title: Diligence

text: RULE 1.3 DILIGENCE A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985.] Comment [1] [Washington revision] A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with diligence in advocacy upon the client’s behalf. A lawyer is not bound, however, to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client. For example, a lawyer may have authority to exercise professional discretion in determining the means by which a matter should be pursued. See Rule 1.2. The lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect. [2] A lawyer’s work load must be controlled so that each matter can be handled competently. [3] Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination. A client’s interests often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of conditions; in extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks a statute of limitations, the client’s legal position may be destroyed. Even when the client’s interests are not affected in substance, however, unreasonable delay can cause a client needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer’s trustworthiness. A lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable promptness, however, does not preclude the lawyer from agreeing to a reasonable request for postponement that will not prejudice the lawyer’s client. [4] Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in Rule 1.16, a lawyer should carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a client. If a lawyer’s employment is limited to a specific matter, the relationship terminates when the matter has been resolved. If a lawyer has served a client over a substantial period in a variety of matters, the client sometimes may assume that the lawyer will continue to serve on a continuing basis unless the lawyer gives notice of withdrawal. Doubt about whether a client-lawyer relationship still exists should be clarified by the lawyer, preferably in writing, so that the client will not mistakenly suppose the lawyer, is looking after the client’s affairs when the lawyer has ceased to do so. For example, if a lawyer has handled a judicial or administrative proceeding that produced a result adverse to the client and the lawyer and the client have not agreed that the lawyer will handle the matter on appeal, the lawyer must consult with the client about the possibility of appeal before relinquishing responsibility for the matter. See Rule 1.4(a)(2). Whether the lawyer is obligated to prosecute the appeal for the client depends on the scope of the representation the lawyer has agreed to provide to the client. See Rule 1.2. [5] [Reserved.] [Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006.]

citation: RPC RPC 1.3

rule_number: RPC 1.3


doc_type: court-rule

jurisdiction: wa

title: Communication

text:
RPC 1.4 COMMUNICATION (a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0A(e), is required by these Rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. (c) A lawyer shall communicate to a client or prospective client a lack of minimum levels of lawyer professional liability insurance as required by the provisions of this Rule. (1) A lawyer not covered by lawyer professional liability insurance in the amounts specified in paragraph (c)(4) shall, before or at the time of commencing representation of a client, notify the client in writing of the absence of such insurance coverage and promptly obtain the client’s informed consent in writing. A lawyer who knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer’s professional liability insurance policy has either lapsed or been terminated during the representation shall within 30 days either (i) obtain a new policy in the required amounts or (ii) provide notice in writing to the client and promptly obtain the client’s informed consent in writing. If a lawyer does not obtain a new policy in the required amounts or provide notice to the client and obtain the client’s informed consent in writing within 30 days of a lapse or termination, the lawyer shall withdraw from representation of the client. (2)(i) A notice to the client in substantially the following form satisfies the notice requirements of paragraph (c)(1): Under Rule 1.4(c) of the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, I must obtain your informed consent to provide legal representation and ensure that you understand and acknowledge that [I][this Firm] [do not][does not][no longer] maintain[s] [any lawyer professional liability insurance (sometimes called malpractice insurance)] [lawyer professional liability insurance (sometimes called malpractice insurance)] of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per occurrence and three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for all claims submitted during the policy period (typically 12 months). Because [I][we] do not carry this insurance coverage, it could be more difficult for you to recover an amount sufficient to compensate you for your loss or damages if [I am][we are] negligent. _________________________________ Lawyer’s Signature (ii) A client consent and acknowledgment in substantially the following form satisfies the informed consent requirements of paragraph (c)(1): I acknowledge and supply this written consent, required by Rule 1.4(c) of the Washington

Rules of Professional Conduct, that [insert attorney or firm’s name] [does not][no longer] maintain[s] [any lawyer professional liability insurance (sometimes called malpractice insurance)][lawyer professional liability insurance (sometimes called malpractice insurance)] with at least maximum coverage of $100,000 for each claim and at least $300,000 for all claims submitted during the policy period (typically 12 months), and I consent to representation by [the lawyer][the firm]. _________________________________ Client’s Signature (3) A lawyer shall maintain a record of notices of disclosure to clients, and the signed consents and acknowledgments received from clients, for at least six (6) years after the representation is terminated. (4) As used in this paragraph (c), “lawyer” means an active member of the Washington State Bar Association and any other person authorized by the Washington State Supreme Court to engage in the practice of law, including emeritus pro bono status lawyers and lawyers permitted to engage in the limited practice of law in this state as provided in Admission and Practice Rule (APR) 3(g), however, as used in this paragraph (c), “lawyer” does not include (i) a judge, arbitrator, or mediator not otherwise engaged in the practice of law; (ii) in-house counsel for a single entity, (iii) an employee of a governmental agency practicing law in that capacity, (iv) an employee of a nonprofit legal service organization, or a lawyer volunteering with such an organization, where the nonprofit legal service organization provides lawyer professional liability insurance coverage at the minimum levels required by this paragraph to that employee or volunteer pro bono lawyer. “Lawyer professional liability insurance” means a professional liability insurance policy that provides coverage for claims made against the lawyer that arise from an act, error, or omission in the lawyer’s performance of legal services to a client, with limits of liability of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per occurrence and three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for all claims submitted during the policy period. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 2006; April 14, 2015; September 1, 2021.] Comment [1] Reasonable communication between the lawyer and the client is necessary for the client effectively to participate in the representation. Communicating with Client [2] [Washington revision] If these Rules require that a particular decision about the representation be made by the client, paragraph (a)(1) requires that the lawyer promptly consult with and secure the client’s consent prior to taking action unless prior discussions with the client have resolved what action the client wants the lawyer to take. For example, a lawyer who receives from an opposing lawyer an offer of settlement in a civil controversy or a proffered plea bargain in a criminal case must promptly inform the client of its substance unless that client has previously indicated that the proposal will be acceptable or unacceptable or has authorized the lawyer to accept or to reject the offer. See RPC 1.2(a). See also RPC 1.1 comments [6] and [10] as to decisions to associate other lawyers or LLLTs. [Comment [2] amended effective April 14, 2015; September 1, 2016.] [3] Paragraph (a)(2) requires the lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives. In some situations--depending on both the importance of the action under consideration and the feasibility of consulting with the client--this duty will require consultation prior to taking action. In other circumstances, such as during a trial

when an immediate decision must be made, the exigency of the situation may require the lawyer to act without prior consultation. In such cases the lawyer must nonetheless act reasonably to inform the client of actions the lawyer has taken on the client’s behalf. Additionally, paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, such as significant developments affecting the timing or the substance of the representation. [4] A lawyer’s regular communication with clients will minimize the occasions on which a client will need to request information concerning the representation. When a client makes a reasonable request for information, however, paragraph (a)(4) requires prompt compliance with the request, or if a prompt response is not feasible, that the lawyer, or a member of the lawyer’s staff, acknowledge receipt of the request and advise the client when a response may be expected. A lawyer should promptly respond to or acknowledge client communications. [Comment [4] amended effective September 1, 2016.] Explaining Matters [5] [Washington revision] The client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued, to the extent the client is willing and able to do so. Adequacy of communication depends in part on the kind of advice or assistance that is involved. For example, when there is time to explain a proposal made in a negotiation, the lawyer should review all important provisions with the client before proceeding to an agreement. In litigation a lawyer should explain the general strategy and prospects of success and ordinarily should consult the client on tactics that are likely to result in significant expense or to injure or coerce others. On the other hand, a lawyer ordinarily will not be expected to describe trial or negotiation strategy in detail. The guiding principle is that the lawyer should fulfill reasonable client expectations for information consistent with the duty to act in the client’s best interests, and the client’s overall requirements as to the character of representation. In certain circumstances, such as when a lawyer asks a client to consent to a representation affected by a conflict of interest, the client must give informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0A(e). [Comment [5] amended effective April 14, 2015.] [6] Ordinarily, the information to be provided is that appropriate for a client who is a comprehending and responsible adult. However, fully informing the client according to this standard may be impracticable, for example, where the client is a child or suffers from diminished capacity. See Rule 1.14. When the client is an organization or group, it is often impossible or inappropriate to inform every one of its members about its legal affairs; ordinarily, the lawyer should address communications to the appropriate officials of the organization. See Rule 1.13. Where many routine matters are involved, a system of limited or occasional reporting may be arranged with the client. Withholding Information [7] In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in delaying transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication. Thus, a lawyer might withhold a psychiatric diagnosis of a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client. A lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer’s own interest or convenience or the interests or convenience of another person. Rules or court orders governing litigation may provide that information supplied to a lawyer may not be disclosed to the client. Rule 3.4(c) directs compliance with such rules or orders. [Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006.] Additional Washington Comments [8-13]

