If a lawyer's law partner is a part-time court commissioner who signed a dissolution decree, is a later enforcement or modification the same 'matter' under RPC 1.12?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer's law partner served as a part-time court commissioner. Clients often brought the lawyer dissolution decrees, signed by that partner, that the clients wanted enforced or modified. The committee answered the lawyer's questions about that partnership with two conclusions.

First, the committee concluded that signing a default or agreed dissolution decree constitutes substantial participation in a matter as a judge when the parties later return for post-decree action. Second, it concluded that any post-decree action in a cause is the same "matter" as the one in which the judge signed the decree. The committee tied its answer to RPC 1.12.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does signing a default or agreed dissolution decree count as participating "as a judge"?

A: Yes. The committee concluded that a part-time court commissioner's signing of a default or agreed dissolution decree constitutes substantial participation in the matter as a judge when the parties return for post-decree action.

Q: Is a later enforcement or modification treated as the same matter as the original decree?

A: Yes. The committee concluded that any post-decree action in a cause is the same "matter" as the one in which the judge signed the decree.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Washington RPC 1.12, the rule addressing a lawyer who participated personally and substantially in a matter as a judge or other adjudicative officer, which corresponds to Model Rule 1.12. The committee did not separately analyze imputation language; it resolved the two predicate questions the rule turns on, namely whether signing the decree was substantial participation as a judge and whether a post-decree proceeding is the same matter.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.12 (lawyer who participated personally and substantially as a judge or adjudicative officer), corresponding to Model Rule 1.12.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1019: appearing before a court commissioner formerly associated with the firm
• Alabama Ethics Op. 1999-03: law partners of a substitute municipal judge
• Alabama Ethics Op. 2008-02: part-time judges and imputed disqualification

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=47

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 936
Year Issued: 1985
RPC(s): RPC 1.12
Subject: Participation in matter by judge; representation by judge's law partner

The lawyer's law partner is a part-time court commissioner. Clients often present the lawyer with dissolution decrees, for which they seek enforcement or modification, signed by the lawyer's law partner. In response to your questions regarding your partnership with a part-time court commissioner, the Committee was of the opinion that signing of a default or agreed dissolution decree does constitute substantial participation in a matter as a judge when the parties return for post-decree action. The Committee was further of the opinion that any post-decree action in a cause does constitute the same "matter" as the one in which the judge signed the decree.