WSR 17-01-023
RULES OF COURT
STATE SUPREME COURT
[December 7, 2016]
IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ELC 2.5—HEARING OFFICERS, ELC 2.7—CONFLICTS REVIEW OFFICER, ELC 3.3—APPLICATION TO STIPULATIONS, DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS, CUSTODIANSHIPS, AND DIVERSION CONTRACTS, ELC 3.4—RELEASE OR DISCLOSURE OF OTHERWISE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, ELC 4.2—FILING; ORDERS, ELC 5.3—INVESTIGATION OF GRIEVANCE, ELC 5.5—INVESTIGATORY SUBPOENAS, ELC 5.6—REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS TO INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS TO DISCLOSE, ELC 6.6—AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING DIVERSION, ELC 9.3—RESIGNATION IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE, ELC 10.7—AMENDMENT OF FORMAL COMPLAINT, ELC 10.16—DECISION OF HEARING OFFICER, ELC TITLE 15—TRUST ACCOUNT EXAMINATIONS OVERDRAFT NOTIFICATION, AND IOLTA, ELC 15.1—RANDOM EXAMINATION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
NO. 25700-A-1164
The Washington State Bar Association, having recommended the proposed amendments to ELC 2.5—Hearing Officers, ELC 2.7—Conflicts Review Officer, ELC 3.3—Application to Stipulations, Disability Proceedings, Custodianships, and Diversion Contracts, ELC 3.4—Release or Disclosure of Otherwise Confidential Information, ELC 4.2—Filing; Orders, ELC 5.3—Investigation of Grievance, ELC 5.5—Investigatory Subpoenas, ELC 5.6—Review of Objections to Inquiries and Motions to Disclose, ELC 6.6—Affidavit Supporting Diversion, ELC 9.3—Resignation in Lieu of Discipline, ELC 10.7—Amendment of Formal Complaint, ELC 10.16—Decision of Hearing Officer, ELC Title 15—Trust Account Examinations Overdraft Notification, and IOLTA, ELC 15.1—Random Examination of Books and Records, and the Court having considered the amendments thereto;
Now, therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED:
(a) That pursuant to the provisions of GR 9(g), the proposed amendments as shown below are to be published for comment January 2017 in the Washington Reports, Washington Register, Washington State Bar Association and Administrative Office of the Court's websites.
(b) The purpose statement as required by GR 9(e), is published solely for the information of the Bench, Bar and other interested parties.
(c) Comments are to be submitted to the Clerk of the Supreme Court by either U.S. Mail or Internet Email by no later than April 30, 2017. Comments maybe sent to the following addresses: P.O. Box 40929, Olympia, Washington 98504-0929, or supreme@courts.wa.gov. Comments submitted by email message must be limited to 1500 words.
DATED at Olympia, Washington this 7th day of December, 2016.
 
For the Court
 
 
 
Madsen, C.J.
 
CHIEF JUSTICE
 
GR9 COVER SHEET
Suggested Amendments to
Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC)
A. Proponent
Washington State Bar Association
Board of Governors
Staff Contact:
Douglas J. Ende
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Washington State Bar Association
1325 4th Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101-2539 (Phone: 206-733-5917)
B. Spokesperson
Paula C. Littlewood
Executive Director
Washington State Bar Association
1325 4thAvenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101-2539 (Phone: 239-2120)
C. Purpose
These amendments to the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC) are suggested to correct typographical and other clerical errors, to improve internal rules-based processes in light of ongoing experience in the discipline system, or to clarify ambiguities in the rules where appropriate disciplinary procedures are unclear or inconsistent. Since the adoption and implementation of general amendments to the ELC effective January 1, 2014 (hereinafter 2014 ELC Amendments), WSBA staff in the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Office of General Counsel have monitored and tracked the need for particular changes to the ELC and periodically submitted recommended amendments for adoption. At its July 2016 meeting, the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors reviewed and approved these suggested amendments for submission to the Supreme Court.
The following are summaries and explanations of each suggested change:
•
ELC 2.5: There are two suggested changes to this rule regarding hearing officers. First, as a technical change, it is suggested that the citation to ELC 10.7(b) in subsection (e)(2)(H) be changed to ELC 10.7(c) to conform to the suggested amendment to ELC 10.7 (described later in this GR 9 Cover Sheet), which, if adopted, would introduce a new subpart (b) to ELC 10.7. This suggested amendment is necessary only if the suggested change to ELC 10.7 is adopted.
