients regularly represented; and other information that might invite the attention of those seeking legal assistance. [7] Questions of effectiveness and taste in advertising are matters of speculation and subjective judgment. Some jurisdictions have had extensive prohibitions against television and other forms of advertising, against advertising going beyond specified facts about a lawyer, or against "undignified" advertising. Television, the Internet, and other forms of electronic communication are now among the most powerful media for getting information to the public, particularly persons of low and moderate income; prohibiting television, Internet, and other forms of electronic advertising, therefore, would impede the flow of information about legal services to many sectors of the public. Limiting the information that may be advertised has a similar effect and assumes that the bar can accurately forecast the kind of information that the public would regard as relevant. Areas of Expertise/Specialization [8] A lawyer may indicate areas of practice in communications about the lawyer's services. If a lawyer practices only in certain fields, or will not accept matters except in a specified field or fields, the lawyer is permitted to so indicate. A lawyer is generally permitted to state that the lawyer is a "specialist," practices a "specialty," or "specializes in" particular fields, but such communications are subject to the "false and misleading" standard applied in RPC 7.1 to communications concerning a lawyer's services. A lawyer may state that the lawyer is certified as a specialist in a field of law if such certification is granted by an organization approved by an appropriate state authority or accredited by the American Bar Association or another organization, such as a state bar association, that has been approved by the state authority to accredit organizations that certify lawyers as specialists. Certification signifies that an objective entity has recognized an advanced degree of knowledge and experience in the specialty area greater than is suggested by general licensure to practice law. Certifying organizations may be expected to apply standards of experience, knowledge and proficiency to insure that a lawyer's recognition as a specialist is meaningful and reliable. In order to insure that consumers can obtain access to useful information about an organization granting certification, the name of the certifying organization must be included in any communication regarding the certification. [9] In advertising concerning an LLLT's services, an LLLT is required to communicate the fact that the LLLT has a limited license in the particular fields of law for which the LLLT is licensed and must not state or imply that the LLLT has broader authority to practice than is in fact the case. See LLLT RPC 7.1(b). When lawyers and LLLTs are associated in a firm, lawyers with managerial or pertinent supervisory authority must take measures to assure that the firm's communications conform with these obligations. See Rule 5.10. Firm Names [10] A firm may be designated by the names of all or some of its members, by the names of deceased members where there has been a continuing succession in the firm's identity or by a trade name such as the "ABC Legal Clinic." A lawyer or law firm may also be designated by a distinctive website address or comparable professional designation. Although the United States Supreme Court has held that legislation may prohibit the use of trade names in professional practice, use of such names in law practice is acceptable so long as it is not misleading. If a private firm uses a trade name that includes a geographical name such as "Springfield Legal Clinic," an express disclaimer that it is a public legal aid agency may be required to avoid a misleading implication. It may be observed that any firm name including the name of a deceased partner is, strictly speaking, a trade name. The use of such names to designate law firms has

proven a useful means of identification. However, it is misleading to use the name of a lawyer or LLLT not associated with the firm or a predecessor of the firm, or the name of an individual who is neither a lawyer nor an LLLT. [11] Lawyers or LLLTs sharing office facilities, but who are not in fact associated with each other in a law firm, may not denominate themselves as, for example, "Smith and Jones," for that title suggests that they are practicing law together in a firm. [12] When lawyers and LLLTs are associated with each other in a law firm, the firm may be designated using the name of a member LLLT if the name is not otherwise in violation of this rule. [13] Lawyers or LLLTs practicing out of the same office who are not partners, shareholders of a professional corporation, or members of a professional limited liability company or partnership may not join their names together. Lawyers or LLLTs who are not (1) partners, shareholders of a professional corporation, or members of a professional limited liability company or partnership, or (2) employees of a sole proprietorship, partnership, professional corporation, or members of a professional limited liability company or partnership or other organization, or (3) in the relationship of being "Of Counsel" to a sole proprietorship, partnership, professional corporation, or members of a professional limited liability company or partnership or other organization, must have separate letterheads, cards, and pleading paper, and must sign their names individually at the end of all pleadings and correspondence and not in conjunction with the names of other lawyers or LLLTs. [14] A law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name or other professional designation in each jurisdiction. See RPC 5.5(f) & cmt. [22]. In order to avoid misleading the public, when lawyers or LLLTs are identified as practicing in a particular office, the firm should indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located.

license: public-domain-government-work

citation: RPC RPC 7.1

rule_set: RPC

rule_number: RPC 7.1


title: Reserved

text:
RPC 7.2 [RESERVED.]

[Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 1988; September 1, 2006; April 14, 2015; January 26, 2021.]

citation: RPC RPC 7.2

rule_number: RPC 7.2


title: Solicitation of Clients

text:
RPC 7.3 SOLICITATION OF CLIENTS (a) A lawyer may solicit professional employment unless: (1) the solicitation is false or misleading; (2) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the physical, emotional, or mental state of the subject of the solicitation is such that the person could not exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer; (3) the subject of the solicitation has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or (4) the solicitation involves coercion, duress, or harassment. (b) A lawyer shall not compensate, or give or promise anything of value to, a person who is not an employee or lawyer in the same law firm for the purpose of recommending or securing the services of the lawyer or law firm, except that a lawyer may: (1) pay the reasonable cost of advertisements or communications permitted by RPC 7.1, including online group advertising; (2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service and share a fee, including a portion or percentage of a fee, with a not-for-profit lawyer referral service that qualifies under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code or Washington’s Nonprofit Corporation Act, or is a program sponsored by a nonprofit organization or a court as authorized under Rule 6.5(a); (3) pay for a law practice in accordance with RPC 1.17; (4) refer clients to another lawyer or LLLT or other nonlawyer professional pursuant to an agreement not otherwise prohibited under these Rules that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, if: (i) the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive, and (ii) the client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement; (5) give nominal gifts that are neither intended nor reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for recommending a lawyer’s services. (c) [Reserved.] (d) [Reserved.] [Adopted September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 1988; September 1, 2006; April 14, 2015; September 1, 2016; September 1, 2018; January 26, 2021; April 29, 2025.] Comments [1] [Washington revision.] A solicitation is a targeted communication initiated by or on behalf of a lawyer that is directed to a specific person and that offers to provide, or can reasonably be understood as offering to provide, legal services. Solicitations can include in-person, written, telephonic, and electronic communications. In contrast, a lawyer’s communication typically does not constitute a solicitation if it is directed to the general public, such as through a billboard, an

Internet banner advertisement, a website, or a television commercial, or if it is in response to a request for information or is automatically generated in response to Internet searches. [2] [Reserved.] [3] [Reserved.] [4] [Reserved.] [5] [Reserved.] [6] [Reserved.] [7] [Reserved.] [8] [Reserved.] [9] [Reserved.] Additional Washington Comments (10-16) [10] While all communications about a lawyer’s services are subject to the general prohibition against false or misleading communication in RPC 7.1, in-person solicitation can create problems because of the particular circumstances in which the solicitation takes place, and those circumstances are, therefore, appropriately regulated. Subsection (a) of this rule prohibits solicitation in circumstances or through means that are not conducive to intelligent, rational decisions. Unwanted solicitations (after the subject has informed the lawyer not to make contact) or solicitations involving coercion, duress, or harassment are specifically prohibited. Such circumstances and means could be the harassment of early morning or late-night telephone calls to a potential client to solicit legal work, repeated calls at any time of day, solicitation of an accident victim or the victim’s family shortly after the accident or while the victim is still in medical distress (particularly where a lawyer seeks professional employment by in-person or other real-time contact in such circumstances), or solicitation of vulnerable subjects, such as persons facing incarceration, or their family members, in or near a courthouse. The prohibition on solicitation of a subject who cannot “exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer” extends to an individual with diminished capacity who cannot adequately act in the individual’s own interest, and the provisions of RPC 1.14 may provide guidance in evaluating “the physical, emotional, or mental” state of the subject. [11] Under RPC 5.1, RPC 5.3, and RPC 8.4(a), the solicitation restrictions that apply to the lawyer’s own acts or conduct also extend to acts or conduct by employees, agents, or any third persons acting on the lawyer’s behalf. [12] Washington has not adopted subsection (e) of the Model Rule creating a safe harbor for inperson and telephonic solicitations in the context of a prepaid or group legal services plan because solicitations of professional employment by any means and in all contexts are permitted subject to the exceptions contained in subsection (a)(1) – (4). In addition, prior provisions and comments under RPC 7.3 in Washington relating to in-person, telephonic, or real-time electronic solicitations in the context of referrals from a third party or a lawyer referral service have been removed because solicitations by any means in this context are permitted subject to the exceptions contained in paragraphs (a)(1)–(4) of this RPC. Paying Others to Recommend a Lawyer [13] Subsection (b) of this rule was derived from former Washington RPC 7.2(b).