Insurance Disclosure [8] A lawyer without a basic level of professional liability insurance might not pay for damages or losses a client incurs that result from the lawyer’s mistakes or negligence. Consequently, prospective clients and clients should have sufficient information about whether the lawyer maintains a minimum level of lawyer professional liability insurance so they can intelligently determine whether they wish to engage, or continue to engage, that lawyer. Paragraph (c) requires a lawyer to provide disclosure if the lawyer is without a level of lawyer professional liability insurance specified in paragraph (c), and to obtain each client’s acknowledgement and informed consent. Client consent should be obtained promptly—ordinarily within 10 days of the lawyer’s providing disclosure. Certain lawyers are excluded from the disclosure requirements of Rule 1.4(c), including full-time judges, arbitrators and mediators, in-house lawyers for a single entity, and employees of governmental agencies. If a lawyer serving as a judge represents clients outside judicial duties, or an in-house lawyer or government employee represents other clients, such a judge or lawyer is subject to the requirements of Rule 1.4(c) regarding those representations. [9] As used in paragraph (c), a lawyer who “maintains” or “is covered by” lawyer professional liability insurance is an insured lawyer under a lawyer professional liability insurance policy providing coverage regarding claims relating to legal services provided by that lawyer. The minimum limits of lawyer professional liability insurance specified by paragraph (c)(4) include any deductible or self-insured retention that must be paid by the lawyer or the lawyer’s law firm for claim expenses and damages. Lawyer professional liability insurance, as defined in paragraph (c)(4), does not include an insurance policy with a deductible or selfinsured retention that the lawyer knows or has reason to know cannot be paid by the lawyer or the firm if a loss occurs. [10] Whether the disclosure and notice obligations of paragraph (c) apply to a Washingtonlicensed lawyer practicing in another jurisdiction is determined by the choice of law provisions of Rule 8.5(b). [11] In addition to complying with paragraph (c), every active member of the bar must comply with the reporting requirements of Admission and Practice Rule (APR) 26 under which lawyers in the private practice of law are required to annually report their insurance coverage to the Washington State Bar Association. [12] Withdrawal from a representation under paragraph (c)(1) is a circumstance where withdrawal is obligatory under Rule 1.16(a)(1) because the representation would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The withdrawal shall be accomplished in conformity with the requirements of Rule 1.16(c) and (d). [13] In an emergency where the health, safety, or a financial interest of a person is threatened with imminent and irreparable harm, a lawyer not covered by lawyer professional liability insurance in the amounts specified in paragraph (c)(4) may take legal action on behalf of such a person even though the person cannot receive or evaluate the notice required by paragraph (c)(1) or there is insufficient time to provide it. A lawyer who represents a person in such an exigent situation shall provide the notice required by paragraph (c)(1) as soon as reasonably practicable. [Comments adopted effective September 1, 2021.]

license: public-domain-government-work

citation: RPC RPC 1.4

rule_set: RPC

rule_number: RPC 1.4


title: Fees

text:
RPC 1.5 FEES (a) A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; and (9) the terms of the fee agreement between the lawyer and the client, including whether the fee agreement or confirming writing demonstrates that the client had received a reasonable and fair disclosure of material elements of the fee agreement and of the lawyer's billing practices. (b) The scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, except when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on the same basis or rate. Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated to the client. Upon the request of the client in any matter, the lawyer shall communicate to the client in writing the basis or rate of the fee. (c) A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is rendered, except in a matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by paragraph (d) or other law. If a fee is contingent on the outcome of a matter, a lawyer shall comply with the following (1) A contingent fee agreement shall be in a writing signed by the client; (2) A contingent fee agreement shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined, including the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal; litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the recovery; and whether such expenses are to be deducted before or after the contingent fee is calculated. The agreement must clearly notify the client of any expenses for which the client will be liable, whether or not the client is the prevailing party; (3) upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer shall provide the client with a written statement stating the outcome of the matter and, if there is a recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the method of its determination; and (4) a contingent fee consisting of a percentage of the monetary amount recovered for a claimant, in which all or part of the recovery is to be paid in the future, shall be paid only

or

(i) by applying the percentage to the amounts recovered as they are received by the client;

(ii) by applying the percentage to the actual cost of the settlement or award to the defendant. (d) A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect: (1) any fee in a domestic relations matter, the payment or amount of which is contingent upon the securing of a dissolution or annulment of marriage or upon the amount of maintenance or support, or property settlement in lieu thereof; or (2) a contingent fee for representing a defendant in a criminal case. (e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if: (1) The division is in proportion to the services provided by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; (2) The client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and (3) The total fee is reasonable. (f) Fees and expenses paid in advance of performance of services shall comply with Rule 1.15A, subject to the following exceptions: (1) A lawyer may charge a retainer, which is a fee that a client pays to a lawyer to be available to the client during a specified period or on a specified matter, in addition to and apart from any compensation for legal services performed. A retainer must be agreed to in a writing signed by the client. Unless otherwise agreed, a retainer is the lawyer’s property on receipt and shall not be placed in the lawyer’s trust account. (2) A lawyer may charge a flat fee for specified legal services, which constitutes complete payment for those services and is paid in whole or in part in advance of the lawyer providing the services. If agreed to in advance in a writing signed by the client, a flat fee is the lawyer’s property on receipt, in which case the fee shall not be deposited into a trust account under Rule 1.15A. The written fee agreement shall, in a manner that can easily be understood by the client, include the following: (i) the scope of the services to be provided; (ii) the total amount of the fee and the terms of payment; (iii) that the fee is the lawyer’s property immediately on receipt and will not be placed into a trust account; (iv) that the fee agreement does not alter the client’s right to terminate the client-lawyer relationship; and (v) that the client may be entitled to a refund of a portion of the fee if the agreed-upon legal services have not been completed. A statement in substantially the following form satisfies this requirement: [Lawyer/law firm] agrees to provide, for a flat fee of $__________, the following services: _____________________________________. The flat fee shall be paid as follows: _____________________________. Upon [lawyer’s/law firm’s] receipt of all or any portion of the flat fee, the funds are the property of [lawyer/law firm] and will not be placed in a trust account. The fact that you have paid your fee in advance does not affect your right to terminate the client-lawyer relationship. In the event our relationship is terminated before the agreed-upon legal services have been completed, you may or may not have a right to a refund of a portion of the fee. (3) In the event of a dispute relating to a fee under paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this Rule,

