Specialized Proof of Claim Retrieval & Filing for Scout Abuse Cases.
Be prepared for the November 16 filing deadline.
This site uses features not supported by Internet Explorer.
All 50 states govern lawyer advertising through their Rules of Professional Conduct, often known as “ethics rules.” The rules in each state are unique to that state. Therefore, it is imperative that lawyers familiarize themselves with the rules of the states that govern their conduct.
A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. [Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 2006.]
 This Rule governs all communications about a lawyer’s services, including advertising permitted by Rule 7.2. Whatever means are used to make known a lawyer’s services, statements about them must be truthful.
 Truthful statements that are misleading are also prohibited by this Rule. A truthful statementis misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the lawyer’s communication considered as awhole not materially misleading. A truthful statement is also misleading if there is a substantiallikelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about thelawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.
 An advertisement that truthfully reports a lawyer’s achievements on behalf of clients orformer clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form anunjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matterswithout reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. Similarly,an unsubstantiated comparison of the lawyer’s services or fees with the services or fees of otherlawyers may be misleading if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable personto conclude that the comparison can be substantiated. The inclusion of an appropriate disclaimeror qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustifiedexpectations or otherwise mislead the public.
[Comment 3 amended effective September 1, 2016.]
 See also Rule 8.4(e) for the prohibition against stating or implying an ability to influenceimproperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rulesof Professional Conduct or other law
[Comment 4 adopted effective September 1, 2006.]
(a) Subject to the requirements of Rules 7.1 and 7.3, a lawyer may advertise services through written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media.
(b) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may
(1) pay the reasonable cost of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule;
(2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service;
(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17; and
(4) refer clients to another lawyer or LLLT pursuant to an agreement not otherwiseprohibited under these Rules that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to thelawyer, if
(i) the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive, and
(ii) the client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement.
(c) Any communication made pursuant to this Rule shall include the name and officeaddress of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content
[Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 1988; September 1, 2006;April 14, 2015.]
 To assist the public in learning about and obtaining legal services, lawyers should be allowedto make known their services not only through reputation but also through organized informationcampaigns in the form of advertising. Advertising involves an active quest for clients, contrary tothe tradition that a lawyer should not seek clientele. However, the public’s need to know aboutlegal services can be fulfilled in part through advertising. This need is particularly acute in thecase of persons of moderate means who have not made extensive use of legal services. Theinterest in expanding public information about legal services ought to prevail over considerationsof tradition. Nevertheless, advertising by lawyers entails the risk of practices that are misleadingor overreaching.
[Comment 1 amended effective September 1, 2016.]
 This Rule permits public dissemination of information concerning a lawyer’s name or firmname, address, e-mail address, website, and telephone number; the kinds of services the lawyerwill undertake; the basis on which the lawyer’s fees are determined, including prices for specificservices and payment and credit arrangements; a lawyer’s foreign language ability; names ofreferences and, with their consent, names of clients regularly represented; and other informationthat might invite the attention of those seeking legal assistance.
 Questions of effectiveness and taste in advertising are matters of speculation and subjectivejudgment. Some jurisdictions have had extensive prohibitions against television and other formsof advertising, against advertising going beyond specified facts about a lawyer, or against“undignified” advertising. Television, the Internet, and other forms of electronic communicationare now among the most powerful media for getting information to the public, particularlypersons of low and moderate income; prohibiting television, Internet, and other forms of electronic advertising, therefore, would impede the flow of information about legal services tomany sectors of the public. Limiting the information that may be advertised has a similar effectand assumes that the bar can accurately forecast the kind of information that the public wouldregard as relevant. But see Rule 7.3(a) for the prohibition against a solicitation of a possibleclient through a real-time electronic exchange initiated by the lawyer.
[Comment 3 amended effective September 1, 2016.]
 Neither this Rule nor Rule 7.3 prohibits communications authorized by law, such as notice tomembers of a class in class action litigation.
