Can a state child-support agency lawyer draft the basis for a parent's appeal of a support determination the agency obtained?

Plain-English summary

The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) hires lawyers as claims officers who represent the Division of Child Support (DCS) in establishing and collecting child support under RCW 74.20A.030. A change to the Washington Administrative Code modified the appellate notice requirements so that, rather than submitting written notice to the Office of Administrative Hearings, parents may verbally inform a DCS employee of their intention to appeal. This led to a policy change requiring DCS lawyers to complete a form that includes a section in which the lawyer drafts the basis for appeal on behalf of the parents wishing to appeal.

The committee concluded that the preparation of appellate documents for an aggrieved parent is a violation of RPC 1.7. It also stated that RPC 5.2 binds a lawyer to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct even when directed by another lawyer to the contrary.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 1.7 (conflict of interest) was restructured in the 2006 revisions, and the cited statute and administrative-code provisions may have changed, so verify the current rules before relying on them.

Common questions

Q: Can a DCS lawyer write the basis for a parent's appeal of a support order?

A: No. The committee concluded that preparing appellate documents for an aggrieved parent is a violation of RPC 1.7.

Q: Does an agency policy directing the lawyer to do it change the answer?

A: No. The committee said RPC 5.2 binds a lawyer to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct even when directed by another lawyer to the contrary.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7, to a government lawyer who would draft the basis of appeal for a parent adverse to the support determination the lawyer's agency had obtained. It also applied RPC 5.2 (responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 5.2, for the point that a directive from another lawyer or an agency policy does not excuse a violation of the Rules. The opinion arose in the statutory context of RCW 74.20A.030.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients); Washington RPC 1.7
• ABA Model Rule 5.2 (responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer); Washington RPC 5.2

Statutes:

• RCW 74.20A.030 (Division of Child Support authority to establish and collect support)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1871: Government Lawyer Conflict
• WA Ethics Op. 1340: Defense Appointments Conflicts
• WA Ethics Op. 1858: Approval to File a Bar Complaint

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1088

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1894
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RPC 1.7; 5.2; RCW 74.20A.030
Subject: Conflict of interest; DSHS lawyer completing appeal form after determination of child support for obligor parent

The facts of the inquiry are as follows: the Dept. of Social and Health Services (DSHS) hires lawyers as claims officers who represent the Division of Child Support in establishing and collecting child support pursuant to RCW 74.20A.030. A recent change to the Washington Administrative Code modifies the appellate notice requirements so that, rather than submitting a written notice to the Office of administrative Hearings, parents may verbally inform an employee of the Division of Child Support (DCS) of their intention to appeal. This has resulted in a policy change requiring DCS lawyers to complete a form that includes a section in which the lawyer drafts the basis for appeal on behalf of the parents wishing to appeal.

It is the committee’s opinion that the preparation of appellate documents for an aggrieved parent is a violation of RPC 1.7. The committee also believes that RPC 5.2 binds a lawyer to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct even though directed by another lawyer to the contrary.