Can a lawyer take an assignment of a client's judgment for past-due child support to secure the lawyer's fees?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether an attorney and client could enter into an assignment of a judgment for past-due child support to secure the attorney's fees.

The committee was of the opinion that the mother would have the full ability to assign her own interest in back support. It did not, however, fix the size of that interest: the extent of her interest would depend on the criteria set forth in Hartman v. Smith, 100 Wn.2d 766, 674 P.2d 176 (1984). The committee resolved the inquiry as a question of the client's own legal ability to assign her interest rather than under a specific Rule of Professional Conduct.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, and it rests on Washington case law (Hartman v. Smith, 1984) governing the assignability of back child support. Subsequent rule amendments, statutes, or later decisions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules and case law before relying on anything mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a client assign a judgment for back child support to her lawyer to secure fees?

A: Per the opinion, the committee was of the opinion that the mother had the full ability to assign her own interest in back support.

Q: Did the committee decide how much of the support judgment could be assigned?

A: No. The committee said the extent of the mother's interest would depend on the criteria set forth in Hartman v. Smith; it did not resolve that question itself.

Background and rules framework

The opinion cites no Rule of Professional Conduct. The committee treated the question as one of the client's underlying legal ability to assign her own interest in back child support, deferring to Hartman v. Smith for the criteria that fix the extent of that interest. The ethics inquiry (whether attorney and client could enter the assignment to secure fees) turned on that legal question rather than on a specific conduct rule.

Citations and references

The opinion cites no Rule of Professional Conduct.

Cases:

• Hartman v. Smith, 100 Wn.2d 766, 674 P.2d 176 (Wash. 1984), criteria governing the extent of a party's assignable interest in back child support.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1044: taking a deed of trust and note from a client to secure future fees
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1125: a possessory lien over client property held to secure fees
• ABA Formal Op. 02-427: taking a security interest in a client's property to secure a fee

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=207

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1127
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s):
Subject: Assignment of judgment to lawyer for past due child support

Your inquiry related to whether an attorney and client may enter into an assignment of a judgment for past due child support, to secure the attorney's fees. It was the opinion of the Committee that the mother would have the full ability to assign her own interest in back support, but that the extent of her interest would depend on the criteria set forth in Hartman v. Smith, 100 Wn. 2d 766, 674 P.2d 176 (1984).