Category: Ethics

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recently applied the attorney-client privilege to a “functional employee” of a corporate defendant.
National Products, Inc. v. Innovative Intelligent Products LLC, 2023 WL 6215296 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 25, 2023), is a patent infringement case. During discovery, the plaintiff took the deposition of an outside contractor with his own company who worked closely with the defendant in developing the latter’s product designs. The defendant’s attorney asserted privilege and instructed the contractor not to answer when the plaintiff’s attorney asked questions about conversations the defendant’s attorney had with the contractor concerning the litigation. The plaintiff moved to compel. The court denied the motion.

Under American Bar Association Model Rule 1.16(d), when a lawyer withdraws the lawyer is to surrender papers and property to which the client is entitled. Neither the ABA model rule nor most state counterparts (including Washington RPC 1.16), however, include a definition of what constitutes “papers and property” in this context.
The ABA noted in Formal Opinion 471 (2015) that states have generally adopted two approaches through state bar ethics opinions in the wake of this ambiguity. Most that have addressed the issue take the “entire file” approach, under which the lawyer must generally provide the client with all materials in the lawyer’s file (whether in paper or electronic form) typically subject to a relatively narrow band of exceptions. A minority, by contrast, take the “end product” approach—with the lawyer only needing to provide the client with the final product generated and not intermediate items like drafts or notes.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees “the assistance of counsel” to criminal defendants. Most post-conviction relief cases addressing this issue focus on whether counsel was “ineffective.” On unusual facts, the Washington Supreme Court recently examined the question of whether a lawyer not licensed in Washington but actively licensed in Idaho met the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the constitutional requirement was satisfied.

The federal district court in Spokane recently disqualified a law firm for a conflict with a key adverse witness. Caldwell v. United States, 2022 WL 17408818 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2022) (unpublished), was a malpractice case stemming from the plaintiff’s treatment at a government medical facility. Although the U.S. government was the sole defendant, the focus of the case was on the doctor who allegedly failed to diagnose the plaintiff’s cancer. The plaintiff’s law firm had also represented the doctor in an unrelated employment matter.