the lawyer shall take reasonable and prompt action to resolve the dispute. [Amended effective September 1, 1990; Suspended September 18, 1990 and suspension lifted December 12, 1990; Amended effective September 1, 2006; November 18, 2008; April 29, 2025.] Comments Reasonableness of Fee and Expenses [1] Paragraph (a) requires that lawyers charge fees that are reasonable under the circumstances. The factors specified in (1) through (9) are not exclusive. Nor will each factor be relevant in each instance. Paragraph (a) also requires that expenses for which the client will be charged must be reasonable. A lawyer may seek reimbursement for the cost of services performed in-house, such as copying, or for other expenses incurred in-house, such as telephone charges, either by charging a reasonable amount to which the client has agreed in advance or by charging an amount that reasonably reflects the cost incurred by the lawyer. See also Washington Comments [10] and [11]. Basis or Rate of Fee [2] [Washington revision] When the lawyer has regularly represented a client, they ordinarily will have evolved an understanding concerning the basis or rate of the fee and the expenses for which the client will be responsible. In a new client-lawyer relationship, however, an understanding as to fees and expenses must be promptly established. Generally, it is desirable to furnish the client with at least a simple memorandum or copy of the lawyer’s customary fee arrangements that states the general nature of the legal services to be provided, the basis, rate or total amount of the fee and whether and to what extent the client will be responsible for any costs, expenses or disbursements in the course of the representation. A written statement concerning the terms of the engagement reduces the possibility of misunderstanding. See Washington Comment [17] for fee agreements that include LLLT services. [Comment [2] amended effective April 14, 2015.] [3] [Reserved in part.] Contingent fees, like any other fees, are subject to the reasonableness standard of paragraph (a) of this Rule. In determining whether a particular contingent fee is reasonable, or whether it is reasonable to charge any form of contingent fee, a lawyer must consider the factors that are relevant under the circumstances. Terms of Payment [4] A lawyer may require advance payment of a fee, but is obliged to return any unearned portion. See Rule 1.16(d). A lawyer may accept property in payment for services, such as an ownership interest in an enterprise, providing this does not involve acquisition of a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of the litigation contrary to Rule 1.8 (i). However, a fee paid in property instead of money may be subject to the requirements of Rule 1.8(a) because such fees often have the essential qualities of a business transaction with the client. [5] An agreement may not be made whose terms might induce the lawyer improperly to curtail services for the client or perform them in a way contrary to the client’s interest. For example, a lawyer should not enter into an agreement whereby services are to be provided only up to a stated amount when it is foreseeable that more extensive services probably will be required, unless the situation is adequately explained to the client. Otherwise, the client might have to bargain for further assistance in the midst of a proceeding or transaction. However, it is proper to define the extent of services in light of the client’s ability to pay. A lawyer should not exploit a

fee arrangement based primarily on hourly charges by using wasteful procedures. Prohibited Contingent Fees [6] [Washington revision] Paragraph (d) prohibits a lawyer from charging a contingent fee in a domestic relations matter when payment is contingent upon the securing of a dissolution or annulment of marriage or upon the amount of maintenance or support or property settlement to be obtained. This provision does not preclude a contract for a contingent fee for legal representation in connection with the recovery of post-judgment balances due under support, maintenance or other financial orders because such contracts do not implicate the same policy concerns. Division of Fee [7] [Washington revision] A division of fee is a single billing to a client covering the fee of two or more lawyers who are not in the same firm. A division of fee facilitates association of more than one lawyer in a matter in which neither alone could serve the client as well, and most often is used when the fee is contingent and the division is between a referring lawyer and a trial specialist. Paragraph (e) permits the lawyers to divide a fee either on the basis of the proportion of services they render or if each lawyer assumes responsibility for the representation as a whole. In addition, the client must agree to the arrangement, including the share that each lawyer is to receive, and the agreement must be confirmed in writing. Contingent fee agreements must be in a writing signed by the client and must otherwise comply with paragraph (c) of this Rule. Joint responsibility for the representation entails financial and ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were associated in a partnership. A lawyer should only refer a matter to a lawyer whom the referring lawyer reasonably believes is competent to handle the matter. See RPC 1.1. See also RPC 1.1, comments [6] and [10] as to decisions to associate other lawyers or LLLTs. See also Washington Comment [18]. [Comment [7] amended effective April 14, 2015; September 1, 2016.] [8] Paragraph (e) does not prohibit or regulate division of fees to be received in the future for work done when lawyers were previously associated in a law firm. Disputes over Fees [9] If a procedure has been established for resolution of fee disputes, such as an arbitration or mediation procedure established by the bar, the lawyer must comply with the procedure when it is mandatory, and, even when it is voluntary, the lawyer should conscientiously consider submitting to it. Law may prescribe a procedure for determining a lawyer’s fee, for example, in representation of an executor or administrator, a class or a person entitled to a reasonable fee as part of the measure of damages. The lawyer entitled to such a fee and a lawyer representing another party concerned with the fee should comply with the prescribed procedure. Additional Washington Comments (10–19) Reasonableness of Fee and Expenses [10] Every fee agreed to, charged, or collected, including a fee that is a lawyer’s property on receipt under paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2), is subject to Rule 1.5(a) and may not be unreasonable. [Comment [10] amended effective November 18, 2008.] [11] Under paragraph (a)(9), one factor in determining whether a fee is reasonable is whether the fee agreement or confirming writing demonstrates that the client received a reasonable and fair disclosure of material elements of the fee agreement. Lawyers are encouraged to use written fee

agreements that fully and fairly disclose all material terms in a manner easily understood by the client. See also Washington Comment [17] regarding fee agreements that include LLLT services. [Comment [11] amended effective April 14, 2015.] Payment of Fees in Advance of Services [12] In the absence of a written agreement between the lawyer and the client to the contrary that complies with paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2), all advance payments are presumed to be deposits against future services or costs and must, until the fee is earned or the cost incurred, be held in a trust account pursuant to Rule 1.15A. See Rule 1.15A(c)(2). This fee structure is known as an “advance fee deposit.” Such a fee may only be withdrawn when earned. See Rule 1.15A(h)(3). For example, when an advance fee deposit is placed in trust, a lawyer may withdraw amounts based on the actual hours worked. In the case of a flat fee that constitutes an advance fee deposit because it does not meet the requirements of paragraph (f)(2), the lawyer and client may mutually agree, preferably in writing, on a reasonable basis for determining when portions of the fee have been earned, such as specific “milestones” reached during the representation or specified time intervals that reasonably reflect the actual performance of the legal services. [Comment [12] adopted effective November 18, 2008.] [13] Paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) provide exceptions to the general rule that fees received in advance must be placed in trust. Paragraph (f)(1) describes a fee structure sometimes known as an “availability retainer,” “engagement retainer,” “true retainer,” “general retainer,” or “classic retainer.” Under these rules, this arrangement is called a “retainer.” A retainer secures availability alone, i.e., it presumes that the lawyer is to be additionally compensated for any actual work performed. Therefore, a payment purportedly made to secure a lawyer’s availability, but that will be applied to the client’s account as the lawyer renders services, is not a retainer under paragraph (f)(1). A written retainer agreement should clearly specify the time period or purpose of the lawyer’s availability, that the client will be separately charged for any services provided, and that the lawyer will treat the payment as the lawyer’s property immediately on receipt and will not deposit the fee into a trust account. [Comment [13] adopted effective November 18, 2008.] [14] Paragraph (f)(2) describes a “flat fee,” sometimes also known as a “fixed fee.” A flat fee constitutes complete payment for specified legal services, and does not vary with the amount of time or effort expended by the lawyer to perform or complete the specified services. If the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) are not met, a flat fee received in advance must be deposited initially in the lawyer’s trust account. See Washington Comment [12]. [Comment [14] adopted effective November 18, 2008.] [15] If a lawyer and a client agree to a retainer under paragraph (f)(1) or a flat fee under paragraph (f)(2) and the lawyer complies with the applicable requirements, including obtaining agreement in a writing signed by the client, the fee is considered the lawyer’s property on receipt and must not be deposited into a trust account containing client or third-party funds. See Rule 1.15A(c) (lawyer must hold property of clients separate from lawyer’s own property). For definitions of the terms “writing” and “signed,” see Rule 1.0A(n). [Comment [15] adopted effective November 18, 2008; Amended effective April 14, 2015.] [16] In fee arrangements involving more than one type of fee, the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) apply only to the parts of the arrangement that are retainers or flat fees. For example, a client might agree to make an advance payment to a lawyer, a portion of which is a

