Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Wash Supreme Court’ Category

2
Mar

Supreme Court Approves RPC Amendments on Imputed Conflicts

path to success
The Supreme Court recently approved Rules of Professional Conduct amendments addressing imputed conflicts for public defenders.

The Washington Supreme Court recently approved a package of related Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) amendments addressing imputed conflicts for public defenders. “Imputed” conflicts are those shared by all law practitioners working in a single firm. Some public defenders are government employees while others work for law firms or nonprofits. Read more »

28
Nov

Idaho Soon to Require Malpractice Insurance

A wingtip shoe about to slip on a banana peel.
The Idaho Supreme Court now requires malpractice insurance for lawyers in that state.

A wingtip shoe about to slip on a banana peel.For Washington lawyers who are also licensed in Idaho, the Idaho Supreme Court recently amended its licensing rule to soon require malpractice insurance for lawyers in private practice. Read more »

4
Oct

Supreme Court Holds Order Allowing Withdrawal Precludes Subsequent Malpractice Claim Over the Withdrawal

The cogs of law.
State Supreme Court held recently that a court order permitting withdrawal under CR 71 precludes a malpractice claim over the withdrawal.

The cogs of law graphicThe Washington Supreme Court held recently in Schibel v. Eymann, ___ Wn.2d ___, ___ P.3d ___, 2017 WL 3382278 (Aug. 3, 2017), that a court order permitting withdrawal under CR 71 precludes a subsequent malpractice claim over the withdrawal. Read more »

20
Apr

Court of Appeals Reiterates No Duty to Will Beneficiaries

law books
Court of Appeals affirms will beneficiaries usually have no standing for malpractice against the attorney who drew the will.

law booksDivision I of the Court of Appeals in Reznick v. Livengood, Alskog, PLLC, 2016 WL 7470037 (Wn. App. Dec. 27, 2016) (unpublished), recently reiterated that will beneficiaries ordinarily do not have standing to bring a legal malpractice claim against the attorney who drew the will involved because they are not clients of the lawyer. In doing so, the Court of Appeals relied primarily on its own opinion in Parks v. Fink, 173 Wn. App. 366, 293 P.3d 1275 (2013), which, in turn, applied the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Trask v. Butler, 123 Wn.2d 835, 872 P.2d 1080 (1994). Read more »

22
Nov

Supreme Court Holds No Privilege for Communications with Former Employees

Cartoon of man with mouth full of bricks
No attorney-client privilege for communications between corporate or governmental counsel and former employees, state Supreme Court rules.

Cartoon of man with mouth full of bricksIn a case of first impression in Washington, the state Supreme Court recently held that communications between corporate or governmental counsel and former employees do not fall within the attorney-client privilege even if the communications concern matters that occurred during a former employee’s work for the corporation or government agency involved. The Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision in Newman v. Highland School District No. 203, ___ Wn.2d ___, ___ P.3d ___, 2016 WL 6126472 (Oct. 20, 2016), was on discretionary review. Read more »