GR 9 COVER SHEET

Suggested Amendments to

THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (RPC)

Rule 1.16, Comment [4] and Rule 1.13 Additional Washington Comment [16] Submitted by the Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association

A.            Name of Proponent: Washington State Bar Association

B.             Spokespersons:

Rajeev Majumdar, President, Washington State Bar Association

Jeanne Marie Clavere, Professional Responsibility Counsel, Washington State Bar Association

C.             Purpose:

The purpose of the suggested amendments are to alert lawyers to consult the holding of a recent decision of the Washington State Supreme Court, Karstetter v. King County Corrections Guild, 193 Wn.2d 672, 444 P.2d 1185 (2019). RPC 1.16(a)(3) provides that “a lawyer shall not represent a client . . . if . . . the lawyer is discharged.” Current comment

[4] to the rule provides that “A client may discharge a lawyer at any time, with or without cause, subject to liability for the lawyer’s services.” On its face, the Rule and comment suggest that any lawyer may be fired by a client without any recourse by the lawyer except for fees already earned.

In Karstetter, the Court held that lawyers employed as in-house counsel and lawyers with comparable employment relationships face unique employment expectations. Accordingly, the Court held that such lawyers may retain the ability to bring contract and wrongful discharge actions if those actions can be brought without damaging the integrity of the client-lawyer relationship.

The suggested amendments are intended to alert lawyers consulting the RPCs to this decision in two places. First, RPC 1.16 is directly impacted by the Karstetter decision. The suggested amendment adds additional language to Comment [4] pointing lawyers consulting the rule to the Karstetter decision. The new language of Comment [4], which would be a Washington revision, would read as follows: “However, the rule may apply

differently with respect to in-house lawyers and lawyers with comparable employment situations. See Karstetter v. King County Corrections Guild, 193 Wn.2d 672, 444 P.3d 1185 (2019).”

Second, RPC 1.13 is focused on the responsibilities of lawyers for entities. As such, it would be appropriate to also add a reference to Karstetter in the comments to that rule. The amendment would add an “Additional Washington Comment [16]” at the end of the RPC 1.13 comments, which would read as follows: “In-house lawyers and lawyers with comparable employment situations may face unique employment expectations that impact their rights if discharged by the client. See Karstetter v. King County Corrections Guild, 193 Wn.2d 672, 444 P.3d 1185 (2019); Comment [4] to Rule 1.16.”