Is a lawyer required to report another lawyer's misconduct to the bar in Washington?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry, framed as a hypothetical, concerned the obligation of a prosecuting attorney and whether the inquiring lawyer would be compelled to report opposing counsel to the bar. The committee declined to resolve the hypothetical on two grounds. First, although phrased hypothetically, the issue could only arise in the context of pending litigation, and the committee, under its rules of procedure, does not comment on pending litigation. Second, the inquiry asked whether opposing counsel's conduct is ethical, and the committee does not comment on the ethics of lawyers other than the inquiring lawyer; it noted such inquiries are best directed to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

On the reporting question, and without commenting on the conduct of the prosecutor in the hypothetical, the committee referred the lawyer to RPC 8.3(a). It noted that the rule indicates a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the RPCs that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer "should, not shall," inform the appropriate professional authorities.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. The opinion describes a Washington version of RPC 8.3(a) using "should" rather than the Model Rule's mandatory "shall," and the rule's text was among those addressed in the 2006 revisions, so verify the current wording before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Does a Washington lawyer have to report another lawyer's misconduct to the bar?

A: The committee referred to RPC 8.3(a), noting that the rule says a lawyer with knowledge of a qualifying violation "should, not shall," inform the appropriate professional authorities.

Q: Why didn't the committee decide the inquiry?

A: Because the issue could only arise in pending litigation, on which the committee does not comment, and because the inquiry asked about another lawyer's ethics, which the committee does not address; it pointed to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Q: What kind of violation triggers the rule?

A: One that raises a substantial question as to the other lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, per the language of RPC 8.3(a) the committee quoted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed Washington RPC 8.3(a) (reporting professional misconduct), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 8.3. The committee did not apply the rule to the facts, but quoted its language and characterized the Washington provision as using "should, not shall," framing the report of another lawyer's qualifying misconduct as permissive rather than mandatory.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 8.3 (reporting professional misconduct); Washington RPC 8.3(a)

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1247: Reporting vs Client Secret
• WA Ethics Op. 1593: Reporting Out-of-State UPL
• WA Ethics Op. 1418: Reporting a Prior Lawyer's Lie

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1044

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1851
Year Issued: 1998
RPC(s): RPC 8.3(a)
Subject: Duty to report misconduct of another lawyer

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethics inquiry concerning the obligation of the prosecuting attorney to a client.

The Committee has reviewed your inquiry and determined the following: Although your inquiry is phrased in the hypothetical, the issue could only arise in the context of pending litigation, and the committee, in accordance with its rules of procedure, does not comment upon pending litigation. In addition, your inquiry asks whether the conduct of opposing counsel is ethical. The committee does not comment upon the ethics of lawyers other than the inquiring lawyer. Such inquiries are best directed to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Finally, you ask whether, if faced with the hypothetical situation you describe, you would be compelled to report opposing counsel to the Bar association. Without commenting upon the conduct of the prosecutor in your hypothetical, we refer you to RPC 8.3(a), which indicates that a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the RPCs that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer should, not shall, inform the appropriate professional authorities.