Can a lawyer give a client's medical creditors an assessment of their chances of being paid out of settlement funds?
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.
Plain-English summary
The committee understood that the lawyer had signed "interest protection agreements" with the client's consent in a 1988 case, then settled a second 1990 case for the same client in which the lawyer signed a hold harmless agreement. The lawyer was negotiating settlements with medical creditors over which bills belonged to which case and proposed to interplead the funds in court if no agreement could be reached.
The lawyer's specific question was whether he could provide the creditors specific assessments of their chances of receiving payment. The committee was of the opinion that doing so would be permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct, provided the lawyer had the client's consent as provided in RPC 2.3.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1991, before 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 tell a client's creditors how likely they are to be paid?
A: The committee was of the opinion that providing creditors specific assessments of their chances of payment would be permitted, provided the lawyer had the client's consent as required by RPC 2.3.
Q: What does RPC 2.3 require before the lawyer gives that kind of assessment?
A: The committee tied the conclusion to client consent under RPC 2.3, the rule governing a lawyer's evaluation for use by a third person.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied RPC 2.3, Washington's rule on evaluations undertaken for use by third persons, which corresponds to ABA Model Rule 2.3. The committee permitted the lawyer to assess the creditors' chances of payment, conditioning that on the client's consent because the evaluation would be provided to non-clients.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 2.3 (evaluation for use by third persons)
- Washington RPC 2.3
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=531
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1451
Year Issued: 1991
RPC(s): RPC 2.3
Subject: Evaluation of likely recovery on behalf of client's creditors
The Committee understood the facts in your inquiry to be that you signed "interest protection agreements" with your client's consent in regard to a 1988 case. You then settled a second 1990 case on behalf of the same client in which you signed a hold harmless agreement. You are now in the process of negotiating settlements with medical creditors as to which bills belong to which case. It is your proposal that if you cannot reach an agreement with those creditors, you will interplead the funds in court for resolution.
Your specific inquiry relates to your desire to provide specific assessments to the creditors regarding the chances of receiving payment. The Committee is of the opinion that that would be permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct provided that you have your client's consent as provided in RPC 2.3.
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.