Will the WSBA ethics committee resolve a conflict-of-interest question when the inquiry sets out only limited facts?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee was asked about a conflict of interest. Because the inquiry set out only limited facts, the committee was unable to say more than that the lawyer had to comply with RPC 1.7.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1986, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. RPC 1.7 on conflicts of interest was later renumbered and amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did the committee resolve the conflict question?
A: No. The committee explained that, because the facts set out in the inquiry were limited, it was unable to say more than that the lawyer had to comply with RPC 1.7.
Q: What did the committee tell the lawyer to do?
A: The committee pointed the lawyer to RPC 1.7, the conflict-of-interest rule, and left the application of that rule to the facts.
Background and rules framework
The opinion concerns Washington RPC 1.7 on conflicts of interest, corresponding to Model Rule 1.7. The committee did not apply the rule to a specific fact pattern; it noted that the inquiry's limited facts allowed it to do no more than direct the lawyer to comply with RPC 1.7.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.7 (conflicts of interest), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7.
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1028: parent-child loss-of-consortium conflict
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1016: guardian ad litem paid by the state and unrelated private cases
- WSBA Ethics Op. 906: a lawyer whose spouse represents the adverse party
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=154
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1043
Year Issued: 1986
RPC(s): RPC 1.7
Subject: Conflict of interest
Because of the limited facts set out in your inquiry to the Committee, the Committee was unable to say more than that you must comply with RPC 1.7.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1986. Ezel checks the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace