RULE 8.5
                     DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY; CHOICE OF LAW


  (a) Disciplinary Authority. A lawyer admitted to practice in this
jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction,
regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs. A lawyer not admitted in this
jurisdiction is also subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction
if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in this
jurisdiction. A lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both
this jurisdiction and another jurisdiction for the same conduct.

  (b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this
jurisdiction, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows:

     (1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the
rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the
tribunal provide otherwise; and

     (2) for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the
lawyer's conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a
different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the
conduct. A lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyer's conduct
conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes
the predominant effect of the lawyer's conduct will occur.

  (c) Disciplinary Authority over Judges.  Notwithstanding the provisions of
Rule 8.4(m), a lawyer, while serving as a judge or justice as defined in RCW
2.64.010, shall not be subject to the disciplinary authority provided for in
these Rules or the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct for acts performed
in his or her judicial capacity or as a candidate for judicial office unless
judicial discipline is imposed for that conduct by the Commission on Judicial
Conduct or the Supreme Court.  Disciplinary  authority should not be exercised
for the identical conduct if the violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct
pertains to the role of the judiciary and does not relate to the judge's or
justice's fitness to practice law.


                                      Comment

Disciplinary Authority

  [1] It is longstanding law that the conduct of a lawyer admitted to practice
in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this
jurisdiction. Extension of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction to
other lawyers who provide or offer to provide legal services in this
jurisdiction is for the protection of the citizens of this jurisdiction.
Reciprocal enforcement of a jurisdiction's disciplinary findings and sanctions
will further advance the purposes of this Rule. See, Rules 6 and 22, ABA Model
Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. A lawyer who is subject to the
disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction under Rule 8.5(a) appoints an
official to be designated by this Court to receive service of process in this
jurisdiction. The fact that the lawyer is subject to the disciplinary authority
of this jurisdiction may be a factor in determining whether personal
jurisdiction may be asserted over the lawyer for civil matters.

Choice of Law

  [2] A lawyer may be potentially subject to more than one set of rules of
professional conduct which impose different obligations. The lawyer may be
licensed to practice in more than one jurisdiction with differing rules, or may
be admitted to practice before a particular court with rules that differ from
those of the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which the lawyer is licensed to
practice. Additionally, the lawyer's conduct may involve significant contacts
with more than one jurisdiction.

  [3] Paragraph (b) seeks to resolve such potential conflicts. Its premise is
that minimizing conflicts between rules, as well as uncertainty about which
rules are applicable, is in the best interest of clients and the profession (as
well as the bodies having authority to regulate the profession). Accordingly,
it takes the approach of (i) providing that any particular conduct of a lawyer
shall be subject to only one set of rules of professional conduct, (ii) making
the determination of which set of rules applies to particular conduct as
straightforward as possible, consistent with recognition of appropriate
regulatory interests of relevant jurisdictions, and (iii) providing protection
from discipline for lawyers who act reasonably in the face of uncertainty.

  [4] Paragraph (b)(1) provides that as to a lawyer's conduct relating to a
proceeding pending before a tribunal, the lawyer shall be subject only to the
rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits unless the rules of the
tribunal, including its choice of law rule, provide otherwise. As to all other
conduct, including conduct in anticipation of a proceeding not yet pending
before a tribunal, paragraph (b)(2) provides that a lawyer shall be subject to
the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer's conduct occurred, or, if
the predominant effect of the conduct is in another jurisdiction, the rules of
that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct. In the case of conduct in
anticipation of a proceeding that is likely to be before a tribunal, the
predominant effect of such conduct could be where the conduct occurred, where
the tribunal sits or in another jurisdiction.

  [5] When a lawyer's conduct involves significant contacts with more than one
jurisdiction, it may not be clear whether the predominant effect of the
lawyer's conduct will occur in a jurisdiction other than the one in which the
conduct occurred. So long as the lawyer's conduct conforms to the rules of a
jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect
will occur, the lawyer shall not be subject to discipline under this Rule.

  [6] If two admitting jurisdictions were to proceed against a lawyer for the
same conduct, they should, applying this Rule, identify the same governing
ethics rules. They should take all appropriate steps to see that they do apply
the same rule to the same conduct, and in all events should avoid proceeding
against a lawyer on the basis of two inconsistent rules.

  [7] The choice of law provision applies to lawyers engaged in transnational
practice, unless international law, treaties or other agreements between
competent regulatory authorities in the affected jurisdictions provide otherwise.

  [8] The Commission on Judicial Conduct is an independent agency of the
judicial branch of state government.  Wash. Const. Art. IV, § 31; RCW
2.64.120.  The Commission has authority to receive and investigate complaints
of, and conduct proceedings as to, alleged violations of rules of judicial
conduct by a "judge or justice".  Wash. Const. Art. IV, § 31; RCW 2.64.057.
The terms "judge" and "justice" are defined to include justices of the
supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior courts,
judges of any court organized under RCW Titles 3 or 35, judges pro tempore,
court commissioners, and magistrates, and the Commission's authority applies
regardless of whether the judge or justice serves full time or part time.
RCW 2.64.010(4).

  [9] Whether an act is performed in the judge's "judicial capacity" depends
on the facts and circumstances of the conduct.  In general, acts are
performed in the judicial capacity if they involve the making of judicial
decisions, the performance of judicial duties, or the discharge of
administrative responsibilities in connection with judicial office.  Other
factors include whether the act was performed or purported to be performed in
the individual's official capacity as a judge and whether the conduct is
expressly governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct.  With the exception of
conduct committed during a judicial campaign, see Comment [12], paragraph (c)
does not apply to conduct occurring prior to service as a judge, nor does it
apply to conduct wholly outside of the judicial capacity.

  [10] Paragraph (c) does not prevent the exercise of disciplinary authority
over (1) a judge or justice after he or she has been disciplined for judicial
misconduct by the Commission on Judicial Conduct or the Supreme Court, (2) a
former judge or justice, or (3) a lawyer who serves as a pro tem or part time
judge for acts performed by him or her as a lawyer and otherwise outside of
his or her judicial capacity.

  [11] [Reserved.]

  [12] Acts performed as a candidate for judicial office are governed by
paragraph (c) if performed by a judge or a justice or a successful lawyer
candidate for judicial office.  This rule has no application to acts
performed by an unsuccessful lawyer candidate for judicial office.

  [13] Paragraph (c) applies to judges and justices defined to be within the
jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Conduct under Wash. Const. Art.
IV, § 31 and RCW Title 2.64 and is not intended to apply to other lawyers in
this state designated as judges, including but not limited to federal judges,
administrative law judges, and tribal judges.


[Amended effective October 1, 2002; September 1, 2006; September 1, 2010.]