Second, it is suggested that in subsection (e)(2)(H) of ELC 2.5 the term "or" be replaced with "of." This change will correct a clerical error in the 2014 ELC amendments.
•
ELC 2.7: Existing ELC 2.7 (a)(1) concerning conflicts review officers contains an incorrect citation: As a technical change, it is suggested that the reference to ELC 5.6(a) be changed to ELC 5.7(a) in conformance with the renumbering of rule 5.7 in the 2014 ELC Amendments.
•
ELC 3.3: Under existing ELC 3.3(d) and ELC 6.6, diversion contracts and declarations are confidential and may only be released with the consent of the respondent lawyer under ELC 3.4(c). Experience has shown that requiring authorization from the respondent lawyer to release a diversion contract or declaration is underinclusive and overly restrictive. ELC 3.4 identifies a number of situations in which release of otherwise confidential disciplinary information may be authorized, including but not limited to investigative disclosures; to correct false or misleading public statements; to protect the interests of clients, the public, or the integrity of the disciplinary process; to cooperate with law enforcement and other disciplinary authorities; etc. It is foreseeable there will be instances where obtaining a respondent's authorization will be impractical or may compromise an ongoing investigation. It is suggested that ELC 3.3(d) be amended to provide that a diversion contract or declaration may be released under the existing provisions of ELC 3.4, rather than only under ELC 3.4(c). A counterpart amendment to ELC 6.6, which discusses the confidentiality of diversion declarations, is also suggested.
•
ELC 3.4, section (j): Custodians may be appointed under ELC 7.7 to protect client interests when a lawyer is deceased, disabled, missing, disbarred, or suspended. ELC 3.4(j) authorizes outside counsel to access otherwise confidential disciplinary information in order to perform their duties. Under existing ELC 3.4(j), custodians are omitted from the list of outside counsel who may access confidential disciplinary information, which is inconsistent with the access provided to other outside counsel under the rules. It is suggested that language in subsection (j) be amended to clarify that custodians have access to confidential disciplinary information necessary to perform their duties.
•
ELC 3.4, new section (n): The ELC provide no explicit direction regarding whether confidential disciplinary information not subject to release under ELC Title 3 may be subject to subpoena in civil, criminal, or other proceedings and under what authority such subpoenas may be issued. This has led to the issuance of subpoenas in civil and criminal proceedings seeking confidential disciplinary information from WSBA, and to the ensuing entanglement of WSBA in legal disputes about the subpoena power of superior courts and courts of limited jurisdiction over information made confidential by Supreme Court rule. It is suggested that a new subsection (n) to ELC 3.4 be added to clarify that confidential disciplinary information is not subject to subpoena in other proceedings except by leave of the Supreme Court upon a showing of compelling need. This suggested change is intended to clarify the limits of the authority of a party outside of the discipline system to compel from WSBA the production of, or testimony about, information expressly made confidential by the ELC.
•
ELC 4.2: The suggested changes to two subsections of ELC 4.2 regarding filing procedures are intended to make filing more efficient and align filing requirements with current and anticipated discipline-system document-management practices for electronic filings. First, existing ELC 4.2(a) does not require that documents filed with the Disciplinary Board Clerk be signed. However, it is the Clerk's practice to require a signature. It is suggested that subsection (a) be amended to reflect this practice by requiring that documents filed with the Clerk be signed. Additionally, existing subsection (a) addresses filing by first-class mail but does not include a reference to electronic filing under subsection (c). It is suggested that subsection (a) be amended to clarify that filing may be made by first-class mail or electronically under subsection (c).
Second, existing ELC 4.2(c) permits electronic filing by e-mail or facsimile. However, a decreasing number of lawyers use facsimile machines, and the Clerk is in the process of developing an electronic filing system. It is suggested that subsection (c) be amended to remove filing by facsimile and to provide that filing can be made by an electronic system provided by the Clerk. Additionally, under existing subsection (c), original paper copies must be filed with the Clerk after being electronically filed. It is suggested that subsection (c) be amended to clarify that there is no need to file a paper version of such a document after it has been electronically filed.