flat fee for specified legal services with the remainder to be applied on an hourly basis as services are rendered. The latter portion is an advance fee deposit that must be placed in trust under Rule 1.15A(c)(2). If the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) are met regarding the flat fee portion, those funds are the lawyer’s property on receipt and must not be kept in a trust account. If the payment is in one check or negotiable instrument, it must be deposited intact in the trust account, and the flat fee portion belonging to the lawyer must be withdrawn at the earliest reasonable time. See Rule 1.15A(h)(1)(ii) and (h)(4). See also Comment [10] to Rule 1.15A (explaining prohibition on split deposits). Although a signed writing is required under paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) only for the retainer or flat fee portion of the fee (and only if the lawyer and client agree that the fee will be the lawyer’s property on receipt), the lawyer should consider putting the entire arrangement in writing to facilitate communication with the client and prevent future misunderstanding. See Washington Comment [11]. [Comment [16] adopted effective November 18, 2008.] Fee Agreements in Law Firms That Include Both Lawyers and LLLTs [17] LLLTs are required to disclose the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of their fees and expenses in writing to the client prior to the performance of services for a fee. APR 28(G)(3); LLLT RPC 1.5(b). Accordingly, when lawyers and LLLTs are associated in a firm, if the firm’s services include representation by an LLLT who acts under the authority of APR 28, then there must be a written fee agreement that comports with APR 28(G)(3) and LLLT RPC 1.5(b). See RPC 8.4(f)(2). [Comment [17] adopted April 14, 2015.] [18] Paragraph (e) does not allow division of fees between a lawyer and an LLLT who are not in the same firm. See LLLT RPC 1.5(e). [Comment [18] adopted April 14, 2015.] [19] An LLLT, unlike a lawyer, is prohibited from entering into a contingent fee or retainer agreement with a client directly. See LLLT RPC 1.5 Comment [1]. Nonetheless, this prohibition was not intended to prohibit a lawyer from sharing fees that include contingent fees or retainers with an LLLT with whom the lawyer has entered into a for-profit business relationship under Rule 5.9. See Rules 5.9 and 5.10 for a managing lawyer’s additional duties regarding LLLTs who are members of the same firm as the lawyer. See also RPC 5.4 Washington Comment [4]. [Comment [19] adopted April 14, 2015.] [Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006.]

citation: RPC RPC 1.5

rule_number: RPC 1.5


title: Confidentiality of Information

text:
RPC 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b). (b) A lawyer to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (1) shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm; (2) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to prevent the client from committing a crime; (3) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services; (4) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules; (5) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client; (6) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to comply with a court order; (7) may reveal information relating to the representation to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorneyclient privilege or otherwise prejudice the client; or (8) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to inform a tribunal about any client’s breach of fiduciary responsibility when the client is serving as a court appointed fiduciary such as a guardian, personal representative, or receiver. (c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 1990; September 1, 2006; September 1, 2016; September 1, 2018.] Comments See also Washington Comment [19]. [1] [Washington revision] This Rule governs the disclosure by a lawyer of information relating to the representation of a client. See Rule 1.18 for the lawyer’s duties with respect to information provided to the lawyer by a prospective client, Rule 1.9(c)(2) for the lawyer’s duty not to reveal information relating to the lawyer’s prior representation of a former client and Rules 1.8(b) and 1.9(c)(1) for the lawyer’s duties with respect to the use of such information to the disadvantage

of clients and former clients. [2] [Washington revision] A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client’s informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation. See Rule 1.0A(e) for the definition of informed consent. This contributes to the trust that is the hallmark of the client-lawyer relationship. The client is thereby encouraged to seek legal assistance and to communicate fully and frankly with the lawyer even as to embarrassing or legally damaging subject matter. The lawyer needs this information to represent the client effectively and, if necessary, to advise the client to refrain from wrongful conduct. Almost without exception, clients come to lawyers in order to determine their rights and what is, in the complex of laws and regulations, deemed to be legal and correct. Based upon experience, lawyers know that almost all clients follow the advice given, and the law is upheld. [Comment 2 amended effective April 14, 2015.] [3] The principle of client-lawyer confidentiality is given effect by related bodies of law: the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine and the rule of confidentiality established in professional ethics. The attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine apply in judicial and other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or otherwise required to produce evidence concerning a client. The rule of client-lawyer confidentiality applies in situations other than those where evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law. The confidentiality rule, for example, applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as authorized or required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. See also Scope. [Comment 3 amended effective September 1, 2011.] [4] Paragraph (a) prohibits a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a client. This prohibition also applies to disclosures by a lawyer that do not in themselves reveal protected information but could reasonably lead to the discovery of such information by a third person. A lawyer’s use of a hypothetical to discuss issues relating to the representation is permissible so long as there is no reasonable likelihood that the listener will be able to ascertain the identity of the client or the situation involved. Authorized Disclosure [5] [Washington revision] Except to the extent that the client’s instructions or special circumstances limit that authority, a lawyer is impliedly authorized to make disclosures about a client when appropriate in carrying out the representation. In some situations, for example, a lawyer may be impliedly authorized to admit a fact that cannot properly be disputed or to make a disclosure that facilitates a satisfactory conclusion to a matter. Lawyers in a firm may, in the course of the firm’s practice, disclose information relating to a client of the firm to other lawyers or LLLTs within the firm, unless the client has instructed that particular information be confined to specified lawyers or LLLTs. [Comment 5 amended effective April 14, 2015.] Disclosure Adverse to Client [6] [Washington revision] Although the public interest is usually best served by a strict rule requiring lawyers to preserve the confidentiality of information relating to the representation of their clients, the confidentiality rule is subject to limited exceptions. Paragraph (b)(1) recognizes the overriding value of life and physical integrity and requires disclosure reasonably necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. Such harm is reasonably certain to occur if it will be suffered imminently or if there is a present and substantial threat that a person

will suffer such harm at a later date if the lawyer fails to take action necessary to eliminate the threat. Thus, a lawyer who knows that a client has accidentally discharged toxic waste into a town’s water supply must reveal this information to the authorities if there is a present and substantial risk that a person who drinks the water will contract a life-threatening or debilitating disease and the lawyer’s disclosure is necessary to eliminate the threat or reduce the number of victims. [7] [Reserved.] [8] [Reserved.] [9] A lawyer’s confidentiality obligations do not preclude a lawyer from securing confidential legal advice about the lawyer’s personal responsibility to comply with these Rules. In most situations, disclosing information to secure such advice will be impliedly authorized for the lawyer to carry out the representation. Even when the disclosure is not impliedly authorized, paragraph (b)(4) permits such disclosure because of the importance of a lawyer’s compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. [10] Where a legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges complicity of the lawyer in a client’s conduct or other misconduct of the lawyer involving representation of the client, the lawyer may respond to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a defense. The same is true with respect to a claim involving the conduct or representation of a former client. Such a charge can arise in a civil, criminal, disciplinary or other proceeding and can be based on a wrong allegedly committed by the lawyer against the client or on a wrong alleged by a third person, for example, a person claiming to have been defrauded by the lawyer and client acting together. The lawyer’s right to respond arises when an assertion of such complicity has been made. Paragraph (b)(5) does not require the lawyer to await the commencement of an action or proceeding that charges such complicity, so that the defense may be established by responding directly to a third party who has made such an assertion. The right to defend also applies, of course, where a proceeding has been commenced. [11] A lawyer entitled to a fee is permitted by paragraph (b)(5) to prove the services rendered in an action to collect it. This aspect of the Rule expresses the principle that the beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship may not exploit it to the detriment of the fiduciary. [12] [Reserved.] Detection of Conflicts of Interest [13] [Washington revision] Paragraph (b)(7) recognizes that lawyers in different firms may need to disclose limited information to each other to detect and resolve conflicts of interest, such as when a lawyer is considering an association with another firm, two or more firms are considering a merger, or a lawyer is considering the purchase of a law practice. See RPC 1.17, Comment [7]. Under these circumstances, lawyers and law firms are permitted to disclose limited information, but only once substantive discussions regarding the new relationship have occurred. Any such disclosure should ordinarily include no more than the identity of the persons and entities involved in a matter, a brief summary of the general issues involved, and information about whether the matter has terminated. Even this limited information, however, should be disclosed only to the extent reasonably necessary to detect and resolve conflicts of interest that might arise from the possible new relationship. Moreover, the disclosure of any information is prohibited if it would compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client (e.g., the fact that a corporate client is seeking advice on a corporate takeover that has not been publicly announced, that a person has consulted a lawyer about the possibility of divorce before the person’s intentions are known to the person’s spouse, or that a person has consulted a lawyer about a criminal investigation that has not led to a public charge). Under those circumstances, paragraph (a) prohibits disclosure unless the client or former client gives informed consent. A