[14] Except as permitted under subsections (b)(1)-(b)(5), lawyers are not permitted to pay others for recommending the lawyer’s services or for channeling professional work in a manner that violates RPC 7.1 or RPC 7.3. A communication contains a recommendation if it endorses or vouches for a lawyer’s credentials, abilities, competence, character, or other professional qualities. Subsection (b)(1), however, allows a lawyer to pay for advertising and solicitations permitted by RPC 7.1 and this rule, including the costs of print directory listings, online directory listings, newspaper ads, television and radio airtime, domain-name registrations, sponsorship fees, Internet-based advertisements, and group advertising. A lawyer may compensate employees, agents, and vendors who are engaged to provide marketing or client-development services, such as publicists, public-relations personnel, business-development staff, and website designers, as long as the employees, agents, and vendors do not direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment (see RPC 5.4(c)). Moreover, a lawyer may pay others for generating client leads, such as Internet-based client leads, as long as the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer, any payment to the lead generator is consistent with RPC 1.5(e) (division of fees) and 5.4 (professional independence of the lawyer), and the lead generator’s communications are consistent with RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services). To comply with RPC 7.1, a lawyer must not pay a lead generator that states, implies, or creates a reasonable impression that it is recommending the lawyer, is making the referral without payment from the lawyer, or has analyzed a person’s legal problems when determining which lawyer should receive the referral. See also RPC 5.3 (duties of lawyers and law firms with respect to the conduct of nonlawyers); RPC 8.4(a) (duty to avoid violating the rules through the acts of another). For the definition of nonlawyer for the purposes of RPC 5.3, see Washington cmt. 5 to Rule 5.3. [15] A lawyer may pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service. A “legal service plan” is a prepaid or group legal service plan or a similar delivery system that assists people who seek to secure legal representation. A “lawyer referral service,” on the other hand, is any individual or entity that operates for the direct or indirect purpose of referring potential clients to lawyers, regardless of whether the term “referral service” is used. The “usual charges” of a legal service plan or not-for-profit lawyer referral service are fees that are openly promulgated and uniformly applied. Not-for-profit lawyer referral services are understood by the public to be consumer-oriented organizations that provide unbiased referrals to lawyers with appropriate experience in the subject matter of the representation and afford other client protections, such as complaint procedures or malpractice insurance requirements. A lawyer also may share a fee, including a portion or percentage of a fee, in exchange for a referral from not-for-profit lawyer referral services because these services help to facilitate access to justice and, if they operate under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code or the Washington Nonprofit Corporation Act, the service will use the fee only to defray reasonable operating costs. The fee paid by a client who is referred by the service, however, should not exceed the total charges that the client would have paid if the lawyer referral was not involved. [16] A lawyer also may agree to refer clients to another lawyer or LLLT or other nonlawyer professional in return for the undertaking of that person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer. Such reciprocal referral arrangements must not interfere with the lawyer’s professional judgment as to making referrals or as to providing substantive legal services. See RPC 2.1 and 5.4(c). Except as provided in RPC 1.5(e), a lawyer who receives referrals from a lawyer or LLLT or other nonlawyer professional must not pay anything solely for the referral, but the lawyer does not violate this Rule by agreeing to refer clients to the other lawyer or LLLT or other nonlawyer professional, so long as the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive and the client is informed of the referral agreement. Conflicts of interest created by such arrangements are governed by RPC 1.7. Reciprocal referral agreements should not be of indefinite duration and should be reviewed periodically to determine whether they comply with these rules. This rule does not restrict referrals or divisions of revenues or net income among lawyers within firms comprised of multiple entities. Under LLLT RPC 1.5(e), however, an LLLT may not enter into an arrangement for the division of a fee with a lawyer who is not in the same firm as the LLLT.

[Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006; Comment 4 amended effective April 14, 2015; New Comment 1 adopted, subsequent comments renumbered and amended, and Comment 14 adopted effective September 1, 2016; Comments amended and Comments 15 and 16 adopted effective January 26, 2021; Comment 15 amended effective April 29, 2025.]

citation: RPC RPC 7.3

rule_number: RPC 7.3


title: Reserved

text: RPC 7.4 COMMUNICATION OF FIELDS OF PRACTICE AND SPECIALIZATION [RESERVED.] [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 18, 1992; September 1, 2006; January 6, 2021.]

citation: RPC RPC 7.4

rule_number: RPC 7.4


title: Reserved

text: RPC 7.5 FIRM NAMES AND LETTERHEADS [RESERVED] [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 2006; April 14, 2015; January 26, 2021.]

citation: RPC RPC 7.5

rule_number: RPC 7.5


title: Political Contributions to Obtain Government Legal Engagements or Appointments by Judges

text:
RPC 7.6 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO OBTAIN GOVERNMENT LEGAL ENGAGEMENTS OR APPOINTMENTS BY JUDGES A lawyer or law firm shall not accept a government legal engagement or an appointment by a judge if the lawyer or law firm makes a political contribution or solicits political contributions for the purpose of obtaining or being considered for that type of legal engagement or appointment. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985.] Comment [1] Lawyers have a right to participate fully in the political process, which includes making and soliciting political contributions to candidates for judicial and other public office. Nevertheless, when lawyers make or solicit political contributions in order to obtain an engagement for legal work awarded by a government agency, or to obtain appointment by a judge, the public may legitimately question whether the lawyers engaged to perform the work are selected on the basis of competence and merit. In such a circumstance, the integrity of the profession is undermined. [2] The term “political contribution” denotes any gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of anything of value made directly or indirectly to a candidate, incumbent, political party or campaign committee to influence or provide financial support for election to or retention in judicial or other government office. Political contributions in initiative and referendum elections are not included. For purposes of this Rule, the term “political contribution” does not include uncompensated services. [3] Subject to the exceptions below, (i) the term “government legal engagement” denotes any engagement to provide legal services that a public official has the direct or indirect power to award; and (ii) the term “appointment by a judge” denotes an appointment to a position such as referee, commissioner, special master, receiver, guardian or other similar position that is made by a judge. Those terms do not, however, include (a) substantially uncompensated services; (b) engagements or appointments made on the basis of experience, expertise, professional qualifications and cost following a request for proposal or other process that is free from influence based upon political contributions; and (c) engagements or appointments made on a rotational basis from a list compiled without regard to political contributions. [4] The term “lawyer or law firm” includes a political action committee or other entity owned or controlled by a lawyer or law firm. [5] Political contributions are for the purpose of obtaining or being considered for a government legal engagement or appointment by a judge if, but for the desire to be considered for the legal engagement or appointment, the lawyer or law firm would not have made or solicited the contributions. The purpose may be determined by an examination of the circumstances in which the contributions occur. For example, one or more contributions that in the aggregate are substantial in relation to other contributions by lawyers or law firms, made for the benefit of an official in a position to influence award of a government legal engagement, and followed by an award of the legal engagement to the contributing or soliciting lawyer or the lawyer’s firm would support an inference that the purpose of the contributions was to obtain the engagement, absent other factors that weigh against existence of the proscribed purpose. Those factors may include among others that the contribution or solicitation was made to further a political, social, or economic interest or because of an existing personal, family, or professional relationship with a candidate. [6] If a lawyer makes or solicits a political contribution under circumstances that constitute bribery or another crime, Rule 8.4(b) is implicated.

[Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006.]

citation: RPC RPC 7.6

rule_number: RPC 7.6


title: Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters

text: RPC 8.1 BAR ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINARY MATTERS An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with an application for reinstatement or admission to the Bar or a disciplinary matter involving a legal practitioner, shall not: (a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or (b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective October 1, 2002; September 1, 2006; April 14, 2015; June 4, 2019.] Comment [1] The duty imposed by this Rule extends to persons seeking admission to the bar as well as to lawyers. Hence, if a person makes a material false statement in connection with an application for admission, it may be the basis for subsequent disciplinary action if the person is admitted, and in any event may be relevant in subsequent admission application. The duty imposed by this Rule applies to a lawyer’s own admission or discipline as well as that of others. Thus, it is a separate professional offense for a lawyer to knowingly make a misrepresentation or omission in connection with a disciplinary investigation of the lawyer’s own conduct. Paragraph (b) of this Rule also requires correction of any prior misstatement in the matter that the applicant or lawyer may have made and affirmative clarification of any misunderstanding on the part of the admissions or disciplinary authority of which the person involved becomes aware. [2] This Rule is subject to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and corresponding provisions of state constitutions. A person relying on such a provision in response to a question, however, should do so openly and not use the right of nondisclosure as a justification for failure to comply with this Rule. [3] [Washington revision] A lawyer representing an applicant for admission to the bar, representing a lawyer who is the subject of a disciplinary inquiry or proceeding, or representing an LLLT in relation to an application for limited licensure under APR 28 or disciplinary matter is governed by the rules applicable to the client-lawyer relationship, including Rule 1.6 and, in some cases, Rule 3.3. [Comment 3 amended effective April 14, 2015.] Additional Washington Comment (4-5) [4] A lawyer’s obligations under this Rule are in addition to the lawyer’s obligations under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. [5] The corollary duties of applicants for limited licensure under APR 28 are set forth in LLLT RPC 8.1. [Comment 5 adopted effective April 14, 2015.] [Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006.]

citation: RPC RPC 8.1

rule_number: RPC 8.1


title: Judicial and Legal Officials

text: RPC 8.2 JUDICIAL AND LEGAL OFFICIALS (a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications, integrity, or record of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office. (b) A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 2006.] Comment [1] Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for election or appointment to judicial office and to public legal offices, such as attorney general, prosecuting attorney and public defender. Expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice. Conversely, false statements by a lawyer can unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. [2] When a lawyer seeks judicial office, the lawyer should be bound by applicable limitations on political activity. [3] To maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers are encouraged to continue traditional efforts to defend judges and courts unjustly criticized. [Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006.]

citation: RPC RPC 8.2

rule_number: RPC 8.2


title: Reporting Professional Misconduct

text:
RPC 8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer or LLLT has committed a violation of the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's or LLLT’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer or LLLT in other respects, should inform the appropriate professional authority. (b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office should inform the appropriate authority. (c) This Rule does not permit a lawyer to report the professional misconduct of another lawyer, judge, or LLLT to the appropriate authority if doing so would require the lawyer to disclose information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 2006; April 14, 2015.] Comment [1] [Washington revision] Lawyers are not required to report the misconduct of other lawyers, LLLTs, or judges. Self-regulation of the legal profession, however, creates an aspiration that members of the profession report misconduct to the appropriate disciplinary authority when they know of a serious violation of the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar aspiration with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense. [Comment 1 amended effective April 14, 2015.] [2] [Reserved.] [3] [Washington revision] While lawyers are not obliged to report every violation of the applicable Rules, the failure to report a serious violation may undermine the belief that the legal profession should be self-regulating. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in deciding whether to report a violation. The term “substantial” refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware. A report should be made whenever a lawyer’s or LLLT’s conduct raises a serious question as to the honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice. Similar considerations apply to the reporting of judicial misconduct. [Comment 3 amended effective April 14, 2015.] [4] [Washington revision] This Rule does not apply to a lawyer retained to represent a lawyer, LLLT, or judge whose professional conduct is in question. Such a situation is governed by the Rules applicable to the client-lawyer relationship. [Comment 4 amended effective April 14, 2015.] [5] [Washington revision] Information about a lawyer's, LLLT’s, or judge's misconduct or fitness may be received by a lawyer in the course of that lawyer's participation in an approved lawyers or judges assistance program. In that circumstance, there is no requirement or aspiration of reporting. Admission to Practice Rule 19(b) makes confidential communications between lawyer-clients and staff or peer counselors of the Lawyers’ Assistance Program (LAP) of the WSBA privileged. Likewise, Discipline Rule for Judges 14(e) makes confidential communications between judges and peer counselors and the Judicial Assistance Committees of the various judges associations or the LAP of the WSBA privileged. Lawyers and judges should

not hesitate to seek assistance from these programs and to help prevent additional harm to their professional careers and additional injury to the welfare of clients and the public. [Comment 5 amended effective April 14, 2015.] [Comments adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 2006.]

citation: RPC RPC 8.3

rule_number: RPC 8.3


title: Misconduct

text:
RPC 8.4 MISCONDUCT It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (f) knowingly (1) assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law, or (2) assist or induce an LLLT in conduct that is a violation of the applicable rules of professional conduct or other law; (g) commit a discriminatory act prohibited by state law on the basis of sex, race, age, creed, religion, color, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or marital status, where the act of discrimination is committed in connection with the lawyer's professional activities. In addition, it is professional misconduct to commit a discriminatory act on the basis of sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity if such an act would violate this rule when committed on the basis of sex, race, age, creed, religion, color, national origin, disability, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or marital status. This rule shall not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from the representation of a client in accordance with Rule 1.16; (h) in representing a client, engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice toward judges, lawyers, or LLLTs, other parties, witnesses, jurors, or court personnel or officers, that a reasonable person would interpret as manifesting prejudice or bias on the basis of sex, race, age, creed, religion, color, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or marital status. This rule does not restrict a lawyer from representing a client by advancing material factual or legal issues or arguments; (i) commit any act involving moral turpitude, or corruption, or any unjustified act of assault or other act that reflects disregard for the rule of law, whether the same be committed in the course of their conduct as a lawyer, or otherwise, and whether the same constitutes a felony or misdemeanor or not; and if the act constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding shall not be a condition precedent to disciplinary action, nor shall acquittal or dismissal thereof preclude the commencement of a disciplinary proceeding; (j) willfully disobey or violate a court order directing them to do or cease doing an act that they ought in good faith to do or forbear; (k) violate their oath as an attorney;

