How are attorney's fees for workers' compensation representation regulated, and will the ethics committee opine on a proposed fee structure?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1997. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry asked about the permissibility of various attorneys' fee structures in the worker's compensation area. The committee determined that attorney's fees in the area of industrial insurance are governed by statute (RCW 51.52.120 et seq.) and are accordingly a question of law, and that the question posed appears to be under the purview of that statute.
Because the committee is not empowered to issue opinions on issues of law, it stated it has no opinion on the matter other than that lawyer's fees must be reasonable, and it drew the inquirer's attention to RPC 1.5 and Formal Opinion 186.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 cited rule corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees), which requires a lawyer's fee to be reasonable.
Common questions
Q: Did the committee rule on the proposed workers' compensation fee structures?
A: No. The committee concluded that industrial-insurance attorney fees are governed by statute and present a question of law it is not empowered to decide.
Q: What did the committee say about the fees generally?
A: It said only that lawyer's fees must be reasonable, pointing the inquirer to RPC 1.5 and Formal Opinion 186.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied RPC 1.5 (fees), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.5, only to the extent of restating the reasonableness requirement. The committee located the substance of the question in RCW 51.52.120 et seq., the industrial-insurance fee statute, and declined to opine on a question of law.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees); Washington RPC 1.5
Statutes:
- RCW 51.52.120 et seq. (attorney's fees in industrial-insurance/workers' compensation matters)
Other opinions cited:
- WSBA Formal Opinion 186: referenced on attorney's fees.
See also
- WA Ethics Op. 1716: Giving Part of a Fee to Charity
- WA Ethics Op. 1741: Waiving Statutory Attorney Fee Claims
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=936
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1745
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.5; Formal Opinion 186
Subject: Fees for worker's compensation representation
Your question involves the permissibility of various attorneys' fee structures in the worker's compensation area.
The committee determined that attorney's fees in the area of industrial insurance are governed by statute and are accordingly a question of law. See RCW 51.52.120 et seq. The question posed appears to be under the purview of that statute. Because the Committee is not empowered to issue opinions on issues of law, the Committee has no opinion regarding this matter other than that lawyer's fees must be reasonable. The Committee draws your attention to RPC 1.5 and Formal Opinion 186.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1997. 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