After giving a possibly misleading answer to a writ of garnishment, must the lawyer correct it, and what happens on the next writ if the client won't allow disclosure?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a possibly misleading answer the lawyer had given in response to a writ of garnishment. The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer was under no duty to correct the previous answer. It then addressed what would happen going forward: if the client were again served with another writ of garnishment, RPC 8.4(c) would require the lawyer to disclose all facts necessary to avoid misleading the garnishor.

The committee added that if the client would not consent to that disclosure, RPC 1.15(a)(1), Washington's then-numbered mandatory-withdrawal provision, would require the lawyer to withdraw.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did the lawyer have to go back and correct the misleading answer?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, no. The committee found no duty to correct the previous garnishment answer.

Q: What changes on the next writ of garnishment?

A: RPC 8.4(c) would require the lawyer to disclose all facts necessary to avoid misleading the garnishor.

Q: What if the client refuses to allow that disclosure?

A: The committee said RPC 1.15(a)(1), the mandatory-withdrawal provision as then numbered, would require the lawyer to withdraw.

Background and rules framework

The opinion turns on RPC 8.4(c), Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and RPC 1.15(a)(1), which under Washington's pre-2006 numbering was the declining-or-terminating-representation rule corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.16. The committee also cited RPC 1.6 (confidentiality) and RPC 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal). The committee paired the disclosure duty with mandatory withdrawal: where a non-misleading response would require disclosing facts the client refused to allow, continued representation was not permitted.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct)
• ABA Model Rule 1.16 (declining or terminating representation)
• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• ABA Model Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal)
• Washington RPC 8.4(c); RPC 1.15(a)(1); RPC 1.6; RPC 3.3

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1250: Candor in Ex Parte Sentencing
• WA Ethics Op. 1252: Lawyer Married to Client's Chiropractor

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=344

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry regarding the possibly misleading answer which you provided in response to a Writ of Garnishment. The Committee was of the opinion that you are under no duty to correct the previous answer, but if, in the future, your client is again served with another Writ of Garnishment, RPC 8.4(c) would require you to disclose all facts necessary to avoid misleading the garnishor. If your client would not consent to such disclosure, RPC 1.15(a)(1) would require your withdrawal.