Opinion 930

The Committee was of the opinion that, concerning the first set of facts wherein a lawyer who was house counsel for a corporation and representing the corporation in litigation also testified as a witness in that litigation, such conduct would be prohibited by RPC 3.7. However, under the second set of facts presented, wherein a lawyer was appearing pro se, representing only himself, the Committee was of the opinion that the lawyer had the same right to represent himself as any pro se party. The Committee did not address the issue of whether a partner or member of a corporation could represent the entity pro se, since that issue was not presented. The Committee requested that I direct your attention to two cases which may aid you in the future. They are In re Thorstensen's Estate, 28 Wn.2d 837, 184 P.2d 255 (1947) and Levas v. Dewey, 33 Wn.2d 232, 205 P.2d 356, 213 P.2d 913 (1949).

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.