•
ELC 5.3: Under ELC 5.3 and ELC 5.5, a respondent may object to an investigative inquiry or subpoena as provided in ELC 5.6. ELC 5.6 provides procedures for review of an objection by a hearing officer. A series of recommended amendments to ELC 5.3, ELC 5.5, and ELC 5.6 addresses uncertainties regarding how objections to investigative inquiries and subpoenas are resolved by a hearing officer. Existing ELC 5.3(i) is silent about how objections to investigative inquiries are resolved. The suggested change to subsection (i) seeks to clarify that objections must be made in writing within 30 days of service of the inquiry and that they are reviewed by motion under ELC 5.6. Providing that an objection must be in writing clarifies the required form for an objection, and providing that an objection is reviewed by motion removes uncertainty regarding who bears the obligation to present such an objection to the hearing officer for resolution. Adding a time period for submitting an objection is intended to prevent unnecessary delay in disciplinary investigations. Counterpart amendments to ELC 5.5(e), regarding objections to investigative subpoenas and ELC 5.6(b) regarding review of objections, are also suggested.
•
ELC 5.5: Under ELC 5.3 and ELC 5.5, a respondent may object to an investigative inquiry or subpoena as provided in ELC 5.6. ELC 5.6 provides procedures for review of an objection by a hearing officer. A series of recommended amendments to ELC 5.3, ELC 5.5, and ELC 5.6 addresses uncertainties regarding how objections to investigative inquiries and subpoenas are resolved by a hearing officer. Existing ELC 5.5(e) is silent about how objections to investigative subpoenas are resolved. The suggested changes to subsection (e)(1) seek to clarify that objections must be in writing or on the record and that they are reviewed by motion under ELC 5.6. Providing that an objection must be in writing or on the record clarifies the required form for an objection, and providing that an objection is reviewed by motion removes uncertainty regarding who bears the obligation to present such an objection to the hearing officer for resolution. The suggested changes to subsection (e)(2) seek to clarify when an objection is considered timely made with the intent of preventing unnecessary delay in disciplinary investigations. Counterpart amendments to ELC 5.3(i), regarding objections to investigative inquiries, and ELC 5.6(b), regarding review of objections, are also suggested.
•
ELC 5.6: Under ELC 5.3 and ELC 5.5, a respondent may object to an investigative inquiry or subpoena as provided in ELC 5.6. ELC 5.6 provides procedures for review of an objection by a hearing officer. A series of recommended amendments to ELC 5.3, ELC 5.5, and ELC 5.6 addresses uncertainties regarding how objections to investigative inquiries and subpoenas are resolved by a hearing officer. Existing ELC 5.6(b) provides no direction regarding how to obtain a ruling on an objection once an objection has been made, nor does it provide clear timelines for doing so. As an adjunct to the suggested changes to ELC 5.3(i) and ELC 5.5(e), it is suggested that a new subsection (b)(1) to ELC 5.6 be added to require a lawyer to file a motion seeking review of the objection within 15 days of the date of the objection. A 15-day period provides adequate time to prepare and file such a motion, and also creates an interval during which an objection may be resolved between the parties, potentially avoiding the need for a hearing officer to resolve the dispute. Counterpart amendments to ELC 5.3(i), regarding objections to investigative inquiries, and ELC 5.5(e), regarding objections to investigative subpoenas, are also suggested.
•
ELC 6.6: Under existing ELC 3.3(d) and ELC 6.6, diversion contracts and declarations are confidential and may only be released with the consent of the respondent lawyer under ELC 3.4(c). Experience has shown that requiring authorization from the respondent lawyer to release a diversion contract or declaration is underinclusive and overly restrictive. ELC 3.4 identifies a number of situations in which release of otherwise confidential disciplinary information may be authorized, including but not limited to investigative disclosures; to correct false or misleading public statements; to protect the interests of clients, the public, or the integrity of the disciplinary process; to cooperate with law enforcement and other disciplinary authorities; etc. It is foreseeable there will be instances where obtaining a respondent's authorization will be impractical or may compromise an ongoing investigation. It is suggested that ELC 6.6 be amended to provide that a diversion declaration may be released under the existing provisions of ELC 3.4, rather than only under ELC 3.4(c). A counterpart amendment to ELC 3.3(d), regarding the confidentiality of diversion contracts and declarations, is also suggested.
•
ELC 9.3: There are two suggested changes to this rule regarding resignations in lieu of discipline. First under existing ELC 9.3(b), a resignation form must be affirmed under oath and notarized. This is inconsistent with other disciplinary procedures, as no other notarization requirement exists under the ELC. This creates practical hurdles to resolving disciplinary matters efficiently and inexpensively. It is suggested that subsection (b) be amended to clarify that a resignation form need not be notarized.
