Can a Washington lawyer waive an absent juvenile client's speedy trial right when the client has never made contact?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about waiving an absent juvenile defendant's speedy trial rights. The committee was of the opinion that, under RPC 1.2 and 1.4, a lawyer has a duty to consult with the client if possible. If consultation were not possible because the client had never contacted the lawyer and was absent from the court appearance, the lawyer must inquire of the court whether the client had received notice to appear, as required by CrR 3.3. If the client had received notice, the lawyer must then use his or her best judgment as to whether waiving the speedy trial right is in the client's best interest.

The committee also reminded the lawyer of the obligations of candor toward the tribunal set out in RPC 3.3.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Must a lawyer consult the client before waiving the client's speedy trial right?

A: The committee was of the opinion that under RPC 1.2 and 1.4 the lawyer has a duty to consult with the client if possible.

Q: What should the lawyer do if the client never made contact and is absent from court?

A: The committee said the lawyer must inquire of the court whether the client had received notice to appear, as required by CrR 3.3.

Q: If the client received notice, can the lawyer decide to waive the right?

A: The committee said that if the client received notice, the lawyer must use his or her best judgment as to whether waiving the speedy trial right is in the client's best interest.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation of decisionmaking authority) and RPC 1.4 (communication), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.2 and 1.4, to the duty to consult before waiving a client's right. It tied the lawyer's next step to CrR 3.3, the Washington criminal rule governing speedy trial and notice to appear, and closed by reminding the lawyer of the candor-to-the-tribunal duty under RPC 3.3 (ABA Model Rule 3.3).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.2 (scope of representation; allocation of authority); Washington RPC 1.2
• ABA Model Rule 1.4 (communication); Washington RPC 1.4
• ABA Model Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal); Washington RPC 3.3

Court rules:

• Washington CrR 3.3 (speedy trial; notice to appear)

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 500: Language Access With Clients
• NY State Bar Op. 1106: Advising on Drug Diversion

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=543

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1463
Year Issued: 1992
RPC(s): RPC 1.2; 1.4; 3.3
Subject: Decisionmaking authority; waiver of speedy trial right in juvenile proceeding without client's permission

The Committee reviewed your inquiry regarding waiver of an absent juvenile defendant's speedy trial rights. The Committee is of the opinion that pursuant to Rules 1.2 and 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer has a duty to consult with a client if possible. If it were not possible because the client had never contacted the lawyer and was absent from the court appearance, the lawyer must make inquiry of the court whether the client had received notice to appear. That is required by CrR 3.3. If so, then the lawyer must use his or her best judgment whether it is in the client's best interest to waive the speedy trial right.

The Committee also directed me to remind you of your obligations of candor toward the tribunal as set out in RPC 3.3.