(l) violate a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter; including, but not limited to, the duties catalogued at ELC 1.5; (m) violate the Code of Judicial Conduct; or (n) engage in conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 17, 1993; October 31, 2000; October 1, 2002; September 1, 2006; April 14, 2015; September 1, 2018; September 1, 2022; January 1, 2023.] Comments [1] [Washington revision] Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through the acts of another, as when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer’s behalf. Lawyers are also subject to discipline if they assist or induce an LLLT to violate the LLLT RPC. Paragraph (a), however, does not prohibit a lawyer from advising a client concerning action the client is legally entitled to take. [Comment 1 amended effective April 14, 2015.] [2] [Reserved.] [3] [Washington revision] Legitimate advocacy respecting the factors set forth in paragraph (h) does not violate paragraphs (d) or (h). A trial judge’s finding that peremptory challenges were exercised on a discriminatory basis does not alone establish a violation of this Rule. [4] A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law. [5] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer’s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent and officer, director or manager of a corporation or other organization. Additional Washington Comments (6-8) [6] Paragraphs (g) - (n) were taken from former Washington RPC 8.4 (as amended in 2002). [7] Under paragraph (f)(2), lawyers are also subject to discipline if they assist or induce an LLLT to violate the LLLT RPC. See also Rule 4.3 Washington Comment [6]. [Comment 7 amended effective April 14, 2015.] [8] A lawyer who counsels a client regarding Washington laws or assists a client in conduct that the lawyer reasonably believes is permitted by those laws (for example and without limitation, Washington laws related to reproductive health care services, gender-affirming care, or cannabis) does not thereby violate RPC 8.4. See also RPC 1.2 Washington Comment [18]. [Comment 8 adopted effective September 25, 2018; Amended effective October 29, 2024.] [Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006.]

citation: RPC RPC 8.4

rule_number: RPC 8.4


title: Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law

text:
RPC 8.5 DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY; CHOICE OF LAW (a) Disciplinary Authority. A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs. A lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction is also subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in this jurisdiction. A lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another jurisdiction for the same conduct. (b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows: (1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise; and (2) for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct. A lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur. (c) Disciplinary Authority Over Judges. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 8.4(m), a lawyer, while serving as a judge or justice as defined in RCW 2.64.010, shall not be subject to the disciplinary authority provided for in these Rules or the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct for acts performed in their or judicial capacity or as a candidate for judicial office unless judicial discipline is imposed for that conduct by the Commission on Judicial Conduct or the Supreme Court. Disciplinary authority should not be exercised for the identical conduct if the violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct pertains to the role of the judiciary and does not relate to the judge’s or justice’s fitness to practice law. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective October 1, 2002; September 1, 2006; September 1, 2010; January 1, 2023.] Comments Disciplinary Authority [1] It is longstanding law that the conduct of a lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction. Extension of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction to other lawyers who provide or offer to provide legal services in this jurisdiction is for the protection of the citizens of this jurisdiction. Reciprocal enforcement of a jurisdiction’s disciplinary findings and sanctions will further advance the purposes of this Rule. See, Rules 6 and 22, ABA Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. A lawyer who is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction under Rule 8.5(a) appoints an official to be designated by this Court to receive service of process in this jurisdiction. The fact that the lawyer is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction may be a factor in determining whether personal jurisdiction may be asserted over the lawyer for civil matters. Choice of Law [2] A lawyer may be potentially subject to more than one set of rules of professional conduct which impose different obligations. The lawyer may be licensed to practice in more than one jurisdiction with differing rules, or may be admitted to practice before a particular court with rules that differ from those of the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which the lawyer is licensed to practice. Additionally, the lawyer’s conduct may involve significant contacts with more than one jurisdiction.

[3] Paragraph (b) seeks to resolve such potential conflicts. Its premise is that minimizing conflicts between rules, as well as uncertainty about which rules are applicable, is in the best interest of both clients and the profession (as well as the bodies having authority to regulate the profession). Accordingly, it takes the approach of (i) providing that any particular conduct of a lawyer shall be subject to only one set of rules of professional conduct, (ii) making the determination of which set of rules applies to particular conduct as straightforward as possible, consistent with recognition of appropriate regulatory interests of relevant jurisdictions, and (iii) providing protection from discipline for lawyers who act reasonably in the face of uncertainty. [4] Paragraph (b)(1) provides that as to a lawyer’s conduct relating to a proceeding pending before a tribunal, the lawyer shall be subject only to the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits unless the rules of the tribunal, including its choice of law rule, provide otherwise. As to all other conduct, including conduct in anticipation of a proceeding not yet pending before a tribunal, paragraph (b)(2) provides that a lawyer shall be subject to the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in another jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct. In the case of conduct in anticipation of a proceeding that is likely to be before a tribunal, the predominant effect of such conduct could be where the conduct occurred, where the tribunal sits or in another jurisdiction. [5] When a lawyer’s conduct involves significant contacts with more than one jurisdiction, it may not be clear whether the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur in a jurisdiction other than the one in which the conduct occurred. So long as the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect will occur, the lawyer shall not be subject to discipline under this Rule. With respect to conflicts of interest, in determining a lawyer’s reasonable belief under paragraph (b)(2), a written agreement between the lawyer and client that reasonably specifies a particular jurisdiction as within the scope of that paragraph may be considered if the agreement was obtained with the client’s informed consent confirmed in the agreement. [Comment 5 amended effective September 1, 2016.] [6] If two admitting jurisdictions were to proceed against a lawyer for the same conduct, they should, applying this Rule, identify the same governing ethics rules. They should take all appropriate steps to see that they do apply the same rule to the same conduct, and in all events should avoid proceeding against a lawyer on the basis of two inconsistent rules. [7] The choice of law provision applies to lawyers engaged in transnational practice, unless international law, treaties or other agreements between competent regulatory authorities in the affected jurisdictions provide otherwise. Additional Washington Comments (8–13) [8] The Commission on Judicial Conduct is an independent agency of the judicial branch of state government. Wash. Const. art. IV, § 31; RCW 2.64.120. The Commission has authority to receive and investigate complaints of, and conduct proceedings as to, alleged violations of rules of judicial conduct by a “judge or justice”. Wash. Const. art. IV, § 31; RCW 2.64.057. The terms “judge” and “justice” are defined to include justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior courts, judges of any court organized under RCW Titles 3 or 35, judges pro tempore, court commissioners, and magistrates, and the Commission’s authority applies regardless of whether the judge or justice services full time or part time. RCW 2.64.010(4). [9] Whether an act is performed in the judge’s “judicial capacity” depends on the facts and circumstances of the conduct. In general, acts are performed in the judicial capacity of they involve the making of judicial decisions, the performance of judicial duties, or the discharge of administrative responsibilities in connection with judicial office. Other factors include whether

the act was performed or purported to be performed in the individual’s official capacity as a judge and whether the conduct is expressly governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. With the exception of conduct committed during a judicial campaign, see Comment [12], paragraph (c) does not apply to conduct occurring prior to service as a judge, nor does it apply to conduct wholly outside of the judicial campaign. [10] Paragraph (c) does not prevent the exercise of disciplinary authority over (1) a judge or justice after they have been disciplined for judicial misconduct by the Commission on Judicial Conduct or the Supreme Court, (2) a former judge or justice, or (3) a lawyer who serves as a pro tem or part time judge for acts performed by them as a lawyer and otherwise outside of their judicial capacity. [11] [Reserved.] [12] Acts performed as a candidate for judicial office are governed by paragraph (c) if performed by a judge or a justice or a successful lawyer candidate for judicial office. This rule has no application to acts performed by an unsuccessful lawyer candidate for judicial office. [13] Paragraph (c) applies to judges and justices defined to be within the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Conduct under Wash. Const. art. IV, § 31 and Title 2.64 RCW and is not intended to apply to other lawyers in this state designated as judges, including but not limited to federal judges, administrative law judges, and tribal judges. [Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006; Amended effective September 1, 2010; January 1, 2023.]

