RULE 1.0
                            TERMINOLOGY


  (a) "Belief" or "believes" denotes that the person involved actually
supposed the fact in question to be true. A person's belief may be inferred
from circumstances.

  (b) "Confirmed in writing," when used in reference to the informed
consent of a person, denotes informed consent that is given in writing by
the person or a writing that a lawyer promptly transmits to the person
confirming an oral informed consent. See paragraph (e) for the definition
of "informed consent." If it is not feasible to obtain or transmit the
writing at the time the person gives informed consent, then the lawyer must
obtain or transmit it within a reasonable time thereafter.

  (c) "Firm" or "law firm" denotes a lawyer or lawyers in a law
partnership, professional corporation, sole proprietorship or other
association authorized to practice law; or lawyers employed in a legal
services organization or the legal department of a corporation or other organization.

  (d) "Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct that has a purpose to deceive
and is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable
jurisdiction, except that it is not necessary that anyone has suffered
damages or relied on the misrepresentation or failure to inform.

  (e) "Informed consent" denotes the agreement by a person to a proposed
course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information
and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available
alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.

  (f) "Knowingly," "known," or "knows" denotes actual knowledge of the fact
in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.

  (g) "Partner" denotes a member of a partnership a shareholder in a law
firm organized as a professional corporation, or a member of an association
authorized to practice law.

  (h) "Reasonable" or "reasonably" when used in relation to conduct by a
lawyer denotes the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer.

  (i) "Reasonable belief" or "reasonably believes" when used in reference
to a lawyer denotes that the lawyer believes the matter in question and
that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable.

  (j) "Reasonably should know" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes
that a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the
matter in question.

  (k) "Screened" denotes the isolation of a lawyer from any participation
in a matter through the timely imposition of procedures within a firm that
are reasonably adequate under the circumstances to protect information that
the isolated lawyers is obligated to protect under these Rules or other law.

  (l) "Substantial" when used in reference to degree or extent denotes a
material matter of clear and weighty importance.

  (m) "Tribunal" denotes a court, an arbitrator in a binding arbitration
proceeding or legislative body, administrative agency or other body acting
in an adjudicative capacity. A legislative body, administrative agency or
other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after
the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties, will
render a binding legal judgment directly affecting a party's interests in a
particular matter.

  (n) "Writing" or "written" denotes a tangible or electronic record of a
communication or representation, including handwriting, typewriting,
printing, photostating, photography, audio or videorecording and e-mail. A
"signed" writing includes an electronic sound, symbol or process attached
to or logically associated with a writing and executed or adopted by a
person with the intent to sign the writing.


Comment

Confirmed in Writing

  [1] If it is not feasible to obtain or transmit a written confirmation at
the time the client gives informed consent, then the lawyer must obtain or
transmit it within a reasonable time thereafter. If a lawyer has obtained a
client's informed consent, the lawyer may act in reliance on that consent
so long as it is confirmed in writing within a reasonable time thereafter.

  See also Washington Comment [11].


Firm

  [2] Whether two or more lawyers constitute a firm within paragraph (c)
can depend on the specific facts. For example, two practitioners who share
office space and occasionally consult or assist each other ordinarily would
not be regarded as constituting a firm. However, if they present themselves
to the public in a way that suggests that they are a firm or conduct
themselves as a firm, they should be regarded as a firm for purposes of the
Rules. The terms of any formal agreement between associated lawyers are
relevant in determining whether they are a firm, as is the fact that they
have mutual access to information concerning the clients they serve.
Furthermore, it is relevant in doubtful cases to consider the underlying
purpose of the Rule that is involved. A group of lawyers could be regarded
as a firm for purposes of the Rule that the same lawyer should not
represent opposing parties in litigation, while it might not be so regarded
for purposes of the Rule that information acquired by one lawyer is
attributed to another.

  [3] [Washington revision] With respect to the law department of an
organization, there is ordinarily no question that the members of the
department constitute a firm within the meaning of the Rules of
Professional Conduct. There can be uncertainty, however, as to the identity
of the client. For example, it may not be clear whether the law department
of a corporation represents a subsidiary or an affiliated corporation, as
well as the corporation by which the members of the department are directly
employed. A similar question can arise concerning an unincorporated
association and its local affiliates.

  [4] Similar questions can also arise with respect to lawyers in legal aid
and legal services organizations. Depending upon the structure of the
organization, the entire organization or different components of it may
constitute a firm or firms for purposes of these Rules.

  See also Washington Comment [12].


Fraud

  [5] When used in these Rules, the terms "fraud" or "fraudulent" refer to
conduct that is characterized as such under the substantive or procedural
law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive. This does
not include merely negligent misrepresentation or negligent failure to
apprise another of relevant information. For purposes of these Rules, it is
not necessary that anyone has suffered damages or relied on the
misrepresentation or failure to inform.

