Is a firm disqualified before a court commissioner whose ex-wife the firm represented, and must it tell its clients about that connection?
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 say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry concerned the firm's representation of a court commissioner's former wife. The committee was of the opinion that the firm would not be disqualified from having other cases heard by the commissioner. If that information were relevant to a client's case, RPC 1.1 and 1.4(b) would require disclosing it to the client.
The committee was also of the opinion that the firm could not disclose confidences or secrets of the commissioner's former wife without compliance with RPC 1.6.
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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Is the firm disqualified from appearing before the commissioner?
A: Under this 1991 opinion, no; the committee was of the opinion that the firm would not be disqualified from having other cases heard by the commissioner.
Q: Must the firm tell its clients about the prior representation of the ex-wife?
A: If relevant to the client's case, yes; RPC 1.1 and 1.4(b) would require disclosing that information to the client.
Q: Can the firm reveal the ex-wife's confidences in doing so?
A: No. The committee was of the opinion that the firm could not disclose confidences or secrets of the former wife without complying with RPC 1.6.
Background and rules framework
At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.1 required competence, RPC 1.4(b) required informing the client, and RPC 1.6 protected client confidences, the subjects the Model Rules place in Rules 1.1, 1.4, and 1.6. The committee balanced the duty to inform a current client against the duty to protect a former client's confidences.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.1 (competence)
- ABA Model Rule 1.4 (communication)
- ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)
- Washington RPC 1.1, 1.4(b), 1.6
See also
- WA Ethics Op. 1409: Disclosing an Adverse Lawyer's Tie to the Commissioner
- WA Ethics Op. 1380: Husband's Consult, Wife's Divorce
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=490
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning the representation by your law firm of a Court Commissioner's former wife. The Committee was of the opinion that your firm would not be disqualified from having other cases heard by the Court Commissioner. If that information were relevant to your client's case, the RPC 1.1 and 1.4(b) would require that you disclose that information to the client. However, the Committee was also of the opinion that you could not disclose confidences or secrets of the former wife of the Court Commissioner without compliance with RPC 1.6.
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