lawyer’s fiduciary duty to the lawyer’s firm may also govern a lawyer’s conduct when exploring an association with another firm and is beyond the scope of these rules. See also RPC 1.1, comments [6], [7], and [10] as to decisions to associate other lawyers or LLLTs. [Comment 13 adopted effective September 1, 2016.] [14] Any information disclosed pursuant to paragraph (b)(7) may be used or further disclosed only to the extent necessary to detect and resolve conflicts of interest. Paragraph (b)(7) does not restrict the use of information acquired by means independent of any disclosure pursuant to paragraph (b)(7). Paragraph (b)(7) also does not affect the disclosure of information within a law firm when the disclosure is otherwise authorized, see Comment [5], such as when a lawyer in a firm discloses information to another lawyer in the same firm to detect and resolve conflicts of interest that could arise in connection with undertaking a new representation. [Comment 14 adopted effective September 1, 2016.] [15] [Washington revision] A lawyer may be ordered to reveal information relating to the representation of a client by a court. Absent informed consent of the client to do otherwise, the lawyer should assert on behalf of the client all nonfrivolous claims that the information sought is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable law. In the event of an adverse ruling, the lawyer must consult with the client about the possibility of appeal to the extent required by Rule 1.4. Unless review is sought, however, paragraph (b)(6) permits the lawyer to comply with the court’s order. See also Washington Comment [26]. [16] Paragraph (b) permits disclosure only to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to accomplish one of the purposes specified. Where practicable, the lawyer should first seek to persuade the client to take suitable action to obviate the need for disclosure. In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client’s interest should be no greater than the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to accomplish the purpose. If the disclosure will be made in connection with a judicial proceeding, the disclosure should be made in a manner that limits access to the information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know it and appropriate protective orders or other arrangements should be sought by the lawyer to the fullest extent practicable. [17] [Washington revision] Paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) permit but do not require the disclosure of information relating to a client’s representation to accomplish the purposes specified in those paragraphs. In exercising the discretion conferred by those paragraphs, the lawyer may consider such factors as the nature of the lawyer’s relationship with the client and with those who might be injured by the client, the lawyer’s own involvement in the transaction and factors that may extenuate the conduct in question. A lawyer’s decision not to disclose as permitted by paragraph (b) does not violate this Rule. Disclosure may be required, however, by other Rules. Some Rules require disclosure only if such disclosure would be permitted by paragraph (b). See Rules 1.2(d), 3.3, 4.1(b), and 8.1. See also Rule 1.13(c), which permits disclosure in some circumstances whether or not Rule 1.6 permits the disclosure. See also Washington Comment [25]. Acting Competently to Preserve Confidentiality [18] Paragraph (c) requires a lawyer to act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against unauthorized access by third parties and against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure by the lawyer or other persons who are participating in the representation of the client or who are subject to the lawyer’s supervision. See RPC 1.1, 5.1 and 5.3. The unauthorized access to, or the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, information relating to

the representation of a client does not constitute a violation of paragraph (c) if the lawyer has made reasonable efforts to prevent the access or disclosure. Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer’s efforts include, but are not limited to, the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use). A client may require the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by this rule or may give informed consent to forgo security measures that would otherwise be required by this rule. Whether a lawyer may be required to take additional steps to safeguard a client’s information in order to comply with other law, such as state and federal laws that govern data privacy or that impose notification requirements upon the loss of, or unauthorized access to, electronic information, is beyond the scope of these rules. For a lawyer’s duties when sharing information with nonlawyers outside the lawyer’s own firm, see RPC 5.3, Comments [3]-[4]. [Comment 16 renumbered to 18 and amended effective September 1, 2016.] [19] When transmitting a communication that includes information relating to the representation of a client, the lawyer must take reasonable precautions to prevent the information from coming into the hands of unintended recipients. This duty, however, does not require that the lawyer use special security measures if the method of communication affords a reasonable expectation of privacy. Special circumstances, however, may warrant special precautions. Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer’s expectation of confidentiality include the sensitivity of the information and the extent to which the privacy of the communication is protected by law or by a confidentiality agreement. A client may require the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by this Rule or may give informed consent to the use of a means of communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this Rule. Whether a lawyer may be required to take additional steps in order to comply with other law, such as state and federal laws that govern data privacy, is beyond the scope of these rules. [Comment 17 renumbered to 19 and amended effective September 1, 2016.] Former Client [20] The duty of confidentiality continues after the client-lawyer relationship has terminated. See Rule 1.9(c)(2). See Rule 1.9(c)(1) for the prohibition against using such information to the disadvantage of the former client. Additional Washington Comments (21-28) [21] The phrase “information relating to the representation” should be interpreted broadly. The “information” protected by this Rule includes, but is not necessarily limited to, confidences and secrets. “Confidence” refers to information protected by the attorney client privilege under applicable law, and “secret” refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client. Disclosure Adverse to Client [22] Washington’s Rule 1.6(b)(2), which authorizes disclosure to prevent a client from committing a crime, is significantly broader than the corresponding exception in the Model Rule. While the Model Rule permits a lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation to prevent the client from “committing a crime . . . that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services,” Washington’s Rule permits the lawyer to reveal such information to prevent the commission of any crime.

[23] [Reserved.] [24] [Reserved.] [25] The exceptions to the general rule prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of information relating to the representation “should not be carelessly invoked.” In re Boelter, 139 Wn.2d 81, 91, 985 P.2d 328 (1999). A lawyer must make every effort practicable to avoid unnecessary disclosure of information relating to a representation, to limit disclosure to those having the need to know it, and to obtain protective orders or make other arrangements minimizing the risk of avoidable disclosure. [26] Washington has not adopted that portion of Model Rule 1.6(b)(6) permitting a lawyer to reveal information related to the representation to comply with “other law.” Washington’s omission of this phrase arises from a concern that it would authorize the lawyer to decide whether a disclosure is required by “other law,” even though the right to confidentiality and the right to waive confidentiality belong to the client. The decision to waive confidentiality should only be made by a fully informed client after consultation with the client’s lawyer or by a court of competent jurisdiction. Limiting the exception to compliance with a court order protects the client’s interest in maintaining confidentiality while insuring that any determination about the legal necessity of revealing confidential information will be made by a court. It is the need for a judicial resolution of such issues that necessitates the omission of “other law” from this Rule. Withdrawal [27] After withdrawal the lawyer is required to refrain from disclosing the client’s confidences, except as otherwise permitted by Rules 1.6 or 1.9. A lawyer is not prohibited from giving notice of the fact of withdrawal by this Rule, Rule 1.8(b), or Rule 1.9(c). If the lawyer’s services will be used by the client in furthering a course of criminal or fraudulent conduct, the lawyer must withdraw. See Rule 1.16(a)(1). Upon withdrawal from the representation in such circumstances, the lawyer may also disaffirm or withdraw any opinion, document, affirmation, or the like. If the client is an organization, the lawyer may be in doubt about whether contemplated conduct will actually be carried out by the organization. When a lawyer requires guidance about compliance with this Rule in connection with an organizational client, the lawyer may proceed under the provisions of Rule 1.13(b). Other [28] This Rule does not relieve a lawyer of their obligations under Rule 5.4(b) of the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.

