In November 2015, the Washington State Supreme Court published for comment proposed rule changes to the APRs and to the RPCs. Comments were to be filed by April 30, 2016. The changes were adopted by the Court, effective September 1, 2016. WRPC Court Order (June 2 2016)
The proposed changes to the RPCs were intended to update the Washington RPCs to reflect changes made by the ABA in response to the so-called “Ethics 20-20” Commission. The proposed changes were adopted by the Court in an order dated June 2, 2016, effective September 1, 2016.
The only anomalies in bringing the Washington RPCs into conformity with the ABA 20-20 changes are that: (a) Washington’s adoption of the Ethics 20-20 changes had to be reconciled with the recent RPC changes made to accommodate LLLTs; (b) Washington has changed MR 5.5(d)(1) relating to in-house counsel and so some of the ABA changes there did not fit; and (c) Washington would make a slight change relating to the solicitation rules.
A proposed change to APR 11 was intended to enable judges returning to the private sector to convert judicial education credits to CLE. It has not been adopted.
On the other hand, proposed changes to APR 20-25 were adopted, effective September 1, 2016. These changes are quite important. Here is how the Rule 9 Statement describes their purpose and background:
The primary purposes for the suggested amendments to APR 20 – 25.6 are to bring Washington’s character and fitness procedures into alignment with recent interpretations of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), as it relates to bar admissions, by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), and to clarify Washington’s character and fitness procedures and make the process easier to understand.
The approach being recommended derives from the approach described by the DOJ in a settlement it reached in 2014 with the Louisiana State Bar, and from models used in other states around the country. That settlement provides guidance for determining whether, when and how inquiries into mental health and substance abuse issues should be conducted. See, Settlement Agreement Between the United States and the Louisiana Supreme Court Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, August 14, 2014.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the DOJ agreed that it was permissible for the Louisiana Supreme Court to ask the mental health questions that are now being used by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE). The questions approved by the DOJ in the settlement agreement with Louisiana (1) involve some inquiry into a current condition that might impair the practice of law but not a past condition and(2) are inquiries about conduct that might call into question one’s ability to practice law or that might indicate an underlying issue requiring further questions. Further, the DOJ provided guidance about when and how to make inquiries in these areas
Links to the proposals follow.
Admission and Practice Rules(APR)
- APR 11 – Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
- APR 20-25 – Admission and Practice Rules 20 to 25
Rules of Professional Conduct(RPC)