The federal district court in Seattle recently explored a seldom-plumbed corner of Washington malpractice law: claims against Limited Practice Officers (LPO).
Under Washington Admission and Practice Rule 12(d), LPOs are authorized to handle specific categories of real estate closings and related financings. Under that same rule, LPOs are generally required to use specific forms approved by the LPO Board that supervises LPO practice under the auspices of the Washington Supreme Court. Although the parties agreeing to use an LPO are classified as clients of the LPO by APR 12(e), that rule generally precludes an LPO from giving legal advice regarding a party’s individual rights under the forms involved and requires that the parties involved be informed of that limitation. If an LPO negligently selects an incorrect form and damage results from that error, the clients could bring a malpractice claim asserting that the LPO failed to meet the standard of care for LPOs.
Sadr v. Oney, 2025 WL 2997539 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 24, 2025) (unpublished), however, dealt with a wrinkle on the standard of care. The claimant asserted that the LPO involved had exceeded the scope of practice permitted by APR 12 and, therefore, was subject to the standard of care applicable to attorneys. In doing so, the claimant relied on Bishop v. Jefferson Title Co., Inc., 107 Wn. App. 833, 28 P.3d 802 (2001), which articulated this dual approach in concluding that an LPO was governed by the standard of care for attorneys when the LPO went beyond the parameters of APR 12.
In Sadr, however, the court distinguished Bishop. In Bishop, the LPO had used forms not approved by the LPO Board in closing the transaction concerned. In Sadr, by contrast, the court found that the LPO had used forms approved by the LPO Board in closing the transaction at issue. The court, therefore, declined to use the lawyer standard of care in granting summary judgment to the LPO on the malpractice claim. The court also granted summary judgment on a companion claim for negligence in performing the duties of an LPO.
Although Sadr doesn’t plow any new legal ground, it adds to a very small genre of cases addressing malpractice claims against LPOs.