citation: RPC RPC 8.5

rule_number: RPC 8.5


title: Guidelines for Applying Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6

text:
APPENDIX GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING RULE OF PROFESIONAL CONDUCT 3.6 I. Criminal A. The kind of statement referred to in Rule 3.6 which may potentially prejudice criminal proceedings is a statement which relates to: (1) The character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a suspect or defendant; (2) The possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of a confession, admission or statement given by a suspect or defendant or that persons refusal or failure to make a statement; (3) The performance or results of any investigative examination or test such as a polygraph examination or a laboratory test or the failure of a person to submit to an examination or test; (4) Any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of any suspect or defendant; (5) The credibility or anticipated testimony of a prospective witness; and (6) Information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial. B. The public has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. Lawyers involved in the litigation of criminal matters may state without elaboration: (1) The general nature of the charge or defense; (2) The information contained in the public record; and (3) The scheduling of any step in litigation, including a scheduled court hearing to enter a plea of guilty. C. The public also has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. Toward that end a public prosecutor or other lawyer involved in the investigation of a criminal case may state: (1) That an investigation is in progress, including the general scope of the investigation and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved; (2) A request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information; (3) A warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and (4) (i) The identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused; (ii) information necessary to aid in apprehension of the accused;

(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and (iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation. II. Civil The kind of statement referred to in Rule 3.6 which may potentially prejudice civil matters triable to a jury is a statement designed to influence the jury or to detract from the impartiality of the proceedings. [Amended effective September 1, 2006.]

citation: RPC RPC Appendix

rule_number: RPC Appendix


title: Limited Practice Officer Rules of Professional Conduct (LPORPC)

text:
LIMITED PRACTICE OFFICER RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (LPORPC) PREAMBLE TO LIMITED PRACTICE OFFICER RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Limited practice officers receive a limited license to practice law, and are held to the same standard of care as a lawyer when performing the legal services authorized by the LPO license. A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of the client, an officer of the court, and a public citizen having a specific responsibility for the quality of justice. A consequent obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct. Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers have been adopted stating fundamental ethical principles which lawyers are professionally obligated to observe. In fulfilling professional responsibilities, an LPO necessarily performs various roles that lawyers otherwise or also perform. Certain of the lawyer Rules of Professional Conduct, as modified to reflect the unique nature of the duties and provisions of APR 12, have been adopted as appropriate rules of professional conduct applicable to LPOs. These rules update standards for LPO conduct and they set forth the minimum standard of conduct required of LPOs. Not every ethical situation that an LPO may encounter can be foreseen; the fundamental ethical principles in the rules are intended to provide minimum standards to assist the LPO in determining the appropriate conduct. So long as LPOs are guided by these principles, their conduct will assist in assuring the law continues to be a noble profession. SCOPE The Limited Practice Officer Rules of Professional Conduct, where mandatory in character, state the minimum level of conduct below which no LPO can fall without being subject to disciplinary action. Other LPORPC may afford the LPO some discretion in exercising professional judgment and may provide guidance for compliance, rather than adding mandatory professional obligations. Failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a Rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process. The Rules presuppose that disciplinary assessment of an LPO’s conduct will be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances as they existed at the time of the conduct in question and in recognition of the fact that an LPO often has to act upon uncertain or incomplete knowledge of the situation. Moreover, the Rules presuppose that whether or not discipline should be imposed for a violation, and the severity of a sanction, depend on all the circumstances, such as the willfulness and seriousness of the violation, extenuating factors and whether there have been previous violations. Violation of a Rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against an LPO nor should it create any presumption in such a case that a legal duty has been breached. In addition, violation of a Rule does not necessarily warrant any other non-disciplinary remedy, such as disqualification of an LPO in a pending transaction. The Rules are designed to provide guidance to LPOs and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability. Nothing in these Rules is intended to change existing Washington law on the use of rules of professional conduct in a civil action. Cf. Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wn.2d 251, 830 P.2d 646 (1992) (lawyer rules of professional conduct do not define standards of civil liability of lawyers for professional conduct, but provide only a public disciplinary remedy). The Comment accompanying each Rule explains and illustrates the meaning and purpose of the Rule. The Preamble and this note on Scope provide general orientation. The Comments are intended as guides to interpretation, but the text of each Rule is authoritative. LPORPC 1.0 TERMINOLOGY

The following definitions apply to all rules and regulations governing LPOs under APR 12 except only where a term is expressly differently defined for use in particular provisions of any rule or regulation. (a) “Belief” or “believes” denotes that the person involved actually supposed the fact in question to be true. A person’s belief may be inferred from circumstances. (b) “Client(s)” when used in a purchase and sale transaction denotes the buyer and seller and may include the purchase money lender for the same transaction only if the LPO accepts the duty to select, prepare, or complete legal documents for the purchase money loans. When used in a loan-only transaction, whether or not the LPO accepts the duty to select, prepare, or complete legal documents, “Clients” are the borrower and lender. (c) “Closing Firm” means any bank, depository institution, escrow agent, title company, law firm, or other business, whether public or private, that employs, or contracts for the services of, an LPO for the purpose of providing real or personal property closing services for a transaction. (d) “Fraud” or “fraudulent” denotes conduct that has a purpose to deceive and is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of Washington, except that it is not necessary that anyone has suffered damages or relied on the misrepresentation or failure to inform. (e) “Knowingly,” “known,” or “knows” denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. (f) “Limited Practice Officer” or “LPO” means a person licensed in accordance with the procedures set forth in APR 12 and who has maintained their certification in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Limited Practice Board. (g) “LPO Services” means those documentation activities for use by others performed by an LPO under the authorization of APR 12(d). (h) “Party(ies)” or “Participant(s)” in a closing transaction includes persons other than “clients” from whom the LPO accepts instructions or to whom the LPO may make deliveries or disburse funds. (i) “Reasonable” or “reasonably” when used in relation to conduct by an LPO denotes the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent LPO performing the same LPO services. (j) “Reasonable belief” or “reasonably believes” when used in reference to an LPO denotes that the LPO believes the matter in question and that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable. (k) “Reasonably should know” when used in reference to an LPO denotes that an LPO of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question. (l) “Substantial” when used in reference to degree or extent denotes a material matter of clear and weighty importance. (m) “Transaction” means any real or personal property closing requiring the involvement of a lawyer or LPO to select, prepare or complete documents for the purpose of closing a loan, extension of credit, sale or other transfer of title to or interest in real or personal property. (n) “Written” denotes a tangible or electronic record of a communication or representation, including handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photography, audio or videorecording and e-mail.

Comment LPO services arise from a writing in which the clients have agreed to the basic terms of a transaction (APR 12(e)(1)). In a sale transaction, LPO services arise from a purchase and sale agreement between the buyer and seller. Lenders and others involved (brokers, lien-holders, etc.) are accommodated parties. In loan-only transactions, LPO services arise from closing instructions between the closing firm, lender and borrower. Thus, the lender and borrower each is a client; lien-holders and nonborrowing owners, etc. are accommodated parties. LPORPC 1.1 COMPETENCE An LPO shall provide competent LPO services. Competence requires the knowledge, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary to provide the LPO services. Not every LPO is competent to provide LPO services for every transaction. Comment Continuing competence is an ongoing core professional obligation. To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, an LPO should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice relevant to LPO duties, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing education requirements to which the LPO is subject. The rule also reminds the LPO that the competence required for a particular transaction is neither universal nor automatic. LPORPC 1.2 DILIGENCE An LPO must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in the performance of their duties, including the timely preparation of documents required to meet the closing date specified by the clients. Comment Lack of diligence is a professional defect. An LPO’s work load must be controlled so that each transaction can be handled competently. However, timely action under this rule should be measured by circumstances under the LPO’s control (as distinguished from unreasonable timing demands imposed by employer work load, the parties or the terms of the transaction). Unless the client relationship is terminated as provided in Rule 1.6, an LPO should carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a client. See also Rule 1.3, Communication with Clients, infra. LPORPC 1.3 COMMUNICATION WITH CLIENTS (a) Upon reasonable request, an LPO shall promptly provide relevant information to the clients regarding the documents selected, prepared, and completed for the transaction. (b) An LPO shall timely notify its clients of omissions or discrepancies in the documentation provided to the LPO which must be resolved before the LPO can provide LPO services in the transaction. (c) An LPO must inform a client to seek legal advice from a lawyer if the LPO is reliably informed or, based on contact with the client reasonably believes, that the client does not understand or appreciate the meaning or effect of an instrument prepared by the LPO for signature by the client. Comment

