Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/961328.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,772 chars

2064. And unlike the teachers at issue in Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of

Guadalupe School, the ODLS staff attorneys practice law first and foremost. They

practice law in a context “primarily serving the homeless and others in great need.”

6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, No. 96132-8
(Yu, J., concurring)

CP at 64. It is this court that has final authority over the practice of law and legal

ethics in Washington, and attorneys are required to comply with the Washington

Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs). There is no dispute that ODLS staff

attorneys are required to comply with the RPCs. And in the context of a nonprofit

legal aid organization serving the civil legal needs of vulnerable populations, I

believe it is simply not possible to simultaneously act as both an attorney and a

minister while complying with the RPCs.

Without question, the RPCs do not prohibit religious considerations from

being a factor in legal practice because “[i]n rendering advice, a lawyer may refer

not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and

political factors, that may be relevant to the client’s situation.” RPC 2.1.

However, in Washington, a lawyer must be guided by the client’s interests, not the

lawyer’s (or their employer’s) interests because the client has “the ultimate

authority to determine the purposes to be served by legal representation.” RPC 1.2

cmt. 1. Thus, “[c]oncurrent conflicts of interest can arise from . . . the lawyer’s

own interests.” RPC 1.7 cmt. 1.

In the particular context of a legal aid organization serving the needs of

vulnerable populations, the likelihood of concurrent conflicts of interest would be