citation: RPC RPC 1.6

rule_number: RPC 1.6


title: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

text:
RPC 1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CURRENT CLIENTS (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. (b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing (following authorization from the other client to make any required disclosures). (c) A lawyer who is a public officer or employee shall not be in violation of this rule when that lawyer represents more than one agency, branch, or unit or subdivision within a government entity, and/or officer or employee within that government entity, if the lawyer reasonably believes that the multiple representations are required or allowed by constitutional or statutory provisions or by other applicable law. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 1995; September 1, 2006; September 1, 2025.] Comments General Principles [1] [Washington revision] Loyalty and independent judgment are essential elements in the lawyer’s relationship to a client. Concurrent conflicts of interest can arise from the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or from the lawyer’s own interests. For specific Rules regarding certain concurrent conflicts of interest, see Rule 1.8. For former client conflicts of interest, see Rule 1.9. For conflicts of interest involving prospective clients, see Rule 1.18. For definitions of “informed consent” and “confirmed in writing,” see Rule 1.0A(e) and (b). [Comment 1 amended effective April 14, 2015.] [2] Resolution of a conflict of interest problem under this Rule requires the lawyer to: 1) clearly identify the client or clients; 2) determine whether a conflict of interest exists; 3) decide whether the representation may be undertaken despite the existence of a conflict, i.e., whether the conflict is consentable; and 4) if so, consult with the clients affected under paragraph (a) and obtain their informed consent, confirmed in writing. The clients affected under paragraph (a) include both of the clients referred to in paragraph (a)(1) and the one or more clients whose representation might

be materially limited under paragraph (a)(2). [3] A conflict of interest may exist before representation is undertaken, in which event the representation must be declined, unless the lawyer obtains the informed consent of each client under the conditions of paragraph (b). To determine whether a conflict of interest exists, a lawyer should adopt reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, to determine in both litigation and non-litigation matters the persons and issues involved. See also Comment to Rule 5.1. Ignorance caused by a failure to institute such procedures will not excuse a lawyer’s violation of this Rule. As to whether a client-lawyer relationship exists or, having once been established, is continuing, see Comment to Rule 1.3 and Scope. [4] If a conflict arises after representation has been undertaken, the lawyer ordinarily must withdraw from the representation, unless the lawyer has obtained the informed consent of the client under the conditions of paragraph (b). See Rule 1.16. Where more than one client is involved, whether the lawyer may continue to represent any of the clients is determined both by the lawyer’s ability to comply with duties owed to the former client and by the lawyer’s ability to represent adequately the remaining client or clients, given the lawyer’s duties to the former client. See Rule 1.9. See also Comments [5] and [29]. [5] Unforeseeable developments, such as changes in corporate and other organizational affiliations or the addition or realignment of parties in litigation, might create conflicts in the midst of a representation, as when a company sued by the lawyer on behalf of one client is bought by another client represented by the lawyer in an unrelated matter. Depending on the circumstances, the lawyer may have the option to withdraw from one of the representations in order to avoid the conflict. The lawyer must seek court approval where necessary and take steps to minimize harm to the clients. See Rule 1.16. The lawyer must continue to protect the confidences of the client from whose representation the lawyer has withdrawn. See Rule 1.9(c). See also Washington Comment [36]. Identifying Conflicts of Interest: Directly Adverse [6] Loyalty to a current client prohibits undertaking representation directly adverse to that client without that client’s informed consent. Thus, absent consent, a lawyer may not act as an advocate in one matter against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even when the matters are wholly unrelated. The client as to whom the representation is directly adverse is likely to feel betrayed, and the resulting damage to the client-lawyer relationship is likely to impair the lawyer’s ability to represent the client effectively. In addition, the client on whose behalf the adverse representation is undertaken reasonably may fear that the lawyer will pursue that client’s case less effectively out of deference to the other client, i.e., that the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s interest in retaining the current client. Similarly, a directly adverse conflict may arise when a lawyer is required to cross-examine a client who appears as a witness in a lawsuit involving another client, as when the testimony will be damaging to the client who is represented in the lawsuit. On the other hand, simultaneous representation in unrelated matters of clients whose interests are only economically adverse, such as representation of competing economic enterprises in unrelated litigation, does not ordinarily constitute a conflict of interest and thus may not require consent of the respective clients. [7] Directly adverse conflicts can also arise in transactional matters. For example, if a lawyer is asked to represent the seller of a business in negotiations with a buyer represented by the lawyer, not in the same transaction but in another, unrelated matter, the lawyer could not undertake the representation without the informed consent of each client. Identifying Conflicts of Interest: Material Limitation [8] Even where there is no direct adverseness, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant

risk that a lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests. For example, a lawyer asked to represent several individuals seeking to form a joint venture is likely to be materially limited in the lawyer’s ability to recommend or advocate all possible positions that each might take because of the lawyer’s duty of loyalty to the others. The conflict in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. The mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent. The critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests will eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client. See also Washington Comment [37]. Lawyer’s Responsibilities to Former Clients and Other Third Persons [9] In addition to conflicts with other current clients, a lawyer’s duties of loyalty and independence may be materially limited by responsibilities to former clients under Rule 1.9 or by the lawyer’s responsibilities to other persons, such as fiduciary duties arising from a lawyer’s service as a trustee, executor or corporate director. Personal Interest Conflicts [10] The lawyer’s own interests should not be permitted to have an adverse effect on representation of a client. For example, if the probity of a lawyer’s own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client detached advice. Similarly, when a lawyer has discussions concerning possible employment with an opponent of the lawyer’s client, or with a law firm representing the opponent, such discussions could materially limit the lawyer’s representation of the client. In addition, a lawyer may not allow related business interests to affect representation, for example, by referring clients to an enterprise in which the lawyer has an undisclosed financial interest. See Rule 1.8 for specific Rules pertaining to a number of personal interest conflicts, including business transactions with clients. See also Rule 1.10 (personal interest conflicts under Rule 1.7 ordinarily are not imputed to other lawyers in a law firm). [11] [Washington revision] When lawyers representing different clients in the same matter or in substantially related matters are related as parent, child, sibling, or spouse, or if the lawyers have some other close familial relationship or if the lawyers are in a personal intimate relationship with one another, there may be a significant risk that client confidences will be revealed and that the lawyer’s family or other familial or intimate relationship will interfere with both loyalty and independent professional judgment. See Rule 1.8(l). As a result, each client is entitled to know of the existence and implications of the relationship between the lawyers before the lawyer agrees to undertake the representation. Thus, a lawyer so related to another lawyer ordinarily may not represent a client in a matter where that lawyer is representing another party, unless each client gives informed consent. The disqualification arising from such relationships is personal and ordinarily is not imputed to members of firms with whom the lawyers are associated. See Rules 1.8(k) and 1.10. [12] [Reserved.] Interest of Person Paying for a Lawyer’s Service [13] A lawyer may be paid from a source other than the client, including a co-client, if the client is informed of that fact and consents and the arrangement does not compromise the lawyer’s duty of loyalty or independent judgment to the client. See Rule 1.8(f). If acceptance of the payment from any other source presents a significant risk that the lawyer’s representation of the client will