 [Washington revision] Except as permitted under paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(4), lawyers are notpermitted to pay others for recommending the lawyer’s services or for channeling professionalwork in a manner that violates RPC 7.3. A communication contains a recommendation if itendorses or vouches for a lawyer’s credentials, abilities, competence, character, or otherprofessional qualities. Paragraph (b)(1), however, allows a lawyer to pay for advertising andcommunications permitted by this Rule, including the costs of print directory listings, onlinedirectory listings, newspaper ads, television and radio airtime, domain-name registrations,sponsorship fees, Internet-based advertisements, and group advertising. A lawyer maycompensate employees, agents and vendors who are engaged to provide marketing or clientdevelopment services, such as publicists, public-relations personnel, business-development staffand website designers. Moreover, a lawyer may pay others for generating client leads, such asInternet-based client leads, as long as the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer, anypayment to the lead generator is consistent with RPC 1.5(e) (division of fees) and 5.4(professional independence of the lawyer), and the lead generator’s communications areconsistent with RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer’s services). To comply with RPC7.1, a lawyer must not pay a lead generator that states, implies, or creates a reasonable impressionthat it is recommending the lawyer, is making the referral without payment from the lawyer, orhas analyzed a person’s legal problems when determining which lawyer should receive thereferral. See also Rule 5.3 (duties of lawyers and law firms with respect to the conduct ofnonlawyers); RPC 8.4(a) (duty to avoid violating the rules through the acts of another). For thedefinition of nonlawyer for the purposes of Rule 5.3, see Washington Comment  to Rule 5.3.
[Comment 5 amended effective April 14, 2015; September 1, 2016.]
 [Washington revision] A lawyer may pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a notfor-profit lawyer referral service. A legal service plan is a prepaid or group legal service plan or asimilar delivery system that assists people who seek to secure legal representation. A lawyerreferral service, on the other hand, is any organization that holds itself out to the public as alawyer referral service. Such referral services are understood by the public to be consumeroriented organizations that provide unbiased referrals to lawyers with appropriate experience inthe subject matter of the representation and afford other client protections, such as complaintprocedures or malpractice insurance requirements. Consequently, this Rule only permits a lawyerto pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service.
[Comment 6 amended effective September 1, 2016.]
 A lawyer who accepts assignments or referrals from a legal service plan or referrals from alawyer referral service must act reasonably to assure that the activities of the plan or service arecompatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations. See Rule 5.3. Legal service plans andlawyer referral services may communicate with the public, but such communication must be inconformity with these Rules. Thus, advertising must not be false or misleading, as would be thecase if the communications of a group advertising program or a group legal services plan wouldmislead the public to think that it was a lawyer referral service sponsored by a state agency or barassociation. Nor could the lawyer allow in-person, telephonic, or real-time contacts that wouldviolate Rule 7.3.
[Comment 7 amended effective September 1, 2016.]
 [Washington revision] A lawyer also may agree to refer clients to another lawyer in returnfor the undertaking of that person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer. Such reciprocalreferral arrangements must not interfere with the lawyer’s professional judgment as to makingreferrals or as to providing substantive legal services. See Rules 2.1 and 5.4(c). Except asprovided in Rule 1.5(e), a lawyer who receives referrals from a lawyer must not pay anythingsolely for the referral, but the lawyer does not violate paragraph (b) of this Rule by agreeing torefer clients to the other lawyer, so long as the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive andthe client is informed of the referral agreement. Conflicts of interest created by sucharrangements are governed by Rule 1.7. Reciprocal referral agreements should not be ofindefinite duration and should be reviewed periodically to determine whether they comply withthese Rules. This Rule does not restrict referrals or divisions of revenues or net income amonglawyers within firms comprised of multiple entities.
Additional Washington Comment (9)
 That portion of Model Rule 7.2(b)(4) that allows lawyers to enter into reciprocal referralagreements with nonlawyer professionals was not adopted. A lawyer may agree to refer clientsto an LLLT in return for the undertaking of that person to refer clients to the lawyer. Theguidance provided in Comment  to this Rule is also applicable to reciprocal referralarrangements between lawyers and LLTLs. Under LLLT RPC 1.5(e), however, an LLLT maynot enter into an arrangement for the division of a fee with a lawyer who is not in the same firmas the LLLT.
[Comment 9 amended effective April 14, 2015.]
(a) A lawyer shall not, directly or through a third person, by in-person, live telephone, or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment from a possible client when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted:
(1) is a lawyer or an LLLT or
(2) has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer; or
(3) has consented to the contact by requesting a referral from a not-for-profit lawyer referral service.
(b) A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment by written, recorded or electronic communication or by in-person, telephone or real-time electronic contact even when not otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a), if;
(1) the target of the solicitation has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or
(2) the solicitation involves coercion, duress or harassment.
(d) Notwithstanding the prohibitions in paragraph (a), a lawyer may participate with a prepaid or group legal service plan operated by an organization not owned or directed by the lawyer that uses in-person or telephone contact to solicit memberships or subscriptions for the plan from persons who are not known to need legal services in a particular matter covered by the plan.
 A solicitation is a targeted communication initiated by the lawyer that is directed to a specific person and that offers to provide, or can reasonably be understood as offering to provide, legal services. In contrast, a lawyer’s communication typically does not constitute a solicitation if it is directed to the general public, such as through a billboard, an Internet banner advertisement, a website, or a television commercial, or if it is in response to a request for information or is automatically generated in response to Internet searches.
 There is a potential for abuse when a solicitation involves direct in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact by a lawyer with someone known to need legal services. These forms of contact subject a person to the private importuning of the trained advocate in a direct interpersonal encounter. The person, who may already feel overwhelmed by the circumstances giving rise to the need for legal services, may find it difficult fully to evaluate all available alternatives with reasoned judgment and appropriate self-interest in the face of the lawyer’s presence and insistence upon being retained immediately. The situation is fraught with the possibility of undue influence, intimidation, and overreaching.
 This potential for abuse inherent in direct in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic solicitation justifies its prohibition, particularly since lawyers have alternative means of conveying necessary information to those who may be in need of legal services. In particular, communications can be mailed or transmitted by e-mail or other electronic means that do not involve real-time contact and do not violate other laws governing solicitations. These forms of communications and solicitations make it possible for the public to be informed about the need
for legal services, and about the qualifications of available lawyers and law firms, without subjecting the public to direct in-person, telephone or real-time electronic persuasion that may overwhelm a person’s judgment.
 The use of general advertising and written, recorded or electronic communications to transmit information from lawyer to the public, rather than direct in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact, will help to assure that the information flows cleanly as well as freely. The contents of advertisements and communications permitted under Rule 7.2 can be permanently recorded so that they cannot be disputed and may be shared with others who know the lawyer. This potential for informal review is itself likely to help guard against statements and claims that might constitute false and misleading communications, in violation of Rule 7.1. The contents of direct in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact can be disputed and may not be subject to third-party scrutiny. Consequently, they are much more likely to approach (and occasionally cross) the dividing line between accurate representations and those that are false and misleading.
 [Washington revision] There is far less likelihood that a lawyer would engage in abusive practices against a former client, or a person with whom the lawyer has close personal or family relationship, or in situations in which the lawyer is motivated by considerations other than the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. Nor is there a serious potential for abuse when the person contacted is a lawyer or an LLLT. Consequently, the general prohibition in Rule 7.3(a) is not applicable in those situations. Also, paragraph (a) is not intended to prohibit a lawyer from participating in constitutionally protected activities of public or charitable legal-service organizations or bona fide political, social, civic, fraternal, employee or trade organizations whose purposes include providing or recommending legal services to its members or beneficiaries.
[Comment 4 amended effective April 14, 2015; Renumbered as 5 and Amended effective September 1, 2016.]
 But even permitted forms of solicitation can be abused. Thus, any solicitation which contains information which is false or misleading within the meaning of Rule 7.1, which involves coercion, duress or harassment within the meaning of Rule 7.3(b)(2), or which involves contact with someone who has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer within the meaning of Rule 7.3(b)(1) is prohibited. Moreover, if after sending a letter or other communication as permitted by Rule 7.2 the lawyer receives no response, any further effort to communicate with the recipient of the communication may violate the provisions of Rule 7.3(b).
 This Rule is not intended to prohibit a lawyer from contacting representatives of organizations or groups that may be interested in establishing a group or prepaid legal plan for their members, insureds, beneficiaries or other third parties for the purpose of informing such entities of the availability of and details concerning the plan or arrangement which the lawyer or lawyer’s firm is willing to offer. This form of communication is not directed to people who are seeking legal services for themselves. Rather, it is usually addressed to an individual acting in a fiduciary capacity seeking a supplier of legal services for others who may, if they choose, become prospective clients of the lawyer. Under these circumstances, the activity which the lawyer undertakes in communicating with such representatives and the type of information transmitted to the individual are functionally similar to and serve the same purpose as advertising permitted under Rule 7.2.
