WSBA 1991

Can a lawyer send an actor posing as a client to a psychologist's evaluation to set up impeachment of the psychologist at trial?

Short answer: The committee was of the opinion that using an actor to pose as a client for an evaluation, intending to use it to impeach the psychologist's testimony, would be a fraudulent scheme and sharp practice in violation of RPC 4.1(a) and RPC 8.4(a) and (c).

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1991. 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 Not binding precedent.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 inquiry concerned the use of an actor to pose as a client for an evaluation by a psychologist, with the intent to use that situation to impeach the psychologist's testimony at trial. The committee was of the opinion that this would be a fraudulent scheme and sharp practice in violation of RPC 4.1(a) and RPC 8.4(a) and (c).

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer plant a fake client with an expert to set up impeachment?

A: Under this 1991 opinion, no; the committee was of the opinion that this would be a fraudulent scheme and sharp practice in violation of RPC 4.1(a) and RPC 8.4(a) and (c).

Q: Which rules did the committee say it would violate?

A: RPC 4.1(a), on truthfulness in statements to others, and RPC 8.4(a) and (c), on assisting a violation and on dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Background and rules framework

At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 4.1 required truthfulness in statements to others and RPC 8.4(a) and (c) prohibited assisting a rule violation and engaging in dishonesty or misrepresentation, the subjects the Model Rules place in Rules 4.1 and 8.4. The committee characterized the staged evaluation as fraud and sharp practice reaching all three provisions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others)
ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct; dishonesty)
Washington RPC 4.1, 8.4(a), 8.4(c)

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=495

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning use of an actor to pose as a client for an evaluation by a psychologist, with the intent to use that situation for impeachment of the psychologist's testimony at trial. The Committee was of the opinion that this would be a fraudulent scheme and sharp practice in violation of RPC 4.1(a) and RPC 8.4(a) and (c).

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1991 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.