Advisory Opinion: 1713

Year Issued: 1997

RPC(s): RPC 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4(a); 3.4(c); 6.2

Subject: Client communication; client request to review appellate brief before filing

[The inquiring lawyer represents incarcerated criminal defendants in appeals.] The practice of denying the client's request to review his/her appellate brief prior to filing as described in your letter is in conflict with RPC 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), and 6.2. The attorney should request from the court a continuance of the filing date, in order to allow review of the brief by the client. If the motion for continuance is denied, the attorney may file the brief without prior client review pursuant to RPC 3.4(c). If the problem with complying the RPC 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 is the volume of cases the attorney accepts, then such cases should be declined. Due diligence under RPC 1.2 requires that the client be shown the brief if the client requests it. If the attorney cannot comply with RPC 1.2, then the attorney should not take the case. See ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Formal Opinion 347 (1981).

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.