 Paragraph (d) of this Rule permits a lawyer to participate with an organization which uses personal contact to solicit members for its group or prepaid legal service plan, provided that the personal contact is not undertaken by any lawyer who would be a provider of legal services through the plan. The organization must not be owned by or directed (whether as manager or otherwise) by any lawyer or law firm that participates in the plan. For example, paragraph (d)
would not permit a lawyer to create an organization controlled directly or indirectly by the lawyer and use the organization for the in-person or telephone solicitation of legal employment of the lawyer through memberships in the plan or otherwise. The communication permitted by these organizations also must not be directed to a person known to need legal services in a particular matter, but is to be designed to inform potential plan members generally of another means of affordable legal services. Lawyers who participate in a legal service plan must reasonably assure that the plan sponsors are in compliance with Rules 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3(b). See 8.4(a).
Additional Washington Comments (10-14)
 A lawyer who receives a referral from a third party should exercise caution in contacting the prospective client directly by in-person, live telephone, or real-time electronic contact. Such contact is generally prohibited by this Rule unless the prospective client has asked to be contacted by the lawyer. A prospective client may request such contact through a third party. Prior to initiating contact with the prospective client, however, the lawyer should confirm with the source of the referral that the prospective client has indeed made such a request. Similarly, when making referrals to other lawyers, the referring lawyer should discuss with the prospective client whether he or she wishes to be contacted directly.
 Those in need of legal representation often seek assistance in finding a lawyer through a lawyer referral service. Washington adopted paragraph (a)(3) in order to facilitate communication between lawyers and potential clients who have specifically requested a referral from a not-for-profit lawyer referral service. Under this paragraph, a lawyer receiving such a referral may contact the potential client directly by in-person, live telephone, or real-time electronic contact to discuss possible representation.
 Washington did not adopt paragraph (c) of the Model Rule relating to labeling of communications with prospective clients. A specific labeling requirement is unnecessary in light of the prohibition in Rule 7.1 against false or misleading communications.
 The phrase “directly or through a third person” in paragraph (a) was retained from former Washington RPC 7.3(a).
 The phrase “prospective client” in RPC 7.3(a) has been replaced with the phrase “possible client” because the phrase “prospective client” has become a defined phrase under RPC 1.18 with a different meaning. This is a departure from the ABA model rule, which has dispensed altogether with the phrase “from a prospective client” in this rule. The rule is not intended to preclude lawyers from in-person conversations with friends, relatives, or other professionals (i.e., intermediaries) about other friends, relatives, clients, or patients who may need or benefit from the lawyer’s services, so long as the lawyer is not asking or expecting the intermediary to engage in improper solicitation. See RPC 8.4(a), which prohibits improper solicitation “through the acts of another.” Absent limitation of prohibited in-person communications to “possible clients” there is a danger that lawyers might mistakenly infer that the kind of benign conversations with nonclient intermediaries described above are precluded by this rule.
[Rule adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 1988; Rule amended and comments adopted effective September 1, 2006; Comment  amended effective April 14, 2015; Rule amended effective September 1, 2016; New Comment  adopted, subsequent comments renumbered and amended, and Comment  adopted effective September 1, 2016; Rule amended effective September 1, 2018.]
(a) A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law.
(b) A lawyer admitted to engage in patent practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the designation “Patent Attorney” or a substantially similar designation.
(c) A lawyer engaged in Admiralty practice may use the designation “Admiralty,” “Proctor in Admiralty” or a substantially similar designation.
(d) A lawyer shall not state or imply that a lawyer is a specialist in a particular field of law, except upon issuance of an identifying certificate, award, or recognition by a group, organization, or association, a lawyer may use the terms “certified”, “specialist”, “expert”, or any other similar term to describe his or her qualifications as a lawyer or his or her qualifications in any subspecialty of the law. If the terms are used to identify any certificate, award, or recognition by any group, organization, or association, the reference must:
(1) be truthful and verifiable and otherwise comply with Rule 7.1;
(2) identify the certifying group, organization, or association; and
(3) state that the Supreme Court of Washington does not recognize certification of specialties in the practice of law and that the certificate, award, or recognition is not a requirement to practice law in the state of Washington.
[Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 18, 1992; September 1, 2006.]
 [Washington revision] Paragraph (a) of this Rule permits a lawyer to indicate areas of practice in communications about the lawyer’s services. If a lawyer practices only in certain fields, or will not accept matters except in a specified field or fields, the lawyer is permitted to so indicate.
 Paragraph (b) recognizes the long-established policy of the Patent and Trademark Office for
the designation of lawyers practicing before the Office. Paragraph (c) recognizes that designation of Admiralty practice has a long historical tradition associated with maritime commerce and the federal courts.