The performance of LPO services occasionally may require direct communication with multiple clients in a transaction. Proper focus for LPO communication with clients is not as an advocate or advisor, but as necessary to clear up documentary discrepancies and insure that there is an adequate written agreement for the LPO to select, prepare and complete the documentation for the transaction. See also Rules 1.2, Diligence; 1.6, Declining Services, infra. LPORPC 1.4 CONFIDENTIALITY These rules do not impose any duty of confidentiality on an LPO. Any LPO duty of confidentiality arising under common law, statute, or contract is not affected by these rules. LPORPC 1.5 CONFLICT OF INTEREST (a) An LPO shall not provide LPO services in a transaction where the LPO, or a member of the LPO’s immediate family, is either a party or client. For purposes of this rule, “immediate family” includes a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent or other relative or individual with whom the LPO maintains a close, familial relationship. (b) An LPO shall not use information obtained from the provision of LPO services to a client in a transaction for personal gain to the disadvantage of the client. (c) Where an LPO’s employer is a buyer or seller in a transaction, the LPO shall not provide LPO services unless the LPO provides written notice of the conflict to all other clients and obtains a written waiver of the conflict from all other clients. The notice and waiver shall be substantially in the form below. As required by rule 1.5 of the Limited Practice Officer Rules of Professional Conduct, you are hereby notified that the limited practice officer providing LPO services for this transaction is employed by {name of closing firm}, which has an interest in this transaction. Specifically, {set forth the closing firm’s interest in the transaction}. By signing below, you acknowledge that you (1) understand and have received the notice of conflict of interest; (2) have been advised to seek legal counsel if you do not understand the conflict or this waiver; and (3) waive the conflict of interest created by the closing firm having an interest in the transaction. LPORPC 1.6 DECLINING OR TERMINATING SERVICES (a) An LPO shall decline to provide LPO services or, where LPO services have commenced, shall terminate LPO services if: (1) The LPO services will clearly result in violation of the Limited Practice Officer Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, including the unauthorized practice of law by the LPO; (2) The LPO’s physical or mental condition materially impairs their ability to provide LPO services; (3) The LPO reasonably believes that the documentation requirements of the transaction exceed the LPO’s competence; (4) The LPO is discharged; or (5) A client insists on confidentiality of information disclosed to the LPO to which the LPO cannot agree.

(b) An LPO may refuse to provide LPO services for any other reason, including without limitation the following, if: (1) A client persists in a course of action involving the LPO’s services that the LPO reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent or illegal, or that might require the LPO to exceed their authority as an LPO; (2) A client has used the services of the LPO to perpetrate a crime or fraud; (3) A client insists upon pursuing an objective or practice that the LPO reasonably considers repugnant or with which an LPO has a fundamental disagreement; (4) A client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the LPO regarding the LPO’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the LPO will terminate services unless the obligation is fulfilled; (5) The LPO services will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the LPO or its services in the transaction have been rendered unreasonably difficult by the clients; or (6) Other cause for refusal of services exists. Where the clients are unwilling or unable to correct the situation, other cause for refusal of services may include, but is not limited to: insufficient or conflicting documentation that is not timely corrected by the clients; direction from a client to use forms not approved by the Limited Practice Board or to make unauthorized alterations to approved forms; direction from a client that is inconsistent with the existing documentation; apparent lack of or defect in the capacity of a client or signatory; or failure of the clients to allow sufficient time for competent and orderly performance of LPO services. (c) Upon termination of an LPO’s services, the LPO must take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the clients’ interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the clients (as determined by the circumstances of the transaction), advising the clients that they can seek the advice of a lawyer regarding the transaction, allowing time for employment of a lawyer or another LPO where reasonable, and surrendering papers and property to which the clients are entitled if requested and if all LPO fees and costs are paid. Comment The rule first identifies situations where an LPO must decline followed by situations where an LPO may decline to provide LPO services. An LPO ordinarily must decline or terminate services if a client demands that the LPO engage in conduct that is illegal or violates the LPO Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, or in the other enumerated instances. LPORPC 1.7 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS In the course of performing LPO services in a transaction, an LPO shall not knowingly fail to disclose all material facts to clients or any parties to the transaction, or make false statements of material facts to clients or any such party. LPORPC 1.8 UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW An LPO shall not: (a) engage in, or assist others in, the unauthorized practice of law, including the giving of legal advice; (b) permit their name, signature stamp or LPO number to be used by any other person;

(c) select, prepare, or complete documents authorized by APR 12 for or together with any person whose LPO certification has been revoked or suspended, if the LPO knows, or reasonably should know, of such revocation or suspension; or (d) work as an LPO while on inactive status, or while their LPO certification is suspended or revoked for any cause. Comment Clearly, the selection and completion of legal forms constitutes the practice of law. Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wn.2d 582; 1586, (1983). Adjudicated cases finding LPO unauthorized practice of law have involved LPO use of unapproved forms and unapproved alterations of approved forms. See Bishop v. Jefferson Title Co., 107 Wn.App 833, 128 p. 3d 802 (2001). Washington General Rule (GR) 24 sets forth the definition of the practice of law. LPORPC 1.9 LPO DUTIES AND AUTHORITY ARE NOT DELEGABLE The powers, duties and responsibilities of an LPO are personal to the LPO and may not be assigned or delegated to a person who is not an LPO. An LPO may be supported and assisted by one or more persons who are not LPOs if the LPO adequately supervises the assistants and retains sole and final responsibility for the work performed by the assistants. An LPO must take all steps reasonably necessary to insure that an assistant's activities do not violate APR 12 and regulations of the Limited Practice Board and are consistent with the LPO’s duties under these rules. An LPO must review and approve the assistant’s activities and document preparation. An LPO should have no more assistants and support staff than the LPO can adequately directly supervise, to insure that the assistant activities conform to assigned LPO support tasks defined in writing. Nothing in this rule authorizes an LPO assistant to exercise the authority or perform the duties of an LPO independently. LPORPC 1.10 MISCONDUCT It is professional misconduct for an LPO to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Limited Practice Officer Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the LPO’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as an LPO in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) willfully disobey or violate a valid court order directing them to do or cease doing an act that they ought in good faith to do or forbear; (e) violate their oath as an LPO; (f) violate a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Limited Practice Officer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter, including, but not limited to, the duties catalogued at ELPOC 1.5, Violation of Duties Imposed by These Rules; (g) engage in conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice as an LPO. “Unfitness to practice” includes but is not limited to the inability, unwillingness or repeated failure to perform adequately the material functions required of an LPO or to comply with the LPORPC and/or ELPOC; (h) misrepresent or conceal a material fact made in an application for admission under APR 12 or in support thereof;

