Can a firm buy the law practice of a part-time municipal judge becoming full-time, and must the firm disclose that deal to opposing counsel?

Plain-English summary

A law firm proposed to purchase the practice of a part-time municipal judge who was about to become a full-time municipal judge, and asked the committee about the arrangement and any disclosure duty. The committee resolved the inquiry in several parts. First, it was of the opinion that the firm could enter into the proposed financial arrangement to purchase the practice.

Second, the committee was of the opinion that RPC 8.4(d) required the firm to disclose the arrangement to opposing counsel if failure to disclose would be prejudicial. Third, it was of the opinion that it would be permissible and preferable to pay the judge outright for the practice rather than make payments based on subsequent fee collection. Last, the committee said the question of whether that latter arrangement would need to be disclosed had the same answer as the disclosure question above.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Could the firm buy the practice of a judge taking the bench full-time?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, yes. The committee said the firm could enter the proposed financial arrangement to purchase the practice.

Q: Did the firm have to tell opposing counsel about the deal?

A: The committee said RPC 8.4(d) required disclosure to opposing counsel where failure to disclose would be prejudicial.

Q: Was it better to pay outright or from later fee collections?

A: The committee viewed paying the judge outright as permissible and preferable, rather than making payments based on subsequent fee collection.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.5(e), Washington's counterpart to ABA Model Rule 1.5 on the division of fees, framed the financial side of the inquiry, and RPC 8.4(d), Washington's version of Model Rule 8.4, defines misconduct to include conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The committee applied RPC 8.4(d) to require disclosure of the purchase arrangement to opposing counsel where non-disclosure would be prejudicial, given that the seller was becoming a judge.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees; division of fees)
• ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct)
• Washington RPC 1.5(e); RPC 8.4(d)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1251: Judicial Campaign Solicitations

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=340

Original opinion text

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

As you were present during the Committee's discussion of your inquiry, you are aware of the Committee's determination on this matter. First, the Committee was of the opinion that your law firm could enter into the proposed financial arrangement to purchase a law practice from a part-time municipal judge who is about to become a full-time municipal judge. Second, the Committee was of the opinion that RPC 8.4(d) requires that you disclose that arrangement to opposing counsel if failure to disclose would be prejudicial. Third, the Committee is of the opinion if would be permissible and preferable to pay the judge outright for the practice and not make payments based on subsequent fee collection. Last, the question of whether this latter arrangement would need to be disclosed was the same as the answer to the second question.