In physics, there’s a famous thought experiment called Schrödinger’s Cat which demonstrates the strange microscopic phenomenon where things don’t really exist until they’re directly observed. On May 2, the WSBA Board of Governors looked at the Washington state Oath of Attorney and were surprised by what they found looking back at them.
The day before, also known as Law Day, more than 1,600 legal professionals in counties around the state reaffirmed their commitment to the rule of law, in part, by renewing their Oath of Attorney. The Law Day event was widely lauded by those who participated and observed it. While the day was filled with a sense of joy, comradery, and shared purpose, there was another common sentiment: the Oath of Attorney in Washington doesn’t hold up that well.
“It was too long, the verbiage was convoluted and didn’t even seem relevant, and a lot of it was like: I don’t even understand what this means,” WSBA Governor Matthew Dresden told NWSidebar.
Following the Law Day event, Dresden brought up the topic at the Board of Governors May 2 governors roundtable and suggested the WSBA create a Task Force to look at the Oath of Attorney and make proposals for how to update it. WSBA President Sunitha Anjilvel said she agreed that the oath needed work and that she hoped the Task Force could have a new oath ready for Law Day 2026 for another round of oath-taking ceremonies around the state.
As of this writing, the Oath Review & Drafting Task Force was recruiting members and had yet to schedule its first meeting. The Task Force does, however, have a charter and a rough timeline to begin meeting no more than six weeks after solidifying its membership and submit a final report to the Board of Governors no more than one year after its first meeting.
Indeed, the oath really is outdated, having first been adopted by the Washington Legislature more than 100 years ago. In fact, according to the Oath Review and Drafting Task Force Charter, the Oath of Attorney has been a part of the Admission and Practice Rules for Washington’s legal professionals since 1938, but the oath was originally adopted in 1917. More so, language still used in the oath appears even farther back, showing up in the territorial laws enacted in 1863. And with language that’s hung along for more than a century, it’s no surprise that a common criticism of the oath is that it’s “clunky.”
While the first four bullet points in the oath are relatively short and sweet, the fifth bullet point states that:
I will not counsel, or maintain any suit, or proceeding, which shall appear to me to be unjust or any defense except as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law, unless it is in defense of a person charged with a public offense. I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me only those means consistent with truth and honor. I will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement.
Arguably, it’s important that the oath be clear. RPC 8.4(k), for example, makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate their oath as an attorney, according to WSBA Chief Disciplinary Counsel Doug Ende. Ende noted that “this provision is an infrequent source of discipline” and said he couldn’t recall that ever having been the sole basis for a disciplinary sanction.
Applications for the Task Force closed earlier this month. It will be composed of two current or former members of the Board of Governors, and six WSBA members, including at least one Limited Practice Officer or Limited License Legal Technician and one judicial member. According to its Charter:
- The Task Force shall communicate about its process with members and the public and seek input. The Task Force shall, in particular, obtain advisory perspectives from stakeholder groups with an interest in the content of the oath, including new and young lawyers; senior lawyers; the access-to-justice community; the judiciary; law schools and law students; Inns of Court; WSBA Sections; and county, affinity, and specialty bar associations.
- The Task Force shall gather and review historical materials about the development of Washington.
- The Task Force shall gather and review historical materials about the development of Washington’s oaths, as well as perform a comparative analysis of the oaths in use by other jurisdictions.
- The Task Force shall consider whether it is advisable to consolidate the three existing oaths into one oath.
- The Task Force shall, in considering the content of the oath, recognize that violation of the oath can be a basis for discipline in Washington. See RPC 8.4(k); LPORPC 1.10(e); LLLT RPC 8.4(k).
- The Task Force shall provide periodic updates to the Board of Governors about its progress.
- The Task Force shall ensure that its recommendations are consistent with WSBA’s organizational parameters as defined in General Rule 12.2.
- The Task Force shall submit a final report to the Board of Governors, including, as appropriate, draft amendments to the oaths and related rules.
