WSBA 1987

Can a lawyer personally guarantee a settlement payment on behalf of a client?

Short answer: No. The committee was of the opinion that it would not be proper for a lawyer to personally guarantee a settlement payment on behalf of a client. It declined to opine on a related question about a lawyer's personal check returned for insufficient funds, calling that a legal rather than an ethical question.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The committee was of the opinion that it would not be proper for a lawyer to personally guarantee settlement payment on behalf of a client.

The inquiry also raised a related question about a personal check the lawyer had given in payment of the judgment, which was returned for insufficient funds. The committee was of the opinion that this raised a legal rather than an ethical question, and therefore it could give no opinion on it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule then numbered RPC 1.8(e), on a lawyer's financial assistance to a client, corresponds to Model Rule 1.8(e) and was rewritten in the current rules. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer guarantee a client's settlement payment out of the lawyer's own pocket?

A: Per the opinion, no. The committee was of the opinion that it would not be proper for a lawyer to personally guarantee settlement payment on behalf of a client.

Q: Did the committee address the lawyer's bounced check on the judgment?

A: No. The committee was of the opinion that the question about a personal check returned for insufficient funds raised a legal rather than an ethical question, so it gave no opinion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the rule then numbered Washington RPC 1.8(e), corresponding to Model Rule 1.8(e), which limits a lawyer's financial assistance to a client in connection with litigation. The committee read a lawyer's personal guarantee of a client's settlement payment as outside what is proper, while treating the separate dishonored-check issue as a legal question beyond the committee's ethics remit.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

Washington RPC 1.8(e) (financial assistance to a client in connection with litigation), corresponding to Model Rule 1.8(e).

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=225

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Advisory Opinion: 1145
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 1.8(e)
Subject: Lawyer personally guaranteeing settlement payment

Reviewing your inquiry, the committee was of the opinion that it would not be proper for a lawyer to personally guarantee settlement payment on behalf of a client. The Committee was further of the opinion that the question raised by your inquiry concerning a personal check given by the lawyer in payment of the judgment, which was returned for insufficient funds raises a legal rather than an ethical question, and therefore, the Committee could give no opinion.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1987 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.