WA AGO 2026 No. 1 2026-02-25

When a Washington juvenile court clerk gets a request from the Office of Public Defense or the Office of Civil Legal Aid for dependency or termination case records, does the clerk have to provide them, and can the clerk require those agencies to file a notice of appearance first?

Short answer: Yes to providing the records, no to the notice-of-appearance requirement. The Washington AG concluded that RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) obligate court clerks (as the actual custodians of court records) to give OPD and OCLA access to dependency and termination of parental rights case files. Requiring a notice of appearance as a precondition would conflict with the statute and with each agency's separate statutory ban on directly representing clients.

Disclaimer: This is an official Washington State Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Washington attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

The Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD) and Office of Civil Legal Aid (OCLA) are independent judicial branch agencies. OPD oversees the program that provides attorneys to indigent parents in dependency and termination of parental rights cases. OCLA oversees the program that provides attorneys for children in those cases. Both agencies are statutorily prohibited from representing clients directly: instead, they manage outside attorneys, set caseload standards, and provide quality oversight.

To do that oversight job, OPD and OCLA need access to the underlying court records. The legislature wrote that into RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14). Both subsections direct that "the court shall release" relevant records to the agencies. But the agencies were running into two practical roadblocks at the county court-clerk level:

Some clerks were declining to release records because the statute says "the court" rather than "the court clerk" or "the clerk."
Some clerks were requiring OPD and OCLA staff to file a notice of appearance in the underlying case before getting access, which conflicts with the agencies' statutory prohibition on directly representing clients.

OPD and OCLA jointly asked the AG for a binding interpretation. AG Nick Brown's February 2026 opinion answered both questions:

Yes, court clerks must provide access. The phrase "the court" in Washington statutes sometimes refers narrowly to a judge and sometimes more broadly to the judicial institution including its clerks. In the context of records access, which clerks, not judges, control as a practical matter: the legislature intended clerks to release the records. A narrow reading that only a judge could release records would defeat the purpose.
No, clerks cannot require a notice of appearance. The statute does not require it, and requiring it would conflict with the legislature's structural decision to prohibit OPD and OCLA from representing clients directly. The agencies are not in the case as parties' counsel; they are independent oversight bodies. A notice-of-appearance requirement would treat them as something they are statutorily forbidden to be.

The opinion preserves county courts' discretion to set procedures for records access, for example, formal request letters, account designations, or scheduling protocols, but those procedures cannot collapse into a de facto block on access.

What this means for you

If you're a Washington county court clerk

When you receive a records request from OPD or OCLA citing RCW 13.50.010(13) or (14), you must provide the relevant dependency or termination case records. You may not require a notice of appearance as a precondition.

You may still:
- Require an authenticated request letter or other identifying credentials.
- Implement reasonable scheduling for high-volume requests.
- Apply confidentiality protections that the underlying statutes themselves require, both subsections direct OPD and OCLA to maintain confidentiality of the records they receive.
- Consult with your presiding judge about local procedures for records access, as long as those procedures do not block the agencies' statutory access.

If you work at OPD or OCLA

When a county clerk balks at giving you records or requires a notice of appearance, cite this opinion and the underlying statutes. The opinion is the AG's authoritative interpretation and gives you the legal foundation to push back. If individual clerks continue to resist, escalation paths include:

Contacting the presiding judge of the juvenile court for that county.
Working with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on guidance or technical assistance.
Documenting the access denial and raising it with the legislature for clarifying amendment.

If you're a juvenile court judge

The opinion notes that juvenile courts retain discretion to set procedures for records access. You can issue local orders or local rules that implement RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14), as long as those orders facilitate access without imposing barriers like notice of appearance. The legislature intended expeditious access without undue administrative burden.

If you're a contracted attorney representing parents or children in dependency

The OPD and OCLA oversight that this opinion enables is what supports your caseload limits, your standards of practice, and your case-support resources. The agencies need access to your case files to do that work. The opinion supports the structural quality-control system the legislature built; it does not affect your direct client-representation work.