be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interest in accommodating the person paying the lawyer’s fee or by the lawyer’s responsibilities to a payer who is also a co-client, then the lawyer must comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) before accepting the representation, including determining whether the conflict is consentable and, if so, that the client has adequate information about the material risks of the representation. Prohibited Representations [14] Ordinarily, clients may consent to representation notwithstanding a conflict. However, as indicated in paragraph (b), some conflicts are nonconsentable, meaning that the lawyer involved cannot properly ask for such agreement or provide representation on the basis of the client’s consent. When the lawyer is representing more than one client, the question of consentability must be resolved as to each client. [15] Consentability is typically determined by considering whether the interests of the clients will be adequately protected if the clients are permitted to give their informed consent to representation burdened by a conflict of interest. Thus, under paragraph (b)(1), representation is prohibited if in the circumstances the lawyer cannot reasonably conclude that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation. See Rule 1.1 (Competence) and Rule 1.3 (Diligence). [16] [Washington revision] Paragraph (b)(2) describes conflicts that are nonconsentable because the representation is prohibited by applicable law. For example, in some states substantive law provides that the same lawyer may not represent more than one defendant in a capital case, even with the consent of the clients, and under federal criminal statutes certain representations by a former government lawyer are prohibited, despite the informed consent of the former client. In addition, decisional law in some states other than Washington limits the ability of a governmental client, such as a municipality, to consent to a conflict of interest. See Washington Comment [38]. [17] [Washington revision] Paragraph (b)(3) describes conflicts that are nonconsentable because of the institutional interest in vigorous development of each client’s position when the clients are aligned directly against each other in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal. Whether clients are aligned directly against each other within the meaning of this paragraph requires examination of the context of the proceeding. Although this paragraph does not preclude a lawyer’s multiple representation of adverse parties to a mediation (because mediation is not a proceeding before a “tribunal” under Rule 1.0A(m)), such representation may be precluded by paragraph (b)(1). [Comment [17] amended effective April 14, 2015.] See also Washington Comment [38]. Informed Consent [18] [Washington revision] Informed consent requires that each affected client be aware of the relevant circumstances and of the material and reasonably foreseeable ways that the conflict could have adverse effects on the interests of that client. See Rule 1.0A(e) (informed consent). The information required depends on the nature of the conflict and the nature of the risks involved. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the information must include the implications of the common representation, including possible effects on loyalty, confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege and the advantages and risks involved. See Comments [30] and [31] (effect of common representation on confidentiality). [Comment [18] amended effective April 15, 2014.]

[19] Under some circumstances it may be impossible to make the disclosure necessary to obtain consent. For example, when the lawyer represents different clients in related matters and one of the clients refuses to consent to the disclosure necessary to permit the other client to make an informed decision, the lawyer cannot properly ask the latter to consent. In some cases the alternative to common representation can be that each party may have to obtain separate representation with the possibility of incurring additional costs. These costs, along with the benefits of securing separate representation, are factors that may be considered by the affected client in determining whether common representation is in the client’s interests. See also Washington Comment [39]. Consent Confirmed in Writing [20] [Washington revision] Paragraph (b) requires the lawyer to obtain the informed consent of the client, confirmed in writing. Such a writing may consist of a document executed by the client or one that the lawyer promptly records and transmits to the client following an oral consent. See Rule 1.0A(b). See also Rule 1.0A(n) (writing includes electronic transmission). If it is not feasible to obtain or transmit the writing at the time the client gives informed consent, then the lawyer must obtain or transmit it within a reasonable time thereafter. See Rule 1.0A(b). The requirement of a writing does not supplant the need in most cases for the lawyer to talk with the client, to explain the risks and advantages, if any, of representation burdened with a conflict of interest, as well as reasonably available alternatives, and to afford the client a reasonable opportunity to consider the risks and alternatives and to raise questions and concerns. Rather, the writing is required in order to impress upon clients the seriousness of the decision the client is being asked to make and to avoid disputes or ambiguities that might later occur in the absence of a writing. [Comment 20 amended effective April 15, 2014.] Revoking Consent [21] A client who has given consent to a conflict may revoke the consent and, like any other client, may terminate the lawyer’s representation at any time. Whether revoking consent to the client’s own representation precludes the lawyer from continuing to represent other clients depends on the circumstances, including the nature of the conflict, whether the client revoked consent because of a material change in circumstances, the reasonable expectations of the other client and whether material detriment to the other clients or the lawyer would result. Consent to Future Conflict [22] Whether a lawyer may properly request a client to waive conflicts that might arise in the future is subject to the test of paragraph (b). The effectiveness of such waivers is generally determined by the extent to which the client reasonably understands the material risks that the waiver entails. The more comprehensive the explanation of the types of future representations that might arise and the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences of those representations, the greater the likelihood that the client will have the requisite understanding. Thus, if the client agrees to consent to a particular type of conflict with which the client is already familiar, then the consent ordinarily will be effective with regard to that type of conflict. If the consent is general and open-ended, then the consent ordinarily will be ineffective, because it is not reasonably likely that the client will have understood the material risks involved. On the other hand, if the client is an experienced user of the legal services involved and is reasonably informed regarding the risk that a conflict may arise, such consent is more likely to be effective, particularly if, e.g., the client is independently represented by other counsel in giving consent and the consent is limited to future conflicts unrelated to the subject of the representation. In any case, advance consent cannot be effective if the circumstances that materialize in the future are

such as would make the conflict nonconsentable under paragraph (b). [Comment 22 amended effective September 1, 2018.] Conflicts in Litigation [23] Paragraph (b)(3) prohibits representation of opposing parties in the same litigation, regardless of the clients’ consent. On the other hand, simultaneous representation of parties whose interests in litigation may conflict, such as coplaintiffs or codefendants, is governed by paragraph (a)(2). A conflict may exist by reason of substantial discrepancy in the parties’ testimony, incompatibility in positions in relation to an opposing party or the fact that there are substantially different possibilities of settlement of the claims or liabilities in question. Such conflicts can arise in criminal cases as well as civil. The potential for conflict of interest in representing multiple defendants in a criminal case is so grave that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to represent more than one codefendant. On the other hand, common representation of persons having similar interests in civil litigation is proper if the requirements of paragraph (b) are met. [24] Ordinarily a lawyer may take inconsistent legal positions in different tribunals at different times on behalf of different clients. The mere fact that advocating a legal position on behalf of one client might create precedent adverse to the interests of a client represented by the lawyer in an unrelated matter does not create a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists, however, if there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s action on behalf of one client will materially limit the lawyer’s effectiveness in representing another client in a different case; for example, when a decision favoring one client will create a precedent likely to seriously weaken the position taken on behalf of the other client. Factors relevant in determining whether the clients need to be advised of the risk include: where the cases are pending, whether the issue is substantive or procedural, the temporal relationship between the matters, the significance of the issue to the immediate and long-term interests of the clients involved and the clients’ reasonable expectations in retaining the lawyer. If there is significant risk of material limitation, then absent informed consent of the affected clients, the lawyer must refuse one of the representations or withdraw from one or both matters. [25] When a lawyer represents or seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs or defendants in a classaction lawsuit, unnamed members of the class are ordinarily not considered to be clients of the lawyer for purposes of applying paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule. Thus, the lawyer does not typically need to get the consent of such a person before representing a client suing the person in an unrelated matter. Similarly, a lawyer seeking to represent an opponent in a class action does not typically need the consent of an unnamed member of the class whom the lawyer represents in an unrelated matter. Nonlitigation Conflicts [26] Conflicts of interest under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) arise in contexts other than litigation. For a discussion of directly adverse conflicts in transactional matters, see Comment [7]. Relevant factors in determining whether there is significant potential for material limitation include the duration and intimacy of the lawyer’s relationship with the client or clients involved, the functions being performed by the lawyer, the likelihood that disagreements will arise and the likely prejudice to the client from the conflict. The question is often one of proximity and degree. See Comment [8]. [27] For example, conflict questions may arise in estate planning and estate administration. A lawyer may be called upon to prepare wills for several family members, such as husband and wife, and, depending upon the circumstances, a conflict of interest may be present. In estate administration the identity of the client may be unclear under the law of a particular jurisdiction. Under one view, the client is the fiduciary; under another view the client is the estate or trust,