  See also Washington Comment [13].


Informed Consent

  [6] Many of the Rules of Professional Conduct require the lawyer to
obtain the informed consent of a client or other person (e.g., a former
client or, under certain circumstances, a prospective client) before
accepting or continuing representation or pursuing a course of conduct.
See, e.g., Rules 1.2(c), 1.6(a) and 1.7(b). The communication necessary to
obtain such consent will vary according to the Rule involved and the
circumstances giving rise to the need to obtain informed consent. The
lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the client or other
person possesses information reasonably adequate to make an informed
decision. Ordinarily, this will require communication that includes a
disclosure of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the situation, any
explanation reasonably necessary to inform the client or other person of
the material advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of conduct
and a discussion of the client's or other person's options and
alternatives. In some circumstances it may be appropriate for a lawyer to
advise a client or other person to seek the advice of other counsel. A
lawyer need not inform a client or other person of facts or implications
already known to the client or other person; nevertheless, a lawyer who
does not personally inform the client or other person assumes the risk that
the client or other person is inadequately informed and the consent is
invalid. In determining whether the information and explanation provided
are reasonably adequate, relevant factors include whether the client or
other person is experienced in legal matters generally and in making
decisions of the type involved, and whether the client or other person is
independently represented by other counsel in giving the consent. Normally,
such persons need less information and explanation than others, and
generally a client or other person who is independently represented by
other counsel in giving the consent should be assumed to have given informed consent.

  [7] [Washington revision] Obtaining informed consent will usually require
an affirmative response by the client or other person. In general, a lawyer
may not assume consent from a client's or other person's silence. Consent
may be inferred, however, from the conduct of a client or other person who
has reasonably adequate information about the matter. A number of Rules
require that a person's consent be confirmed in writing. See Rules 1.7(b)
and 1.9(a). For a definition of "writing" and "confirmed in writing," see
paragraphs (n) and (b). Rule 1.8(a) requires that a client's consent be
obtained in a writing signed by the client. See also Rule 1.5(c)(1)
(requiring that a contingent fee agreement be "in a writing signed by the
client"). For a definition of "signed," see paragraph (n).

  See also Washington Comment [14].


Screened

  [8] [Washington revision] This definition applies to situations where
screening of a personally disqualified lawyer is permitted to remove
imputation of a conflict of interest under Rules 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.18, or 6.5.

  [9] The purpose of screening is to assure the affected parties that
confidential information known by the personally disqualified lawyer
remains protected. The personally disqualified lawyer should acknowledge
the obligation not to communicate with any of the other lawyers in the firm
with respect to the matter. Similarly, other lawyers in the firm who are
working on the matter should be informed that the screening is in place and
that they may not communicate with the personally disqualified lawyer with
respect to the matter. Additional screening measures that are appropriate
for the particular matter will depend on the circumstances. To implement,
reinforce and remind all affected lawyers of the presence of the screening,
it may be appropriate for the firm to undertake such procedures as a
written undertaking by the screened lawyer to avoid any communication with
other firm personnel and any contact with any firm files or other materials
relating to the matter, written notice and instructions to all other firm
personnel forbidding any communication with the screened lawyer relating to
the matter, denial of access by the screened lawyer to firm files or other
materials relating to the matter and periodic reminders of the screen to
the screened lawyer and all other firm personnel.

  [10] In order to be effective, screening measures must be implemented as
soon as practical after a lawyer or law firm knows or reasonably should
know that there is a need for screening.

  See also Washington Comment [15].

Additional Washington Comments (11 - 16)


Confirmed in Writing

  [11] Informed consent requires that the writing be articulated in a
manner that can be easily understood by the client.


Firm

  [12] Although the definition of "firm" or "law firm" in Rule 1.0(c)
differs from the definition set forth in the Terminology section of
Washington's former Rules of Professional Conduct, there is no intent to
change the scope of the definition or to alter existing Washington law on
the application of the Rules of Professional Conduct to lawyers in a
government office.

Fraud

  [13] Model Rule 1.0(d) was modified to clarify that the terms "fraud" and
"fraudulent" in the Rules of Professional Conduct do not include an element
of damage or reliance.

Informed Consent

  [14] In order for the communication to the client to be adequate it must
be accomplished in a manner that can be easily understood by the client.

Screened

  [15] See Rules 1.10 and 6.5 for specific screening requirements under the
circumstances covered by those Rules.

Other

  [16] For the scope of the phrase "information relating to the
representation of a client," which is not defined in Rule 1.0,
see Comment [19] to Rule 1.6.


[Amended effective September 1, 2006.]