(i) commit any act involving moral turpitude, or corruption, or any unjustified act of assault or other act that reflects disregard for the rule of law, whether the same be committed in the course of their conduct as an LPO, or otherwise, and whether the same constitutes a felony or misdemeanor or not; and if the act constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding shall not be a condition precedent to disciplinary action, nor shall acquittal or dismissal thereof preclude the commencement of a disciplinary proceeding. Comment Regarding subparagraph (d), it is common for courts to issue orders to the parties to engage in a transaction involving a closing agent. The LPO should seek legal advice as to whether such orders are valid. LPORPC 1.11 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT An LPO who knows that another LPO has committed repeated and material violations of the LPORPC should inform the Limited Practice Board. Comment The intent of this rule is to encourage an LPO to report professional misconduct in order to ensure effective self-regulation of LPOs. Examples of misconduct include, but are not limited to use of unapproved forms, unauthorized delegation or performance of LPO duties, use of an LPO’s name, signature stamp or identification number by unlicensed persons, or an LPO acting as an LPO while one’s license is inactive or suspended. If an LPO knows of the unauthorized practice of law by someone other than an LPO, the LPO should report the person to the Practice of Law Board (GR 25). LPORPC 1.12A SAFEGUARDING PROPERTY (a) This Rule applies to (1) property of clients or third persons in the possession of an LPO or a Closing Firm in connection with a transaction, and (2) escrow and other funds held by an LPO or a Closing Firm incident to a transaction. For all transactions in which an LPO under the authorization set forth in APR 12(d) or a lawyer has selected, prepared, or completed documents, the LPO must insure that all funds received by the closing firm incidental to the closing of the transaction, including advances for costs and expenses, are held and maintained as set forth in this rule. (b) An LPO or a Closing Firm must not use, convert, borrow, or pledge client or third person property for the LPO’s or Closing Firm’s own use. (c) An LPO or Closing Firm must hold property of clients and third persons separate from the LPO’s and Closing Firm’s own property. (1) An LPO or Closing Firm must deposit and hold in a trust account funds subject to this Rule pursuant to paragraph (i) of this Rule. (2) An LPO or Closing Firm must identify, label, and appropriately safeguard any property of clients or third persons other than funds. The LPO or Closing Firm must keep records of such property that identify the property, the client or third person, the date of receipt, and the location of safekeeping. The LPO or Closing Firm must preserve the records for seven years after return of the property. (d) An LPO or Closing Firm must promptly notify a client or third person of receipt of the client or third person’s property.

(e) An LPO or Closing Firm must promptly provide a written accounting to a client or third person after distribution of funds or upon request. An LPO or Closing Firm must provide at least annually a written accounting to a client or third person for whom the LPO or Closing Firm is holding funds. (f) Except as stated in this Rule, an LPO or Closing Firm must promptly pay or deliver to the client or third person the property which the client or third person is entitled to receive. (g) If an LPO or Closing Firm possesses property in which two or more persons (one of which may be the LPO or Closing Firm) claim interests, the LPO or Closing Firm must maintain the property in trust until the dispute is resolved. The LPO or Closing Firm must promptly distribute all undisputed portions of the property. The LPO or Closing Firm must take reasonable action to resolve the dispute, including, when appropriate, interpleading the disputed funds. (h) An LPO or Closing Firm must comply with the following for all trust accounts: (1) No funds belonging to the LPO or Closing Firm may be deposited or retained in a trust account except as follows: (i) funds to pay bank charges, but only in an amount reasonably sufficient for that purpose; (ii) funds belonging in part to a client or third person and in part presently or potentially to the LPO or Closing Firm must be deposited and retained in a trust account, but any portion belonging to the LPO or Closing Firm must be withdrawn at the earliest reasonable time; or (iii) funds necessary to restore appropriate balances. (2) An LPO or Closing Firm must keep complete records as required by Rule 1.12B. (3) An LPO or Closing Firm may withdraw funds when necessary to pay client costs. The LPO or Closing Firm may withdraw earned fees only after giving reasonable notice to the client of the intent to do so, through a billing statement or other document. (4) Receipts must be deposited intact. (5) All withdrawals must be made only to a named payee and not to cash. Withdrawals must be made by check or by electronic transfer. (6) Trust account records must be reconciled as often as bank statements are generated or at least quarterly. The LPO or Closing Firm must reconcile the check register balance to the bank statement balance and reconcile the check register balance to the combined total of all client ledger records required by Rule 1.12B(a)(2). (7) An LPO or Closing Firm must not disburse funds from a trust account until deposits have cleared the banking process and been collected. (8) Disbursements on behalf of a client or third person may not exceed the funds of that person on deposit. The funds of a client or third person must not be used on behalf of anyone else. (i) Trust accounts must be interest-bearing and allow withdrawals or transfers without any delay other than notice periods that are required by law or regulation. In the exercise of ordinary prudence, the LPO or Closing Firm may select any bank, savings bank, credit union, or savings and loan association that is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or National Credit Union Administration, is authorized by law to do business in Washington and has filed the

agreement required by rule 15.4 of the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. Trust account funds must not be placed in mutual funds, stocks, bonds, or similar investments. (1) When client or third-person funds will not produce a positive net return to the client or third person because the funds are nominal in amount or expected to be held for a short period of time the funds must be placed in a pooled interest-bearing trust account known as an Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Account or IOLTA. The interest accruing on the IOLTA account, net of reasonable check and deposit processing charges which may only include items deposited charge, monthly maintenance fee, per item check charge, and per deposit charge, must be paid to the Legal Foundation of Washington. Any other fees and transaction costs must be paid by the LPO or Closing Firm. An LPO or Closing Firm may, but shall not be required to, notify the parties to the transaction of the intended use of such funds. (2) Client or third-person funds that will produce a positive net return to the client or third person must be placed in one of the following unless the client or third person requests that the funds be deposited in an IOLTA account: (i) a separate interest bearing trust account for the particular client or third person with earned interest paid to the client or third person; or (ii) a pooled interest bearing trust account with sub accounting that allows for computation of interest earned by each client or third person’s funds with the interest paid to the appropriate client or third person. (3) In determining whether to use the account specified in paragraph (i)(1) or an account specified in paragraph (i)(2), an LPO or Closing Firm must consider only whether the funds will produce a positive net return to the client or third person, as determined by the following factors: (i) the amount of interest the funds would earn based on the current rate of interest and the expected period of deposit; (ii) the cost of establishing and administering the account, including the cost of the LPO or Closing Firm services and the cost of preparing any tax reports required for interest accruing to a client or third person’s benefit; and (iii) the capability of financial institutions to calculate and pay interest to individual clients or third persons if the account in paragraph (i)(2)(ii) is used. (4) As to IOLTA accounts created under paragraph (i)(1), the LPO or Closing Firm must direct the depository institution: (i) to remit interest or dividends, net of charges authorized by paragraph (i)(1), on the average monthly balance in the account, or as otherwise computed in accordance with an institution’s standard accounting practice, monthly, to the Legal Foundation of Washington; (ii) to transmit with each remittance to the Foundation a statement, on a form authorized by the Washington State Bar Association, showing details about the account, including but not limited to the name of the LPO or Closing Firm for whom the remittance is sent, the rate of interest applied, and the amount of service charges deducted, if any, and the balance used to compute the interest, with a copy of such statement to be transmitted to the depositing LPO or Closing Firm; and (iii) to bill fees and transaction costs not authorized by paragraph (i)(1) to the LPO or Closing Firm. (j) Notwithstanding any provision of any other rule, statute, or regulation, escrow and other funds held by an LPO, or the Closing Firm, incident to the closing of any real or personal

