WSR 18-22-091

RULES OF COURT

STATE SUPREME COURT

[October 31, 2018]

The Washington State Bar Association, having recommended the expeditious adoption of the suggested amendment to RPC 1.12, Comment 1, and the Court having considered the amendment and comments submitted thereto, and having determined that the suggested amendment will aid in the prompt and orderly administration of justice;

Now, therefore, it is hereby

(a) That the suggested amendment as shown below is adopted.

(b) That pursuant to the emergency provisions of GR 9 (j)(1), the suggested amendment will be published expeditiously in the Washington Reports and will become effective upon publication.

dated at Olympia, Washington this 31st day of October, 2018.

(a) – (d) Unchanged.

Comment

[1] [Washington revision] This Rule generally parallels Rule 1.11. The term "personally and substantially" signifies that a judge who was a member of a multimember court, and thereafter left judicial office to practice law, is not prohibited from representing a client in a matter pending in the court, but in which the former judge did not participate. So also the fact that a former judge exercised administrative responsibility in a court does not prevent the former judge from acting as a lawyer in a matter where the judge had previously exercised remote or incidental administrative responsibility that did not affect the merits. Compare the Comment to Rule 1.11. The term "adjudicative officer" includes such officials as judges pro tempore, referees, special masters, hearing officers and other parajudicial officers, and also lawyers who serve as part-time judges. There are corresponding provisions in the Code of Judicial Conduct. See CJC paragraphs (A)(1)(b)II.(B) and (2)(b)III.(C). (application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to part-time and pro tempore judges).