May a lawyer charge a contingent fee to defend a client against a non-criminal traffic infraction?

Short answer The committee unanimously agreed that a contingent fee could be charged to defend a non-criminal traffic infraction, because such proceedings are not criminal cases and so fall outside the rule's bar on contingent fees in criminal matters.

Bar

WSBA

Issued

1989

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.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned whether a lawyer may charge a contingent fee to defend persons charged with non-criminal traffic infractions. The committee unanimously agreed that such a fee could be charged, because such proceedings are not criminal cases.

The reasoning tracks the rule's limit on contingent fees: the prohibition the inquiry implicated reaches the defense of criminal cases, and a non-criminal traffic infraction is not a criminal case, so the bar did not apply.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer take a traffic-infraction defense on a contingent fee?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, yes. The committee unanimously concluded a contingent fee could be charged because a non-criminal traffic infraction is not a criminal case.

Q: Why does the criminal/non-criminal line matter?

A: The contingent-fee rule bars such fees in the defense of a criminal case. The committee turned on the fact that a traffic infraction is not criminal, so that bar did not reach the engagement.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.5, Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 1.5, governs contingent fees, with subsection (d) prohibiting a contingent fee for representing a defendant in a criminal case. The committee read the rule's criminal-case prohibition not to reach a non-criminal traffic infraction, and so concluded a contingent fee could be charged for that defense.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees; contingent fees)
Washington RPC 1.5(c) and 1.5(d)(2)

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=388

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning whether a lawyer may charge a contingent fee to defend persons charged with non-criminal traffic infractions. The Committee unanimously agreed that such a fee could be charged because such proceedings are not criminal cases.

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