Additional Washington Comment (4)
 Statements indicating that the lawyer is a “specialist,” practices a “specialty,” “specializes in” particular fields, and the like, are subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph (d). The provisions of paragraph (d) were taken from former Washington RPC 7.4(b).
 In advertising concerning an LLLT’s services, an LLLT is required to communicate the fact that the LLT has a limited license in the particular fields of law for which the LLLT is licensed and must not state or imply that the LLLT has broader authority to practice than is in fact the case. See LLLT RPC 7.4(a); see also LLLT RPC 7.2(c) (advertisements must include the name and office address of at least one responsible LLLT or law firm). When lawyers and LLLTs are
associated in a firm, lawyers with managerial or pertinent supervisory authority must take measures to assure that the firm’s communications conform with these obligations. See Rule 5.10.
[Comment 5 adopted effective April 14, 2015.
[Comments adopted effective September 1, 2006.]
(a) A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead, or other professional designation that violates Rule 7.1. A trade name may be used by a lawyer in private practice if it does not imply a connection with a government agency or with a public or charitable legal services organization and is not otherwise in violation of Rule 7.1.
(b) A law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name or other professional designation in each jurisdiction, but identification of the lawyers or LLLTs in an office of the firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located.
(c) The name of a lawyer or LLLT holding a public office shall not be used in the name of a law firm, or in communications on its behalf, during any substantial period in which the lawyer or LLLT is not actively and regularly practicing with the firm.
(d) Lawyers may state or imply that they practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is a fact.
[Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 2006; April 14, 2015.]
 [Washington revision] A firm may be designated by the names of all or some of its members, by the names of deceased members where there has been a continuing succession in the firm’s identity or by a trade name such as the “ABC Legal Clinic.” A lawyer or law firm may also be designated by a distinctive website address or comparable professional designation. Although the United States Supreme Court has held that legislation may prohibit the use of trade names in professional practice, use of such names in law practice is acceptable so long as it is not misleading. If a private firm uses a trade name that includes a geographical name such as “Springfield Legal Clinic,” an express disclaimer that it is a public legal aid agency may be required to avoid a misleading implication. It may be observed that any firm name including the name of a deceased partner is, strictly speaking, a trade name. The use of such names to designate law firms has proven a useful means of identification. However, it is misleading to use the name of a lawyer or LLLT not associated with the firm or a predecessor of the firm, or the name of an individual who is neither a lawyer nor an LLLT.
 [Washington revision] With regard to paragraph (d), lawyers or LLLTs sharing office facilities, but who are not in fact associated with each other in a law firm, may not denominate themselves as, for example, “Smith and Jones,” for that title suggests that they are practicing law together in a firm.
Additional Washington Comment (3-4)
 When lawyers and LLLTs are associated with each other in a law firm, the firm may be designated using the name of a member LLLT if the name is not otherwise in violation of rule 7.1, this Rule, or LLLT RPC 7.5. See also Washington Comment  to this Rule.
[Comment 3 adopted effective April 14, 2015.]
 Lawyers or LLTs practicing out of the same office who are not partners, shareholders of a professional corporation, or members of a professional limited liability company or partnership may not join their names together. Lawyers or LLLTs who are not (1) partners, shareholders of a professional corporation, or members of a professional limited liability company or partnership, or (2) employees of a sole proprietorship, partnership, professional corporation, or members of a professional limited liability company or partnership or other organization, or (3) in the relationship of being “Of Counsel” to a sole proprietorship, partnership, professional corporation, or members of a professional limited liability company or partnership or other organization, must have separate letterheads, cards and pleading paper, and must sign their names individually at the end of all pleadings and correspondence and not in conjunction with the names of other lawyers or LLLTs. (The provisions of this Comment were taken from former Washington RPC 7.5(d).)
[Comment 4 renumbered, formerly Comment 3, and amended effective April 14, 2015.]
[Comments adopted effective July 2, 1996; September 1, 2006.]
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
(b) A lawyer to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to prevent the client from committing a crime;
(3) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;
(4) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;
(5) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client;
(6) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to comply with a court order;
(7) may reveal information relating to the representation to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client; or
(8) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to inform a tribunal about any client’s breach of fiduciary responsibility when the client is serving as a court appointed fiduciary such as a guardian, personal representative, or receiver.
(c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.
[Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 1990; September 1, 2006; September 1, 2016; September 1, 2018.]
See also Washington Comment .
 [Washington revision] This Rule governs the disclosure by a lawyer of information relating to the representation of a client. See Rule 1.18 for the lawyer’s duties with respect to information provided to the lawyer by a prospective client, Rule 1.9(c)(2) for the lawyer’s duty not to reveal information relating to the lawyer’s prior representation of a former client and Rules 1.8(b) and 1.9(c)(1) for the lawyer’s duties with respect to the use of such information to the disadvantage of clients and former clients.
 [Washington revision] A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client’s informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation. See Rule 1.0A(e) for the definition of informed consent. This contributes to the trust that is the hallmark of the client-lawyer relationship. The client is thereby encouraged to seek legal assistance and to communicate fully and frankly with the lawyer even as to embarrassing or legally damaging subject matter. The lawyer needs this information to represent the client effectively and, if necessary, to advise the client to refrain from wrongful conduct. Almost without exception, clients come to lawyers in order to determine their rights and what is, in the complex of laws and regulations, deemed to be legal and correct. Based upon experience, lawyers know that almost all clients follow the advice given, and the law is upheld.
[Comment 2 amended effective April 14, 2015.]
 The principle of client-lawyer confidentiality is given effect by related bodies of law: the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine and the rule of confidentiality established in professional ethics. The attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine apply in judicial and other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or otherwise required to produce evidence concerning a client. The rule of client-lawyer confidentiality applies in situations other than those where evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law. The confidentiality rule, for example, applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as authorized or required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. See also Scope.
[Comment 3 amended effective September 1, 2011.]
 Paragraph (a) prohibits a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a client. This prohibition also applies to disclosures by a lawyer that do not in themselves reveal protected information but could reasonably lead to the discovery of such information by a third person. A lawyer’s use of a hypothetical to discuss issues relating to the representation is permissible so long as there is no reasonable likelihood that the listener will be able to ascertain the identity of the client or the situation involved.
 [Washington revision] Except to the extent that the client’s instructions or special circumstances limit that authority, a lawyer is impliedly authorized to make disclosures about a client when appropriate in carrying out the representation. In some situations, for example, a lawyer may be impliedly authorized to admit a fact that cannot properly be disputed or to make a disclosure that facilitates a satisfactory conclusion to a matter. Lawyers in a firm may, in the course of the firm’s practice, disclose information relating to a client of the firm to other lawyers or LLLTs within the firm, unless the client has instructed that particular information be confined to specified lawyers or LLLTs.
[Comment 5 amended effective April 14, 2015.]
Disclosure Adverse to Client
 [Washington revision] Although the public interest is usually best served by a strict rule requiring lawyers to preserve the confidentiality of information relating to the representation of their clients, the confidentiality rule is subject to limited exceptions. Paragraph (b)(1) recognizes the overriding value of life and physical integrity and requires disclosure reasonably necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. Such harm is reasonably certain to occur if it will be suffered imminently or if there is a present and substantial threat that a person will suffer such harm at a later date if the lawyer fails to take action necessary to eliminate the threat. Thus, a lawyer who knows that a client has accidentally discharged toxic waste into a town’s water supply must reveal this information to the authorities if there is a present and substantial risk that a person who drinks the water will contract a life-threatening or debilitating disease and the lawyer’s disclosure is necessary to eliminate the threat or reduce the number of victims.
 A lawyer’s confidentiality obligations do not preclude a lawyer from securing confidential legal advice about the lawyer’s personal responsibility to comply with these Rules. In most situations, disclosing information to secure such advice will be impliedly authorized for the lawyer to carry out the representation. Even when the disclosure is not impliedly authorized, paragraph (b)(4) permits such disclosure because of the importance of a lawyer’s compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
 Where a legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges complicity of the lawyer in a client’s conduct or other misconduct of the lawyer involving representation of the client, the lawyer may respond to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a defense. The same is true with respect to a claim involving the conduct or representation of a former client. Such a charge can arise in a civil, criminal, disciplinary or other proceeding and can be based on a wrong allegedly committed by the lawyer against the client or on a wrong alleged by a third person, for example, a person claiming to have been defrauded by the lawyer and client acting together. The lawyer’s right to respond arises when an assertion of such complicity has been made. Paragraph (b)(5) does not require the lawyer to await the commencement of an action or proceeding that charges such complicity, so that the defense may be established by responding directly to a third party who has made such an assertion. The right to defend also applies, of course, where a proceeding has been commenced.