including its beneficiaries. In order to comply with conflict of interest rules, the lawyer should make clear the lawyer’s relationship to the parties involved. [28] Whether a conflict is consentable depends on the circumstances. For example, a lawyer may not represent multiple parties to a negotiation whose interests are fundamentally antagonistic to each other, but common representation is permissible where the clients are generally aligned in interest even though there is some difference in interest among them. Thus, a lawyer may seek to establish or adjust a relationship between clients on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis; for example, in helping to organize a business in which two or more clients are entrepreneurs, working out the financial reorganization of an enterprise in which two or more clients have an interest or arranging a property distribution in settlement of an estate. The lawyer seeks to resolve potentially adverse interests by developing the parties’ mutual interests. Otherwise, each party might have to obtain separate representation, with the possibility of incurring additional cost, complication or even litigation. Given these and other relevant factors, the clients may prefer that the lawyer act for all of them. See also Washington Comment [40]. Special Considerations in Common Representation [29] In considering whether to represent multiple clients in the same matter, a lawyer should be mindful that if the common representation fails because the potentially adverse interests cannot be reconciled, the result can be additional cost, embarrassment and recrimination. Ordinarily, the lawyer will be forced to withdraw from representing all of the clients if the common representation fails. In some situations, the risk of failure is so great that multiple representation is plainly impossible. For example, a lawyer cannot undertake common representation of clients where contentious litigation or negotiations between them are imminent or contemplated. Moreover, because the lawyer is required to be impartial between commonly represented clients, representation of multiple clients is improper when it is unlikely that impartiality can be maintained. Generally, if the relationship between the parties has already assumed antagonism, the possibility that the clients’ interests can be adequately served by common representation is not very good. Other relevant factors are whether the lawyer subsequently will represent both parties on a continuing basis and whether the situation involves creating or terminating a relationship between the parties. [30] A particularly important factor in determining the appropriateness of common representation is the effect on client-lawyer confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege. With regard to the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between commonly represented clients, the privilege does not attach. Hence, it must be assumed that if litigation eventuates between the clients, the privilege will not protect any such communications, and the clients should be so advised. [31] As to the duty of confidentiality, continued common representation will almost certainly be inadequate if one client asks the lawyer not to disclose to the other client information relevant to the common representation. This is so because the lawyer has an equal duty of loyalty to each client, and each client has the right to be informed of anything bearing on the representation that might affect that client’s interests and the right to expect that the lawyer will use that information to that client’s benefit. See Rule 1.4. The lawyer should, at the outset of the common representation and as part of the process of obtaining each client’s informed consent, advise each client that information will be shared and that the lawyer will have to withdraw if one client decides that some matter material to the representation should be kept from the other. In limited circumstances, it may be appropriate for the lawyer to proceed with the representation when the clients have agreed, after being properly informed, that the lawyer will keep certain information confidential. For example, the lawyer may reasonably conclude that failure to disclose one client’s trade secrets to another client will not adversely affect representation involving a joint venture between the clients and agree to keep that information confidential with the informed

consent of both clients. [32] When seeking to establish or adjust a relationship between clients, the lawyer should make clear that the lawyer’s role is not that of partisanship normally expected in other circumstances and, thus, that the clients may be required to assume greater responsibility for decisions than when each client is separately represented. Any limitations on the scope of the representation made necessary as a result of the common representation should be fully explained to the clients at the outset of the representation. See Rule 1.2(c). [33] Subject to the above limitations, each client in the common representation has the right to loyal and diligent representation and the protection of Rule 1.9 concerning the obligations to a former client. The client also has the right to discharge the lawyer as stated in Rule 1.16. See also Washington Comment [41]. Organizational Clients [34] A lawyer who represents a corporation or other organization does not, by virtue of that representation, necessarily represent any constituent or affiliated organization, such as a parent or subsidiary. See Rule 1.13(a). Thus, the lawyer for an organization is not barred from accepting representation adverse to an affiliate in an unrelated matter, unless the circumstances are such that the affiliate should also be considered a client of the lawyer, there is an understanding between the lawyer and the organizational client that the lawyer will avoid representation adverse to the client’s affiliates, or the lawyer’s obligations to either the organizational client or the new client are likely to limit materially the lawyer’s representation of the other client. [35] A lawyer for a corporation or other organization who is also a member of its board of directors should determine whether the responsibilities of the two roles may conflict. The lawyer may be called on to advise the corporation in matters involving actions of the directors. Consideration should be given to the frequency with which such situations may arise, the potential intensity of the conflict, the effect of the lawyer’s resignation from the board and the possibility of the corporation’s obtaining legal advice from another lawyer in such situations. If there is material risk that the dual role will compromise the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment, the lawyer should not serve as a director or should cease to act as the corporation’s lawyer when conflicts of interest arise. The lawyer should advise the other members of the board that in some circumstances matters discussed at board meetings while the lawyer is present in the capacity of director might not be protected by the attorney-client privilege and that conflict of interest considerations might require the lawyer’s recusal as a director or might require the lawyer and the lawyer’s firm to decline representation of the corporation in a matter. Additional Washington Comments (36–42) General Principles [36] Notwithstanding Comment [3], lawyers providing short-term limited legal services to a client under the auspices of a program sponsored by a nonprofit organization or court are not normally required to systematically screen for conflicts of interest before undertaking a representation. See Comment [1] to Rule 6.5. See Rule 1.2(c) for requirements applicable to the provision of limited legal services. Identifying Conflicts of Interest: Material Limitation [37] Use of the term “significant risk” in paragraph (a)(2) is not intended to be a substantive change or diminishment in the standard required under former Washington RPC 1.7(b), i.e., that “the representation of the client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to

another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests.” Prohibited Representations [38] In Washington, a governmental client is not prohibited from properly consenting to a representational conflict of interest. Informed Consent [39] Paragraph (b)(4) of the Rule differs slightly from the Model Rule in that it expressly requires authorization from the other client before any required disclosure of information relating to that client can be made. Authorization to make a disclosure of information relating to the representation requires the client’s informed consent. See Rule 1.6(a). Nonlitigation Conflicts [40] Under Washington case law, in estate administration matters the client is the personal representative of the estate. Special Considerations in Internal Government Representations [41] Various legal provisions, including constitutional, statutory and common law, may define the duties of government lawyers in representing public officers, employees, and agencies and should be considered in evaluating the nature and propriety of common representation. [42] RPC 1.7(c) merely codifies established practice that lawyers who are public officers or employees when they represent multiple agencies have the authority to represent multiple agencies and does not imply that prior to its adoption lawyers representing multiple governmental entities violated the Rules of Professional Conduct relating to conflicts. A client within a government entity may be a specific agency, a branch of government, another unit or subdivision of that government, or an individual government officer or employee. See Rule 1.13 Comment [9] and Rule 1.11 Comment [5]. Lawyers who are public officers or employees may be authorized or required to represent different adverse government agencies, branches, units or subdivisions, or individuals in intragovernmental legal controversies where a private lawyer could not represent multiple private clients. See Scope [18]. Consistent with applicable Washington law, lawyers within a government may represent intragovernmental agencies, branches, units or subdivisions, and officers and employees (including former officers or employees) with conflicting or potentially conflicting interests. When the representation of an agency, branch, unit or subdivision, or officer or employee appears to be directly adverse to another governmental agency, branch, unit or subdivision, or officer or employee, or former officer or employee, and particularly when there is adverse representation in litigation or before a tribunal, the multiple representations may require informed consent from various agencies, branches, units or subdivisions, and/or an effective screening mechanism among the lawyers or the engagement of one or more lawyers who are not officers or employees of that government. [Comment 42 adopted effective September 1, 2025.] [Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006.]

citation: RPC RPC 1.7

rule_number: RPC 1.7