If you're an indigent parent or a child in a Washington dependency case

OPD and OCLA do not represent you directly. Your appointed attorney does. But OPD's and OCLA's access to the case records is what allows them to monitor whether your attorney is meeting standards, getting adequate support, and not exceeding caseload limits. Records access by these agencies is not a privacy concern for you: both agencies are bound by confidentiality and OCLA must destroy retained notes that aren't necessary for its functions.

Common questions

Q: What is OPD and what does it do?
A: The Washington State Office of Public Defense (RCW 2.70.005) is an independent agency of the judicial branch. It administers programs that provide State-funded appointed counsel to indigent parents in dependency and termination of parental rights cases. RCW 2.70.020. OPD does not represent parents directly (RCW 2.70.023(1)); it manages contract attorneys, sets standards, provides training and resources, and monitors caseload limits.

Q: What is OCLA and what does it do?
A: The Washington State Office of Civil Legal Aid (RCW 2.53.020) similarly oversees the provision of State-funded counsel to children in dependency proceedings in most counties. Like OPD, OCLA does not represent clients directly; it manages contract attorneys and verifies adherence to standards, caseload limits, and training requirements (RCW 2.53.045(3)).

Q: Why does the statute say "the court" instead of "the clerk"?
A: Washington statutes use "the court" inconsistently. Sometimes it means a specific judge, sometimes the judicial institution as a whole. The AG concluded that, in the context of providing records to outside oversight agencies, the legislature intended the broader institutional reading. Title 13 elsewhere uses "court" in ways that include staff, and the practical reality is that clerks, not judges, are the day-to-day custodians of court records.

Q: Can a clerk still require a written records request?
A: Yes. A written request that identifies the requesting agency and the records sought is a reasonable administrative procedure. The opinion's bar is on imposing requirements that block access, not on routine administrative gatekeeping.

Q: What about confidentiality?
A: Both subsections of RCW 13.50.010 require OPD and OCLA to maintain the confidentiality of confidential information in the records, and OCLA must destroy retained notes not necessary to its functions. The records do not become public when OPD or OCLA receives them; they stay protected.

Q: Does this opinion affect access by other agencies?
A: No. The opinion is specifically about RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14), the OPD and OCLA carve-outs. Other entities seeking juvenile court records are governed by other provisions of RCW 13.50.010, the Court Rules, and applicable confidentiality statutes.

Background and statutory framework

The structural decision the legislature made

Washington decided that the State should pay for counsel for indigent parents and for children in dependency cases, but should provide that counsel through contracts managed by independent oversight agencies (OPD for parents, OCLA for children) rather than through direct state-employee representation. The reason for separating oversight from direct representation is to preserve attorney independence: a state-employee attorney would be representing a client whose interests sometimes conflict with the State's. The contract-and-oversight model lets the State fund and quality-control the work without putting the State in the conflict-of-interest position.

For that model to work, the oversight agencies have to actually be able to look at case files. Hence RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14).

How records access is supposed to work in practice

OPD and OCLA review case files to verify:
- That contract attorneys are meeting caseload limits.
- That the agencies' standards of practice are being followed.
- That timeliness, motions practice, hearings attendance, and similar quality indicators are at acceptable levels.
- That training and case-support resources are reaching the attorneys who need them.

This is structural, not individualized. The agencies are not second-guessing specific representation decisions; they are checking the system.

The notice-of-appearance problem

A "notice of appearance" is a court filing by which an attorney enters a case as counsel for a party. By rule and by statute, an attorney who files a notice of appearance is taking on the duties and ethical obligations of representing that party. If OPD or OCLA staff filed notices of appearance in dependency cases, they would be holding themselves out as attorneys for the parents or children, which RCW 2.70.023(1) and RCW 2.53.020(4) specifically prohibit. The notice-of-appearance requirement would have forced the agencies into a structural posture the legislature already said they could not occupy.

