If a lawyer skips an adversarial child-support hearing without telling the client, is that a rules violation, and does a claims officer who is also a lawyer breach the no-contact rule by dealing with the party?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry presented hypothetical facts: a lawyer employed to represent a client at an adversarial child-support hearing did not attend the hearing and did not advise the client. The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer's conduct violated RPC 1.4(a), which requires that a lawyer keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter.

The inquiry also asked whether the lawyer committed malpractice, which the committee declined to address as a legal question. Finally, it asked whether the claims officer, who is also an attorney and who then communicated with the client, breached RPC 4.2. The committee was of the opinion that, on the conduct described, the claims officer did not violate that or any other rule.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Is skipping a client's hearing without telling them an ethics violation?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, yes. The committee was of the opinion that not attending the hearing without advising the client violated RPC 1.4(a)'s duty to keep the client reasonably informed.

Q: Did the committee decide whether that was malpractice?

A: No. It treated malpractice as a legal question on which it could render no opinion.

Q: Did the claims officer who contacted the party break the no-contact rule?

A: The committee was of the opinion that, on the facts described, the claims officer did not violate RPC 4.2 or any other rule.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.4(a), Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 1.4, requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter. RPC 4.2 is the no-contact rule barring communication with a represented person absent counsel's consent. The committee applied RPC 1.4(a) to find a violation in the lawyer's silent failure to appear, and on the described conduct found no RPC 4.2 violation by the claims officer.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.4 (communication)
• ABA Model Rule 4.2 (communication with represented person)
• Washington RPC 1.4(a) and RPC 4.2

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1307: Adverse Party Contacts You Directly
• WA Ethics Op. 1274: Contacting City Employees

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=397

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry based upon hypothetical facts concerning a lawyer employed to represent a client at an adversarial hearing for child support. Without advising his client, the lawyer does not attend the hearing. The Committee was of the opinion that the lawyer's conduct violated RPC 1.4(a), which requires that a lawyer "keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter." You also asked whether the lawyer would have committed professional malpractice, but that is a legal question upon which the Committee can render no opinion. You also asked whether the claims officer, who is also an attorney, and who proceeded to have communications with the client, is in breach of the rules of professional responsibility including RPC 4.2. The Committee was of the opinion that the hearing officer would not have violated that or any other rules by your described conduct.