Does a prosecutor violate the ethics rules by filing criminal charges that would breach the defendant's CrR 3.3 speedy-trial right?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a prosecutor has an ethical duty not to file a case that would violate a defendant's right to a speedy trial under CrR 3.3, a procedural right rather than a federal or state constitutional right.

After considerable discussion, and by a vote of 8 to 6, the committee was of the opinion that, based on the facts as presented, such conduct would violate RPC 3.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules it discusses, RPC 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions) and RPC 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct), correspond to Model Rules 3.1 and 8.4 and have since been amended; CrR 3.3 (the speedy-trial criminal rule) has also been revised over time. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the committee find an ethical violation in filing a case that breaches CrR 3.3?

A: Per the opinion, yes, on the facts presented. By an 8-6 vote, the committee was of the opinion that such conduct would violate RPC 3.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

Q: Did it matter that the speedy-trial right was a court rule rather than a constitutional right?

A: The inquiry framed CrR 3.3 as a procedural right, not a federal or state constitutional right. The committee still concluded, on the facts presented, that filing a case violating that right would breach RPC 3.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

Q: Was the committee unanimous?

A: No. The opinion records that the committee reached its conclusion after considerable discussion and by a vote of 8 to 6.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Washington RPC 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions) and RPC 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct involving dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), corresponding to Model Rules 3.1 and 8.4. The committee tied those rules to CrR 3.3, the Washington criminal rule establishing the procedural speedy-trial requirement, and concluded by a divided vote that filing a case violating that requirement would breach the cited rules on the facts presented.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), corresponding to Model Rule 3.1.
• Washington RPC 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4.

Court rules:

• CrR 3.3 (Washington criminal rule; speedy trial), described by the opinion as a procedural right and not a federal or state constitutional right.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1135: a prosecutor offering to dismiss charges for a release of civil claims
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1124: a defendant's threat to sue the prosecutor and conflict of interest
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1020: what a prosecutor may tell witnesses about defense interviews

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=313

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1233
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 3.1; 8.4(c); 8.4(d); CrR 3.3
Subject: Prosecutor; filing criminal charges in violation of procedural right to speedy trial

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning whether a prosecutor has an ethical duty not to file a case which would violate a defendant's right speedy trial under CrR 3.3 (not a federal or state constitutional right). After considerable discussion, by a vote of 8-6, the Committee was of the opinion that, based on the facts as presented by you, such conduct would violate RPC 3.1, 8.4(c) and 8.4(d).