 A lawyer entitled to a fee is permitted by paragraph (b)(5) to prove the services rendered in an action to collect it. This aspect of the Rule expresses the principle that the beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship may not exploit it to the detriment of the fiduciary.
Detection of Conflicts of Interest
 [Washington revision] Paragraph (b)(7) recognizes that lawyers in different firms may need to disclose limited information to each other to detect and resolve conflicts of interest, such as when a lawyer is considering an association with another firm, two or more firms are considering a merger, or a lawyer is considering the purchase of a law practice. See RPC 1.17, Comment . Under these circumstances, lawyers and law firms are permitted to disclose limited information, but only once substantive discussions regarding the new relationship have occurred. Any such disclosure should ordinarily include no more than the identity of the persons and entities involved in a matter, a brief summary of the general issues involved, and information about whether the matter has terminated. Even this limited information, however, should be disclosed only to the extent reasonably necessary to detect and resolve conflicts of interest that might arise from the possible new relationship. Moreover, the disclosure of any information is prohibited if it would compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client (e.g., the fact that a corporate client is seeking advice on a corporate takeover that has not been publicly announced, that a person has consulted a lawyer about the possibility of divorce before the person’s intentions are known to the person’s spouse, or that a person has consulted a lawyer about a criminal investigation that has not led to a public charge). Under those circumstances, paragraph (a) prohibits disclosure unless the client or former client gives informed consent. A lawyer’s fiduciary duty to the lawyer’s firm may also govern a lawyer’s conduct when exploring an association with another firm and is beyond the scope of these rules. See also RPC 1.1, comments , , and  as to decisions to associate other lawyers or LLLTs.
[Comment 13 adopted effective September 1, 2016.]
 Any information disclosed pursuant to paragraph (b)(7) may be used or further disclosed only to the extent necessary to detect and resolve conflicts of interest. Paragraph (b)(7) does not restrict the use of information acquired by means independent of any disclosure pursuant to paragraph (b)(7). Paragraph (b)(7) also does not affect the disclosure of information within a law firm when the disclosure is otherwise authorized, see Comment , such as when a lawyer in a firm discloses information to another lawyer in the same firm to detect and resolve conflicts of interest that could arise in connection with undertaking a new representation.
[Comment 14 adopted effective September 1, 2016.]
 [Washington revision] A lawyer may be ordered to reveal information relating to the representation of a client by a court. Absent informed consent of the client to do otherwise, the lawyer should assert on behalf of the client all nonfrivolous claims that the information sought is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable law. In the event of an adverse ruling, the lawyer must consult with the client about the possibility of appeal to the extent required by Rule 1.4. Unless review is sought, however, paragraph (b)(6) permits the lawyer to comply with the court’s order.
See also Washington Comment .
 Paragraph (b) permits disclosure only to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to accomplish one of the purposes specified. Where practicable, the lawyer should first seek to persuade the client to take suitable action to obviate the need for disclosure. In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client’s interest should be no greater than the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to accomplish the purpose. If the disclosure will be made in connection with a judicial proceeding, the disclosure should be made in a manner that limits access to the information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know it and appropriate protective orders or other arrangements should be sought by the lawyer to the fullest extent practicable.
 [Washington revision] Paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) permit but do not require the disclosure of information relating to a client’s representation to accomplish the purposes specified in those paragraphs. In exercising the discretion conferred by those paragraphs, the lawyer may consider such factors as the nature of the lawyer’s relationship with the client and with those who might be injured by the client, the lawyer’s own involvement in the transaction and factors that may extenuate the conduct in question. A lawyer’s decision not to disclose as permitted by paragraph (b) does not violate this Rule. Disclosure may be required, however, by other Rules. Some Rules require disclosure only if such disclosure would be permitted by paragraph (b). See Rules 1.2(d), 3.3, 4.1(b), and 8.1. See also Rule 1.13(c), which permits disclosure in some circumstances whether or not Rule 1.6 permits the disclosure.
See also Washington Comment .
