About WSBA Ethics Opinions

The Washington State Bar Association has a major responsibility for the ethical rules that form the standards of law practice in the state. The Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), as approved and adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court, codify its strict, self-imposed standard. The Association also assists members in interpreting their ethical obligations by issuing opinions about specific issues from time to time.  Many are the result of study and analysis in response to requests from individual WSBA members.  These opinions are of two types:

Formal Opinions are issued by the RPC Committee (or one of its predecessor committees) and have been formally approved and adopted by the Association's Board of Governors.  Formal opinions generally address matters of wide concern and interest and, once adopted by the Board of Governors, are routinely published in the Washington State Bar News. 

Informal Opinions are not individually approved by the Board and do not reflect any official position of the Association.  Informal opinions reflect only the opinion of the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee.  Informal  opinions are generally concerned with less sweeping topics, and are posted as a means of general education and information for the Bar membership. 

WSBA Ethics Opinions are posted online in searchable format; click here.

Current Review and Publication

There are continuing developments affecting standards of professional conduct, including amendments to the rules and court decisions in areas such as lawyer advertising. In 1985 the Rules of Professional Conduct were adopted by the Washington Supreme Court, superseding the previous Code of Professional Responsibility. Both in 1985, and on a continuing basis, the RPC Committee reviews all published opinions for continuing validity.

During the review process, the Committee evaluates opinions in light of any changes in the rules and standards that have developed through court decisions, opinions of the American Bar Association Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and other relevant considerations.

Any opinions which are found to be either no longer valid or of little value to Washington lawyers, are Withdrawn. Old opinions which addressed judicial conduct were also Withdrawn as that area is addressed by the Ethics Advisory Committee pursuant to General Rule 10.

The withdrawal of an opinion does not necessarily mean that the RPC Committee or the Board of Governors disagrees with the underlying ethical premises of the opinion. Some have been Withdrawn because of potential constitutional infirmities, ambiguities, incompleteness under current rules or law, or redundance. Opinions are Withdrawn when they are no longer of assistance to Washington lawyers in understanding their professional obligations.

Organization

Although a number of original formal ethics opinions have been Withdrawn, the original consecutive numbering system has been Retained in this republication. For example, while Formal Ethics Opinion 2 has been Withdrawn, Opinion 3 (which has been Retained) has not been renumbered to "fill the gap." The original numbering system was retained in an effort to avoid confusion. Withdrawn opinions are listed in the table which appears below.

Before the Informal Opinion database was available on the Internet only a few Informal Opinions were published for the information of members.  They were designated as "Published Informal Opinions" and they were numbered by year, e.g., 86-1 and 86-2. All of the Informal Opinions, including those designated as "Published," are referenced by inquiry number in the Informal Opinion searchable database. You may search the database for the "Published" Informal Opinion number in the subject line or the text of the opinion.

Bound Publication

Formal Opinions that have not been withdrawn, selected Informal Opinions and a topical index are published in the annual Resources Directory.

Gender-Neutrality

At various points in the Formal Ethics Opinions, references are made through use of terms such as "he," "him" and "his." These references are generic in nature and for convenience only — referring to attorneys or individuals, as the context indicates, without connotation as to gender.