May a lawyer condition settlement on the opposing lawyer personally signing a hold-harmless agreement?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry concerned the practice of a lawyer for one party demanding, as a condition of settlement, that the lawyer for the other party sign a personal hold-harmless agreement.
The committee was of the opinion that the inquiry does not present an ethical question, but rather a legal question of whether a lawyer can be required to sign an agreement to do more than what the lawyer is legally obligated to do in consideration for payment of a settlement. Because the committee cannot render legal opinions, it could give no further advice on the inquiry.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1989, before 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did the committee decide whether the hold-harmless demand was proper?
A: No. It found the question legal rather than ethical and declined to answer, noting it cannot render legal opinions.
Q: How did the committee frame the underlying question?
A: As whether a lawyer can be required to sign an agreement to do more than the law obligates, in consideration for payment of a settlement.
Background and rules framework
The committee treated the inquiry as outside its advisory role, characterizing it as a legal question about a lawyer's contractual obligations in settlement rather than a question of professional ethics. It identified no Rule of Professional Conduct as governing and declined to opine.
Citations and references
The opinion cited no rules, statutes, cases, or prior opinions.
See also
- CBA Formal Op. 92: Practice limits in settlements
- DC Ethics Op. 289: Cause litigation and settlement limits
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=343
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning the practice of a lawyer for one party, as a condition of settlement, demanding that the lawyer for the other party sign a personal hold-harmless agreement. The Committee was of the opinion that the inquiry does not present an ethical question but rather a legal question of whether a lawyer can be required to sign an agreement to do more than what the lawyer is legally obligated to do in consideration for payment of settlement. Since the Committee cannot render legal opinions, it could give you no further advice regarding your inquiry.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1989. Ezel checks the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace