Must a lawyer disclose that a court-appointed client is no longer financially eligible for appointed counsel, or obtained the appointment by fraud?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about disclosure where a court-appointed client either had changed circumstances that no longer entitled the person to court-appointed counsel, or where the lawyer learned the client may have obtained appointed counsel initially by fraud, misrepresentation, or omission. The committee was of the opinion that, assuming there are clear standards for financial eligibility that had been communicated to the client by the county or appointing authority, RPC 4.1(b) would require the lawyer to disclose the information, because failure to do so would constitute assisting the client to commit criminal fraud upon the county.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Must a lawyer report that an appointed client is no longer eligible for free counsel?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, yes (assuming clear, communicated eligibility standards) because RPC 4.1(b) treats nondisclosure as assisting criminal fraud on the county.

Q: Does it matter whether the ineligibility is new or existed from the start?

A: The committee addressed both situations (changed circumstances and an appointment obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or omission) and reached the same disclosure conclusion.

Q: What assumption did the committee build into its answer?

A: That there are clear standards for financial eligibility which had been communicated to the client by the county or appointing authority.

Background and rules framework

RPC 4.1(b), Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 4.1(b), requires a lawyer to disclose a material fact when necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client (subject to the confidentiality rule). The committee applied that provision to a client's ineligibility for appointed counsel: where eligibility standards are clear and were communicated, continuing to accept appointed representation the client is not entitled to would assist criminal fraud upon the county, triggering the disclosure duty.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 4.1(b) (truthfulness in statements to others; disclosure to avoid assisting client crime or fraud)
• Washington RPC 4.1(b)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1287: Disbursing Trust Funds to a Doctor Suspected of Fraud

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=368

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning disclosure by a lawyer that a court-appointed client either had changed circumstances which no longer entitled that person to court appointed counsel, or had learned that the client may have obtained appointed counsel initially by fraud, misrepresentation or omission. The Committee was of the opinion, that assuming there are clear standards for financial eligibility which had been communicated to the client by the county or appointing authority, RPC 4.1(b) would require the lawyer to disclose the information because failure to do so would constitute assisting the client to commit criminal fraud upon the county.