May a part-time court commissioner who hears juvenile or family cases in Superior Court also practice in other areas before that same court?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry set out four questions. The committee was of the opinion that the first, second, and fourth questions involved interpretations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and that such an inquiry should be directed to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

On the remaining question, concerning a court commissioner who hears juvenile or family cases in Superior Court and also practices before the same court in other areas, the committee was of the opinion that the Rules of Professional Conduct would not prohibit such conduct, provided the lawyer advises clients of the role so they would not be misled into believing their case would receive preferential treatment. The committee was also of the opinion that Formal Opinion 160, issued in 1975, is still applicable and addresses the issue raised.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 part-time commissioner practice in other matters before the same court?

A: Under this 1990 opinion, the Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit it, provided the lawyer advises clients of the dual role so they are not misled into expecting preferential treatment.

Q: What about the judicial-conduct side of the question?

A: The committee was of the opinion that those questions involve the Code of Judicial Conduct and should be directed to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, not the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee.

Q: Is there an older opinion on point?

A: Yes. The committee was of the opinion that Formal Opinion 160, issued in 1975, is still applicable and addresses the issue.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.11, Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 1.11, addresses conflicts tied to government service. The committee applied it to a part-time commissioner practicing before the same court, conditioning the conduct on disclosure of the role to clients to dispel any expectation of preferential treatment, while deferring the Code of Judicial Conduct questions to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.11 (special conflicts for former and current government officers and employees)
• Washington RPC 1.11

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinion 160 (1975): identified as still applicable to the issue

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1325: Part-Time Municipal Judge and Firm Adverse to the City

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=413

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry setting forth four questions, and was of the opinion that the first, second and fourth questions involved interpretations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such an inquiry should be directed to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

Regarding your inquiry concerning a court commissioner hearing juvenile or family cases in Superior Court and also practicing before the same court in other areas of practice, the Committee was of the opinion that the Rules of Professional Conduct would not prohibit such conduct, provided that you advise your clients of your role so that they would not be mislead into believing that their case would receive any preferential treatment. The Committee was also of the opinion that formal opinion 160, issued in 1975, is still applicable and addresses the issue you raise.