Formal Opinion 76
Rights of Collection Agency
(1960)

You have requested the opinion on the following proposition:

"(a) A collection agency, holder of an assigned claim, prepares a complaint and brings it to its attorney for signature. After the examination of the complaint, the attorney signs it, whereupon the client collection agency files the complaint either in Superior Court or Justice Court. In adhering to this course of conduct, is the attorney guilty of unethical practice?

"(b) Assume that the notice and complaint is filed in a Justice Court. The layman representative of the collection agency, and not the attorney, appears on the return date, and prior to trial attempts to negotiate settlement with the defendant debtors; or, if the claim is disputed, the layman representative of the collection agency requests the justice of the peace to assign the case for trial at a later date. This manner of handling Justice Court claims is agreed to by tacit understanding between the collection agency and its attorney. Is the attorney guilty of unethical practice?"

In the opinion of the Committee, this practice Is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Yount v. Zarbell, 17 Wn. 2d 278, wherein the Court said on page 282: "Her (the respondent's attorney) rubber-stamping of complaints and writs of garnishment prepared by appellant (the collection agency) contravened, Sec. 5, Rule XI of Rules for Discipline of Attorneys (193 Wash. 92-a), which forbids the lending by an attorney of his or her name for use as attorney by another person who is not authorized to practice law in this state." The court reversed a decision in favor of the attorney for fees.

The court further stated that the attorney is guilty of unethical conduct in allowing the collection agency to conduct any portion of the court procedure and directed that the clerk of the court transmit a copy of the opinion to the Washington State Bar Association for the attention of the Board of Governors and for investigation by the committee on unauthorized practice of law.

[See RPC 5.5, WSBA v. Great Western Federal, 91 Wn.2d 48, 586 P.2d 870(1978)]