Acting Competently to Preserve Confidentiality
 Paragraph (c) requires a lawyer to act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against unauthorized access by third parties and against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure by the lawyer or other persons who are participating in the representation of the client or who are subject to the lawyer’s supervision. See RPC 1.1, 5.1 and 5.3. The unauthorized access to, or the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, information relating to the representation of a client does not constitute a violation of paragraph (c) if the lawyer has made reasonable efforts to prevent the access or disclosure. Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer’s efforts include, but are not limited to, the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use). A client may require the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by this rule or may give informed consent to forgo security measures that would otherwise be required by this rule. Whether a lawyer may be required to take additional steps to safeguard a client’s information in order to comply with other law, such as state and federal laws that govern data privacy or that impose notification requirements upon the loss of, or unauthorized access to, electronic information, is beyond the scope of these rules. For a lawyer’s duties when sharing information with nonlawyers outside the lawyer’s own firm, see RPC 5.3, Comments -.
[Comment 16 renumbered to 18 and amended effective September 1, 2016.]
 When transmitting a communication that includes information relating to the representation of a client, the lawyer must take reasonable precautions to prevent the information from coming into the hands of unintended recipients. This duty, however, does not require that the lawyer use special security measures if the method of communication affords a reasonable expectation of privacy. Special circumstances, however, may warrant special precautions. Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer’s expectation of confidentiality include the sensitivity of the information and the extent to which the privacy of the communication is protected by law or by a confidentiality agreement. A client may require the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by this Rule or may give informed consent to the use of a means of communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this Rule. Whether a lawyer may be required to take additional steps in order to comply with other law, such as state and federal laws that govern data privacy, is beyond the scope of these rules.
[Comment 17 renumbered to 19 and amended effective September 1, 2016.]
 The duty of confidentiality continues after the client-lawyer relationship has terminated. See Rule 1.9(c)(2). See Rule 1.9(c)(1) for the prohibition against using such information to the disadvantage of the former client.
Additional Washington Comments (21-28)
 The phrase “information relating to the representation” should be interpreted broadly. The “information” protected by this Rule includes, but is not necessarily limited to, confidences and secrets. “Confidence” refers to information protected by the attorney client privilege under applicable law, and “secret” refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client.
Disclosure Adverse to Client
 Washington’s Rule 1.6(b)(2), which authorizes disclosure to prevent a client from committing a crime, is significantly broader than the corresponding exception in the Model Rule. While the Model Rule permits a lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation to prevent the client from “committing a crime . . . that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services,” Washington’s Rule permits the lawyer to reveal such information to prevent the commission of any crime.
 The exceptions to the general rule prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of information relating to the representation “should not be carelessly invoked.” In re Boelter, 139 Wn.2d 81, 91, 985 P.2d 328 (1999). A lawyer must make every effort practicable to avoid unnecessary disclosure of information relating to a representation, to limit disclosure to those having the need to know it, and to obtain protective orders or make other arrangements minimizing the risk of avoidable disclosure.
 Washington has not adopted that portion of Model Rule 1.6(b)(6) permitting a lawyer to reveal information related to the representation to comply with “other law.” Washington’s omission of this phrase arises from a concern that it would authorize the lawyer to decide whether a disclosure is required by “other law,” even though the right to confidentiality and the right to waive confidentiality belong to the client. The decision to waive confidentiality should only be made by a fully informed client after consultation with the client’s lawyer or by a court of competent jurisdiction. Limiting the exception to compliance with a court order protects the client’s interest in maintaining confidentiality while insuring that any determination about the legal necessity of revealing confidential information will be made by a court. It is the need for a judicial resolution of such issues that necessitates the omission of “other law” from this Rule.
 After withdrawal the lawyer is required to refrain from disclosing the client’s confidences, except as otherwise permitted by Rules 1.6 or 1.9. A lawyer is not prohibited from giving notice of the fact of withdrawal by this Rule, Rule 1.8(b), or Rule 1.9(c). If the lawyer’s services will be used by the client in furthering a course of criminal or fraudulent conduct, the lawyer must withdraw. See Rule 1.16(a)(1). Upon withdrawal from the representation in such circumstances, the lawyer may also disaffirm or withdraw any opinion, document, affirmation, or the like. If the client is an organization, the lawyer may be in doubt about whether contemplated conduct will actually be carried out by the organization. When a lawyer requires guidance about compliance with this Rule in connection with an organizational client, the lawyer may proceed under the provisions of Rule 1.13(b).
 This Rule does not relieve a lawyer of his or her obligations under Rule 5.4(b) of the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.
*This information is provided as a convenience to the viewers of this material. Viewers should conduct their own research or rely on the advice of a lawyer before relying on the information here.