Can a firm sell its fee judgment against a former client to the opposing party in the litigation the firm handled?

Plain-English summary

A law firm represented a plaintiff in litigation. The firm dissolved, and the plaintiff was then represented by one of the firm's former partners. The firm obtained a judgment against the former client for unpaid fees and costs, and wished to assign that judgment, for monetary compensation, to the defendant in the litigation in which the firm had previously represented the client.

The committee said the proposed assignment of the judgment to the defendant in the pending litigation does not meet the minimum standards set forth in RPC 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9. The committee added that, although the case is not directly on point, it drew the inquirer's attention to Justice Pearson's comments in Paglia v. Breskovich, 11 Wn. App. 142 (1974), at page 148.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's RPC 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9 correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.7 (conflicts), 1.8 (specific conflict rules), and 1.9 (duties to former clients).

Common questions

Q: Can a firm sell its fee judgment against a former client to that client's litigation opponent?

A: The committee said the proposed assignment does not meet the minimum standards of RPC 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9.

Q: Why do the former-client and confidentiality rules apply?

A: The committee tied the problem to the firm's prior representation of the client in the very litigation whose defendant would receive the judgment, invoking the confidentiality, conflict, and former-client rules together.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9 (confidentiality, current-client conflicts, specific conflict rules, and former-client duties, corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9) to a firm's sale of its fee judgment against a former client to that client's litigation adversary. The committee found the arrangement fell below the minimum standards of those rules and pointed to Paglia v. Breskovich as related, though not directly on point.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality); Washington RPC 1.6
• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest); Washington RPC 1.7
• ABA Model Rule 1.8 (specific conflict-of-interest rules); Washington RPC 1.8
• ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients); Washington RPC 1.9

Cases:

• Paglia v. Breskovich, 11 Wn. App. 142, 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974), cited for Justice Pearson's comments

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1696: Tax Collection From a Former Client
• WA Ethics Op. 1677: Suing a Client for Unpaid Costs
• WA Ethics Op. 1703: Former Client as Opposing Witness

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=781

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1707
Year Issued: 1998
RPC(s): RPC 1.6; 1.7; 1.8; 1.9
Subject: Conflict of interest; client confidence or secret; assignment of judgment against client to opposing party

[The law firm represented a plaintiff in litigation. The law firm dissolved, and the plaintiff was represented by one of the firm's partners. The law firm obtained a judgment against the former client for unpaid fees and costs. The law firm wishes to assign the judgment for monetary compensation to the defendant in the litigation in which it previously represented the client.] The proposed action in assigning the judgment to the Defendant in the pending litigation does not meet minimum standards set forth in Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9. In addition, although this case is not directly on point, the Committee draws your attention to Justice Pearson's comments in Paglia v. Breskovich, 11 Wn. App. 142 (1974) at page 148.