Opinion 2092

The inquirer asks if it is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for a retired judge, now volunteering for a local legal aid office, to represent a client in an ongoing child custody/parenting dispute when that same client appeared before him in Drug Court while he was still on the Superior Court bench and when he signed an agreed order in the child custody/parenting dispute which was the result of a hearing in front of another judge when the other judge was out of town.

The committee cannot comment on potential violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Nonetheless, if the judge did not have any substantial participation while he was on the bench in the matter in which he now wishes to represent the client, representation of that client does not appear to be a violation of RPC 1.12. The retired judge’s involvement in drug proceedings involving his current client may be deemed “personal and substantial” participation in a related matter but, if so, can be addressed by the informed consent of his client. Under the facts of this case, it does not appear that the retired judge had “personal and substantial” participation in the child custody/parenting dispute so as to require the consent, after disclosure, of the other party to the child custody proceedings.

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.