State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Question

Is it proper for a court to permit a collection agency to pursue post-judgment relief (i.e. garnishment or execution) when the court is the real judgment creditor?

Does the fact that a court has entered into a contractual relationship with a collection agency pursuant to RCW 19.16.500 create a conflict when this same collection agency appears for hearings or trials on claims that do not involve the court? If not, should the court disclose to the defendant the existence of the contractual relationship between the court and the collection agency?

Answer

It is proper under CJC Canon 1 and Canon 2(A) for a court to permit a collection agency to pursue post-judgment relief when that court is the real judgment creditor.

However, even though this practice is generally proper there may be post-judgment relief situation, including the use of collection letters, in which a case is contested or which would require the judge to exercise discretion where the judge should recuse himself or herself and this should be done on an individual case by case basis.

The mere fact that a court has entered into a contractual relationship with a collection agency pursuant to RCW 19.16.500 does not create a conflict when this same collection agency appears for hearings or trials on claims that do not involve the court. A judge need not disclose the contractual relationship to any lawyers or parties.

Opinion 87-08

10/23/1987