Opinion 1876

The committee does not issue opinions concerning the law generally, and, therefore, takes no position regarding whether the actions your letter suggests would or would not be protected under federal and/or state labor law.

With regard to a possible "sick out" [of government lawyers in lieu of a strike], we understand that term to mean that the lawyers involved would report to a court or their governmental employer that illness prevents them from carrying out their professional responsibilities when, in fact, they are not ill. You are directed to RPC 3.3(a), 4.1(a) and 8.4(c) regarding the duty of candor toward courts, clients and other parties. Whatever your position under the labor laws may be, we do not believe that it preempts a lawyer’s duty of candor as a member of the Bar.

As for a possible "strike", we understand the term to mean that the lawyers involved would refuse to perform their job duties in an effort to improve their bargaining position with their governmental employer over pay and other job benefits. To the extent that a strike would affect ongoing obligations to your government clients, you are directed to RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.7(b), 1.15(b) and (d), 3.2, 3.4(c) and 8.4(a), (d) and (e). Again, whatever your position under the labor laws may be, we do not believe that it preempts a lawyer’s duties to the lawyer’s client in matters that the lawyer is handling for the client.

Advisory Opinions are provided for the education of the Bar and reflect the opinion of the Committee on Professional Ethics (CPE) or its predecessors. Advisory Opinions are provided pursuant to the authorization granted by the Board of Governors, but are not individually approved by the Board and do not reflect the official position of the Bar association. Laws other than the Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct may apply to the inquiry. The Committee's answer does not include or opine about any other applicable law other than the meaning of the Rules of Professional Conduct.