Can a Washington-admitted lawyer practice in a multi-state firm that employs a lawyer disbarred in another state, where that state allows it?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a firm practicing in both Washington and another state that employed a person who had been disbarred from the practice of law in the other state. The applicable rules in the other state would apparently permit such a practice. As the inquiry noted, Formal Opinion 171 states that it is improper under the Washington Rules for Lawyer Discipline for a lawyer to employ a disbarred lawyer in any capacity.

The committee was of the opinion that any lawyer admitted in Washington must follow this rule. As a result, the firm would either have to employ no lawyers admitted to practice in Washington, or decline to employ the disbarred lawyer. The committee was unanimous in this opinion, with one abstention.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. It rests on the Washington Rules for Lawyer Discipline (RLD) and Formal Opinion 171; the RLD has since been superseded by later disciplinary enforcement rules. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a Washington lawyer work at a firm that also employs someone disbarred in another state?

A: Per the opinion, no. The committee was of the opinion that a Washington-admitted lawyer may not employ a disbarred lawyer in any capacity, so the firm would have to either give up its Washington-admitted lawyers or not employ the disbarred lawyer.

Q: Does it matter that the other state allows employing the disbarred lawyer?

A: No. Even though the other state's rules would apparently permit the practice, the committee was of the opinion that any lawyer admitted in Washington must follow the Washington rule.

Background and rules framework

The opinion rests on the Washington Rules for Lawyer Discipline and the committee's earlier Formal Opinion 171, which states that it is improper for a lawyer to employ a disbarred lawyer in any capacity. The committee applied that prohibition to Washington-admitted lawyers regardless of the more permissive rule in the other state where the multi-state firm also practiced.

Citations and references

Disciplinary rules:

• Washington Rules for Lawyer Discipline (RLD) 1.1(h) (as then in effect).

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinion 171 (improper for a lawyer to employ a disbarred lawyer in any capacity).

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 953: practicing with or employing a suspended lawyer
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1163: a Washington lawyer in an out-of-state federal court follows that court's rules
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1165: assisting a client's unauthorized practice of law

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=258

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1178
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RLD 1.1(h)
Subject: Practicing with disbarred lawyer; multi-state law firm.

The Committee considered your inquiry concerning the propriety of lawyers admitted in Washington practicing in your firm which practices in both Washington and another state under which you employed a person who had been disbarred from the practice of law in the other state. Apparently the applicable rules in the other state would permit such a practice. As you are aware, Formal Opinion 171 states that it is improper under the Washington Rules for Lawyer Discipline for a lawyer to employ a disbarred lawyer in any capacity. The Committee was of the opinion that any lawyer admitted in Washington must follow this rule and therefore your firm would either have to employ no lawyers admitted to practice in Washington or would have to decline to employ the disbarred lawyer. The Committee was unanimous in this opinion, with one abstention.