Can a Washington law firm represent clients under written agreements that permit limited discovery and limit the firm's malpractice liability?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry asked whether a firm could represent clients under written agreements that both permitted limited discovery and limited the firm's malpractice liability. The committee analyzed the question under RPC 1.2, which governs the scope of representation, and RPC 1.8, which governs business and other transactions between a lawyer and client, including agreements limiting a lawyer's liability to a client.
The committee was unanimous that neither RPC 1.2 nor RPC 1.8 would prohibit the firm from using such agreements, provided that those rules were fully and cautiously complied with. The committee framed its conclusion as conditional on full and careful compliance with both rules rather than as a blanket approval.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1986, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a Washington firm agree with a client to limit the scope of work, such as limited discovery?
A: Under this 1986 opinion, RPC 1.2 did not prohibit it, so long as the rule was fully and cautiously complied with.
Q: Can a firm's written agreement limit its malpractice liability?
A: The committee concluded RPC 1.8 did not prohibit such agreements provided the rule was fully and cautiously complied with; it did not spell out the specific conditions in this opinion.
Q: Was the committee's approval unqualified?
A: No. The committee made its conclusion depend on full and cautious compliance with both RPC 1.2 and RPC 1.8.
Background and rules framework
RPC 1.2 (Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 1.2) governs the scope of the representation and the allocation of authority between lawyer and client, including agreements to limit the scope of the work. RPC 1.8 (Washington's version of Model Rule 1.8) governs specific conflict situations between lawyer and client, including a lawyer's agreement prospectively limiting liability to a client. The committee applied both rules to the firm's proposed written agreements.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.2 (scope of representation)
- ABA Model Rule 1.8 (current clients: specific rules)
- Washington RPC 1.2 and RPC 1.8
See also
- NY State Bar Op. 591: Retaining Lien and Malpractice Release
- NY State Bar Op. 969: Client Indemnity for Opinion-Letter Claims
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=115
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Committee was of the unanimous opinion that neither RPC 1.2 nor 1.8 would prohibit your firm from undertaking to represent clients under written agreements permitting limited discovery, and in turn, respectfully limiting malpractice liability provided that those rules were fully and cautiously complied with.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1986 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.