property transaction are funds subject to this rule regardless of how the LPO, Closing Firm, or party(ies) view the funds. LPORPC 1.12B REQUIRED TRUST ACCOUNT RECORDS (a) An LPO or Closing Firm must maintain current trust account records. They may be in electronic or manual form and must be retained for at least six years after the events they record. At minimum, the records must include the following: (1) Checkbook register or equivalent for each trust account, including entries for all receipts, disbursements, and transfers, and containing at least: (i) identification of the client matter for which trust funds were received, disbursed, or transferred; (ii) the date on which trust funds were received, disbursed, or transferred; (iii)the check number for each disbursement; (iv) the payor or payee for or from which trust funds were received, disbursed, or transferred; and (v) the new trust account balance after each receipt, disbursement, or transfer; (2) Individual client ledger records containing either a separate page for each client or an equivalent electronic record showing all individual receipts, disbursements, or transfers, and also containing: (i) identification of the purpose for which trust funds were received, disbursed, or transferred; (ii) the date on which trust funds were received, disbursed or transferred; (iii) the check number for each disbursement; (iv) the payor or payee for or from which trust funds were received, disbursed, or transferred; and (v) the new client fund balance after each receipt, disbursement, or transfer; (3) Copies of any agreements pertaining to fees and costs; (4) Copies of any statements or accountings to clients or third parties showing the disbursement of funds to them or on their behalf; (5) Copies of bills for legal fees and expenses rendered to clients; (6) Copies of invoices, bills or other documents supporting all disbursements or transfers from the trust account; (7) Bank statements, copies of deposit slips, and cancelled checks or their equivalent; (8) Copies of all trust account client ledger reconciliations; and (9) Copies of those portions of clients’ files that are reasonably necessary for a complete understanding of the financial transactions pertaining to them.

(b) Upon any change in the LPO or Closing Firm practice affecting the trust account, including dissolution or sale of a Closing Firm business, or suspension or other change in the license status of an LPO, the LPO or Closing Firm must make appropriate arrangements for the maintenance of the records specified in this Rule. Comment [1] LPOs must assure that IOLTA accounts are used in any transaction involving the practice of law for others. In addition to closings where legal documents have been selected, prepared or completed by LPOs, IOLTA accounts must hold funds for closings involving legal documents prepared by lawyers. Such transactions would include extensions of credit with loan documents prepared by a lender’s lawyer, as well as sale closings with deeds and other legal documents prepared by the clients’ lawyers. [2] The Escrow Agent Registration Act under chapter 18.44 RCW provides procedures for trust account recordkeeping substantially similar to the provisions contained within LPORPC 1.12B. Compliance with the provisions under chapter 18.44 RCW should meet the provisions of this rule. [Adopted effective January 1, 2009. Amended effective January 1, 2023; June 27, 2023.]

citation: LPORPC LPORPC

rule_set: LPORPC

rule_number: LPORPC


title: Scope of Rules

text: ELC 1.1 SCOPE OF RULES These rules govern the procedure by which a lawyer may be subjected to disciplinary sanctions or actions for violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Washington Supreme Court. [Adopted effective October 1, 2002.]

citation: ELC ELC 1.1

rule_set: ELC

rule_number: ELC 1.1


title: Disciplinary Authority

text: ELC 1.2 DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY Except as provided in RPC 8.5(c), any lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction and these Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct, regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs. A lawyer not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is also subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction and these rules if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in this jurisdiction. Disciplinary authority exists regardless of the lawyer’s residency or authority to practice law in this state. A lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another jurisdiction for the same conduct. [Adopted effective October 1, 2002; Amended effective September 1, 2010; January 1, 2014.]

citation: ELC ELC 1.2

rule_number: ELC 1.2


title: Definitions

text:
ELC 1.3 DEFINITIONS Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, terms used in these rules have the following meanings: (a) "Association" means the Washington State Bar Association. (b) “Association Counsel” means counsel for the Association other than disciplinary counsel. (c) "Bar file" means the pleadings, motions, rulings, decisions, and other formal papers filed in a proceeding. (d) "Board" when used alone means the Disciplinary Board. (e) “Chair” when used alone means the Chair of the Disciplinary Board. (f) “Clerk” when used alone means the Clerk to the Disciplinary Board. (g) “Disciplinary action” means sanctions under rule 13.1 and admonitions under rule 13.5. (h) “Final” means no review has been sought in a timely fashion or all appeals have been concluded. (i) “Grievant” means the person or entity who files a grievance, except for a confidential source under rule 5.2. (j) “Hearing officer” means the person assigned under rule 10.2(a). (k) “Mental or physical incapacity” includes, but is not limited to, insanity, mental illness, senility, or debilitating use of alcohol or drugs. (l) “Party” means disciplinary counsel or respondent, except in rules 2.3(h) and 2.6(d) “party” also includes a grievant. (m) “Respondent” means a lawyer against whom a grievance is filed or a lawyer investigated by disciplinary counsel. (n) “APR” means the Admission and Practice Rules. (o) “CR” means the Superior Court Civil Rules. (p) “RAP” means the Rules of Appellate Procedure. (q) “RPC” means the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Washington Supreme Court. (r) Words of authority. (1) “May” means “has discretion to,” “has a right to,” or “is permitted to.” (2) “Must” means “is required to.” (3) “Should” means recommended but not required, except:

(A) in rules 2.3(h) and 2.6, “should” has the meaning ascribed to it in the Code of Judicial Conduct; and (B) in Title 12, “should” has the meaning ascribed to it in the Rules of Appellate Procedure. RAP 1.2 (b) [Adopted effective October 1, 2002; Amended effective January 1, 2014; January 1, 2015.]

citation: ELC ELC 1.3

rule_number: ELC 1.3


title: No Statute of Limitation

text: ELC 1.4 NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION No statute of limitation or other time limitation restricts filing a grievance or bringing a proceeding under these rules, but the passage of time since an act of misconduct occurred may be considered in determining what, if any, action or sanction is warranted. [Adopted effective January 1, 2014.]

citation: ELC ELC 1.4

rule_number: ELC 1.4


title: Violation of Duties Imposed by These Rules

text:
ELC 1.5 VIOLATION OF DUTIES IMPOSED BY THESE RULES A lawyer violates RPC 8.4(l) and may be disciplined under these rules for violating duties imposed by these rules, including but not limited to the following duties: 

respond to inquiries or requests about matters under investigation, rule 5.3(f) and (g);



file an answer to a formal complaint or to an amendment to a formal complaint, rule 10.5;



cooperate with discovery and comply with hearing orders, rules 10.11(h) and 5.5;



attend a hearing and bring materials requested by disciplinary counsel, rule 10.13(b) and (c);



respond to subpoenas and comply with orders enforcing subpoenas, rule 10.13(e);



notify clients and others of inability to act, rule 14.1;



discontinue practice, rule 14.2;



file an affidavit of compliance, rule 14.3;



maintain confidentiality, rule 3.2(f);



report being disciplined or transferred to disability inactive status in another jurisdiction, rule 9.2(a);



cooperate with an examination of books and records, rule 15.2;



notify the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of a trust account overdraft, rule 15.4(d);



comply with conditions of probation, rule 13.8;



comply with conditions of a stipulation, rule 9.1;



pay restitution, rule 13.7; or



pay costs, rule 5.3(h) or 13.9.

[Adopted effective October 1. 2002; Amended effective September 1, 2006; January 1, 2014.]

citation: ELC ELC 1.5

rule_number: ELC 1.5


title: Supreme Court

text: ELC 2.1 SUPREME COURT The Washington Supreme Court has exclusive responsibility in the state to administer the lawyer discipline and disability system and has inherent power to maintain appropriate standards of professional conduct and to dispose of individual cases of lawyer discipline and disability. Persons carrying out the functions set forth in these rules act under the Supreme Court’s authority. [Adopted effective October 1, 2002.]

citation: ELC ELC 2.1

rule_number: ELC 2.1