Can a proposed appointment system for juvenile court cases comply with the rules on conflicts and fee division?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee reviewed the facts of an inquiry about establishing an appointment system in certain juvenile court cases. It concluded that the proposed program appeared to be fully consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The committee noted that the inquirer appeared to have taken into account the requirements of the rules regarding conflicts of interest, as well as RPC 1.5(e) regarding the division of fees between lawyers.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1986, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. RPC 1.5(e) on the division of fees between lawyers, and the conflict-of-interest rules, were later renumbered and amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did the committee approve the proposed juvenile-court appointment system?
A: The committee concluded that the proposed program appeared to be fully consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Q: Which rules did the committee identify as relevant to the program?
A: The committee noted the conflict-of-interest requirements and RPC 1.5(e), which governs the division of fees between lawyers.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Washington RPC 1.5(e) as it stood in 1986, the rule on dividing fees between lawyers (corresponding to Model Rule 1.5), together with the rules on conflicts of interest. The committee applied them to a proposed appointment system for certain juvenile court cases and found the program, as described, consistent with those requirements.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers), corresponding to Model Rule 1.5(e).
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 941: division of fees between different firms
- WSBA Ethics Op. 961: a percentage-of-estate probate fee and dividing it
- WSBA Ethics Op. 903: joint clients and a conflict in a pending dissolution
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=82
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 971
Year Issued: 1986
RPC(s): RPC 1.5(e)
Subject: Appointment system for juvenile court cases
Upon reviewing the facts set out in your inquiry concerning the establishment of an appointment system in certain juvenile court cases, the Committee was of the opinion that your proposed program appeared to be fully consistent of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It appeared to the Committee that you had taken into account the requirements of the rules regarding conflicts of interests, as well as RPC 1.5(e) regarding division of fees between lawyers.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1986 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.