Can a lawyer promise a client's medical provider that settlement funds will be used to pay the provider's bill?

Plain-English summary

A chiropractor demanded that the inquiring lawyer guarantee that any settlement or judgment funds obtained for the lawyer's client would be applied to the chiropractor's bill for medical treatment.

The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could not guarantee any payment of client funds without the client's informed consent. Because any settlement or judgment funds would be the client's funds, if the client demanded payment of the funds directly to the client rather than to the chiropractor, the lawyer would be obligated to deliver them to the client because they remained client funds. The chiropractor would be left to enforce its debt as any creditor would.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's former RPC 1.14 (safekeeping of property, cited here) corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.15 and was renumbered RPC 1.15A in Washington's 2006 revisions; confirm the current rule and citation before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer promise a medical provider it will be paid out of the client's settlement?

A: Not without the client's informed consent. The committee concluded the funds belong to the client, so the lawyer cannot guarantee paying the provider from them without that consent.

Q: What if the client later demands the money directly?

A: The committee said the lawyer would be obligated to deliver the funds to the client because they remain client funds, leaving the provider to enforce its debt like any creditor.

Q: Does the provider's medical bill give it a claim on the funds?

A: Not on the committee's analysis. Absent the client's consent, the provider stands as an ordinary creditor and must enforce its debt rather than directing the lawyer's disbursement.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.14(b) (the then-current Washington rule on safekeeping client property, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.15 and later renumbered RPC 1.15A in Washington). The committee treated the settlement or judgment proceeds as the client's property, making the client's informed consent the precondition to any guarantee directing the funds to a third-party creditor.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property); Washington RPC 1.14(b)

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1087: Guaranteeing a Client's Medical Bills
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1145: Guaranteeing a Settlement
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1610: Paying Creditors From Trust Funds

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1138

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Advisory Opinion: 1101
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 1.14(b)
Subject: Guaranteeing client funds to client's creditor

The Committee considered your inquiry regarding the demand from a chiropractor that you guarantee the application of any settlement or judgment funds obtained on behalf of your client to payment of the chiropractor's bill for medical treatment.

The Committee was of the opinion that you could not guarantee any payment of client funds without the informed consent of your client. Since any settlement or judgment funds would be the funds of your client, if your client demanded payment of the funds directly to the client rather than to the chiropractor, you would be obligated to deliver them to the client because they remain client funds. The chiropractor would be left to enforce his debt as would any creditor.