Why expeditious access matters

Dependency and termination cases move quickly. A dependency case can result in termination of parental rights and adoption within a year or two. If OPD or OCLA cannot review files in real time, they cannot intervene quickly when an attorney is overloaded or underperforming, and the consequences fall on parents and children who cannot get those years back. The opinion repeatedly emphasizes that the legislature intended expeditious access without undue administrative burden.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- RCW 13.50.010 (juvenile records access)
- RCW 2.70.020 (OPD duties)
- RCW 2.70.023 (OPD prohibition on direct representation)
- RCW 2.53.020 (OCLA establishment)
- RCW 2.53.045 (OCLA oversight functions)
- RCW 13.34.212 (court-appointed counsel for children)

Cases:
- Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756 (2014) (statutory interpretation framework)
- Associated Gen. Contractors of Wash. v. State, 2 Wn.3d 846 (2024) (plain-language statutory analysis)

Source

Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/juvenile-courts-court-clerk-records-statutes-statutory-obligation-provide-office

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL NICK BROWN

JUVENILE COURTS—COURT CLERK—RECORDS—STATUTES—Statutory obligation to provide the Office of Public Defense and the Office of Civil Legal Aid with access to court records.

RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) require court clerks to provide the Office of Public Defense (OPD) and the Office of Civil Legal Aid (OCLA) access to court records.

Existing statutes and court rules do not explicitly address whether court clerks may require OPD and OCLA to file notices of appearance as a precondition to records access under RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14), but such a requirement would conflict with the legislative intent of those statutes and the agencies' statutory prohibition from providing direct client representation.

February 25, 2026

Larry Jefferson, Director
Washington State Office of Public Defense
PO Box 40957
Olympia, WA 98504

Sara Robbins, Director
Office of Civil Legal Aid
1112 Quince Street SE
MS-41183
Olympia, WA 98504

Cite As: AGO 2026 No. 1

Dear Director Jefferson and Director Robbins:

By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on the following questions:

Does RCW 13.50.010 require court clerks to provide the Office of Public Defense and the Office of Civil Legal Aid access to records in dependency and termination cases?
Does RCW 13.50.010 permit court clerks to require staff from the Office of Public Defense and Office of Civil Legal Aid to file a notice of appearance before obtaining these records?

BRIEF ANSWERS

Likely yes. Although RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) directs "the court" to release records to the Office of Public Defense (OPD) and the Office of Civil Legal Aid (OCLA), the statutory context suggests that the Legislature intended clerks, as the custodians of court records, to release relevant records to OPD and OCLA. This interpretation of RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) does not conflict with Title 13's narrow definition of "court," referring to juvenile judges and commissioners, because the Legislature expressly anticipated that the term "court" might, where qualified, include other entities.
Likely not. RCW 13.50.010 does not specify a particular mechanism for courts to provide the records. Instead, the Legislature has instructed juvenile courts to implement procedures to facilitate access to their records. We conclude that, absent further direction from the Legislature or the Supreme Court, juvenile courts have discretion in establishing procedures for records access. However, the statutory context and history indicate that the Legislature intended courts to provide OPD and OCLA with expeditious records access without undue administrative burden. Existing statutes and court rules do not explicitly address whether court clerks may require OPD and OCLA to file notices of appearance as a precondition to records access under RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14), but such a requirement would conflict with the legislative intent of those statutes and the agencies' statutory prohibition from providing direct client representation.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

OPD and OCLA are independent agencies of the judicial branch. RCW 2.70.005; RCW 2.53.020(1). Among other duties, OPD administers programs to provide State-funded appointed counsel to indigent parents in dependency and termination of parental rights cases, RCW 2.70.020(1)(c), while OCLA oversees the provision of State-funded counsel to children during such proceedings in most counties. RCW 13.34.212(3)(c).

As both OPD and OCLA are statutorily prohibited from providing direct client representation (RCW 2.70.023(1); RCW 2.53.020(4)), both agencies manage and monitor outside legal-aid providers. The Legislature requires OPD to establish "procedures, standards, and guidelines" for its program areas and to "[p]rovide oversight and technical assistance to ensure the effective delivery of services[.]" RCW 2.70.020(6)-(7). In compliance with this directive, OPD sets caseload limits, implements standards of practice, and provides case support and resources for its program attorneys. The Legislature similarly requires OCLA to verify that its program attorneys "meet the standards of practice, caseload limits, and training guidelines[.]" RCW 2.53.045(3).

To facilitate OPD's and OCLA's administrative oversight functions, the Legislature enacted specific directives for courts to release relevant records to each agency. RCW 13.50.010(13) grants OPD records access, stating:

The court shall release to the Washington state office of public defense records needed to implement the agency's oversight, technical assistance, and other functions as required by RCW 2.70.020. Access to the records used as a basis for oversight, technical assistance, or other agency functions is restricted to the Washington state office of public defense. The Washington state office of public defense shall maintain the confidentiality of all confidential information included in the records.

RCW 13.50.010(14) permits OCLA records access, stating:

The court shall release to the Washington state office of civil legal aid records needed to implement the agency's oversight, technical assistance, and other functions as required by RCW 2.53.045. Access to the records used as a basis for oversight, technical assistance, or other agency functions is restricted to the Washington state office of civil legal aid. The Washington state office of civil legal aid shall maintain the confidentiality of all confidential information included in the records, and shall, as soon as possible, destroy any retained notes or records obtained under this section that are not necessary for its functions related to RCW 2.53.045.

In your joint request for legal guidance, you note that OPD and OCLA staff have experienced "significant challenges" in accessing dependency and termination of parental rights court records. Some court clerks have declined to provide access to dependency and termination of parental rights case files on the basis that RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) state that "[t]he court" shall release records, rather than directing "court clerks" or "the clerk" to release records. You also report that some clerks have requested that OPD and OCLA attorneys file a notice of appearance in the underlying proceedings to access case files, which could conflict with the Legislature's prohibition on OPD and OCLA directly representing clients. You further indicate that inconsistent records access impedes your agencies from providing timely oversight and technical assistance to contracted attorneys.

ANALYSIS

I. RCW 13.50.010 requires court clerks to provide the Office of Public Defense and the Office of Civil Legal Aid access to records in dependency and termination cases.

The goal of statutory interpretation is to determine legislative intent. Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756, 762, 317 P.3d 1003 (2014). To assess legislative intent, we first look to the "plain language" of a statute, "considering the text of the provision in question, the context of the statute in which the provision is found, related provisions, amendments to the provision, and the statutory scheme as a whole."

As noted above, the relevant statutes provide that "[t]he court shall release . . . records[.]" RCW 13.50.010(13), (14). In Washington statutes, the phrase "the court" is used in a range of ways, sometimes referring specifically to a judge, while sometimes referring more broadly to the judicial institution inclusive of other court staff.

In the context of records access, the legislature intended clerks, as the actual custodians of court records, to release the records. Reading "the court" narrowly to require judicial action on each records request would defeat the purpose of the statute and is inconsistent with the broader use of "the court" in Title 13.

II. RCW 13.50.010 does not authorize clerks to require a notice of appearance as a precondition to records access.

OPD and OCLA are statutorily prohibited from providing direct client representation. RCW 2.70.023(1); RCW 2.53.020(4). A notice of appearance is the formal mechanism by which an attorney enters a case as counsel for a party. Requiring OPD or OCLA staff to file a notice of appearance to obtain records access would force them into a posture the legislature has expressly prohibited.

The legislature's structural decision to separate the oversight function (OPD and OCLA) from the direct representation function (contract attorneys) is foundational to the program. A clerk's procedural requirement that collapses that separation conflicts with the statute. Juvenile courts retain discretion to set procedures for records access, but those procedures must facilitate, not impede, access by the oversight agencies.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) require court clerks to provide records access to OPD and OCLA in dependency and termination of parental rights cases, and clerks may not require a notice of appearance as a precondition to that access.

Sincerely,

NICHOLAS W. BROWN
Attorney General