Can a lawyer simply forgive a client's debt for costs the lawyer advanced?

Short answer The committee was of the opinion that under RPC 1.8(e) a client remains ultimately liable for costs advanced, so a lawyer could not 'forgive' that debt, though the lawyer has no affirmative duty to collect the costs.

Bar

WSBA

Issued

1991

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1991. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct says 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 Not binding precedent.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 committee was of the opinion that, pursuant to RPC 1.8(e), a client remains ultimately liable for payment of costs advanced by a lawyer. The committee was therefore of the opinion that a lawyer could not "forgive" that debt. It was also of the opinion that the lawyer has no affirmative duty to collect those costs.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 write off a client's debt for advanced costs?

A: Under this 1991 opinion, no; the committee was of the opinion that because RPC 1.8(e) keeps the client ultimately liable for advanced costs, the lawyer could not "forgive" that debt.

Q: Does the lawyer have to chase the client for the costs?

A: No. The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer has no affirmative duty to collect those costs.

Background and rules framework

At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.8(e) permitted advancing litigation costs but required the client to remain ultimately liable for them, the subject the Model Rules place in Rule 1.8(e). The committee read that ultimate-liability requirement to bar outright forgiveness of the debt, while not imposing a duty to collect it.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 1.8(e) (advancing litigation costs)
Washington RPC 1.8(e)

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=469

Original opinion text

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

The Committee was of the opinion that pursuant to RPC 1.8(e), a client remains ultimately liable for payment of costs advanced by a lawyer. Therefore, the Committee was of the opinion that a lawyer could not "forgive" that debt, but was also of the opinion that the lawyer has no affirmative duty to collect those costs.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1991. 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