Must a lawyer prod the court to enter a long-delayed judgment when the client, who benefits from the delay, does not want the lawyer to do so?

Plain-English summary

The lawyer represented a defendant found guilty at a stipulated trial, who was allowed to remain free pending entry of judgment and an appeal. A month after returning proposed findings, conclusions, judgment, and sentence to the prosecutor, the lawyer wrote to the prosecutor asking whether the documents had been entered. Eighteen months later, the court still had not signed any of the documents. The client, aware of the situation, did not want the lawyer to contact the prosecutor or clerk about it.

Based on all the facts presented, the committee was of the opinion that the lawyer had made reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation consistent with RPC 3.2 and that no provision of the rules obligated the lawyer to do more.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does a lawyer have to chase the court to enter a delayed judgment?

A: Under this 1991 opinion, on these facts the lawyer had already done enough; the committee was of the opinion the lawyer made reasonable efforts consistent with RPC 3.2 and no rule required more.

Q: Did the client's wish to leave the delay alone matter?

A: The committee considered that the client, aware of the situation, did not want the lawyer to contact the prosecutor or clerk, and concluded the lawyer was not obligated to do more.

Background and rules framework

At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 3.2 required reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the client's interests, the subject the Model Rules place in Rule 3.2. The committee found the lawyer's earlier follow-up satisfied that duty and that nothing in the rules compelled further action over the client's objection.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 3.2 (expediting litigation)
• Washington RPC 3.2

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1345: Client's Decision on Jury Instructions
• WA Ethics Op. 1388: Telling the Court a Client Is Violating a Release Order

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=475

Original opinion text

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

[The inquiring lawyer represented a defendant in a criminal case, who was found guilty at a stipulated trial. The defendant was allowed to remain free pending entry of judgment and an appeal. A month after the lawyer returned proposed findings, conclusions, judgment and sentence to the prosecutor, the lawyer wrote to the prosecutor asking if the documents had been entered. Eighteen months later, the court still had not signed any of the documents.] The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning your duty to move a criminal case forward by advising the court or prosecuting attorney that, even after a long delay, written findings, conclusions, judgment and sentence had not been entered. The Committee understood that your client, who is aware of the situation, does not want you to contact the prosecutor or clerk regarding this. Based upon all of the facts presented, the Committee was of the opinion that you had made reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation consistent with RPC 3.2 and that no provision of the rules obligates you to do more.