Second, under existing ELC 9.3(f), a respondent resigning under the rule must pay expenses of $1,000 under ELC 13.9(c) plus costs under ELC 13.9(b). This often creates an impediment to resolving matters through resignation because respondents are unwilling, reluctant, or unable to pay these expenses. The suggested amendment removes the payment of these costs and expenses as a condition precedent to finalizing a resignation in lieu of discipline and instead requires that the respondent consent to the entry of an order assessing the expenses under ELC 13.9(e). Additionally, it is suggested that the amount of expenses be increased from $1,000 to $1,500 to conform to expense amounts in ELC 13.9(c) for matters that become final without review by the Disciplinary Board. The impact of the increase in expenses is offset by the suggested amendment's removal of the requirement that a respondent pay actual costs under ELC 13.9(b).
•
ELC 10.7: ELC 10.7 concerns amendments of formal complaints. Under existing ELC 10.7, without chief hearing officer approval, disciplinary counsel may amend a formal complaint at any time to add facts and charges that relate to matters in the formal complaint. See ELC 10.7(a). However, disciplinary counsel may not amend a formal complaint to dismiss charges without leave of the chief hearing officer under ELC 10.7(b); this inconsistency creates a procedural hurdle to simplifying the facts and charges at issue in a disciplinary proceeding. It is suggested that a new subsection (b) be added to clarify that disciplinary counsel may dismiss charges and amend a formal complaint accordingly without seeking authorization from the chief hearing officer. The suggested amendment would require renumbering of ELC 10.7 subsections and a conforming amendment to ELC 2.5. A counterpart amendment to ELC 2.5(e), regarding the authority of the chief hearing officer, is also suggested. The suggested amendment to ELC 2.5 (e)(2)(H) is necessary only if this suggested amendment to ELC 10.7 is adopted.
•
ELC 10.16: ELC 10.16 concerns decisions of hearing officers. Existing 10.16(b) states parties may submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation "as part of their argument of the case." This language, introduced in the 2014 ELC Amendments, has led to confusion about the required timing of proposed findings. It is suggested that subsection (b) be amended to provide a more certain deadline of 20 days after the hearing has concluded by which parties should submit proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. This will eliminate uncertainty about the timeliness of such submissions and provide parties with a reasonable timeframe to submit their proposed findings.
•
ELC Title 15: It is suggested that the word "audit" be stricken from the title to ELC Title 15. This change is suggested to correct a clerical error in amendments to the ELC effective on December 8, 2015. It was the intent of the 2015 amendments to remove the term audit from the entirety of the ELC in order to eliminate possible confusion between the two types of trust account examinations: investigative examinations and random examinations. Although the term was stricken from the text of the rules, the drafters of the suggested amendment neglected to remove the term from the heading for Title 15.
•
ELC 15.1: Effective April 14, 2015, Rule 1.0 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) was divided into two rules, 1.0A and 1.0B. As such, the reference to RPC 1.0(c) in ELC 15.1(a) should be updated to RPC 1.0A(c) to cite to the appropriate rule.
D. Hearing
The proponent does not request a public hearing.
E. Expedited Consideration
The proponent does not request expedited consideration.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO
THE RULES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF LAWYER CONDUCT
Redline Version
RULE 2.5 HEARING OFFICERS
(a) - (d) [No change]
(e) Chief Hearing Officer.
(1) [No change]
(2) Duties and Authority. The chief hearing officer:
(A) - (G) [No change]
(H) hears requests for amendment or of formal complaints under rule 10.7(b c),
(I) - (L) [No change]
(f) - (h) [No change]
RULE 2.7 CONFLICTS REVIEW OFFICER
(a) Function. [No change to introductory text]
(1) Authority. The Conflicts Review Officer's duties are limited to performing the initial review of grievances covered by this Rule. A Conflicts Review Officer may, under rule 5.3(b), obtain the respondent lawyer's response to the grievance, if he/she feels it necessary to do so, in his/her sole discretion. A Conflicts Review Officer may dismiss the grievance under rule 5.6 7(a), defer the investigation under rule 5.3(d), or assign the grievance to special disciplinary counsel for investigation under rules 2.8(b) and 5.3. If a grievant requests review of a dismissal under rule 5.7(b), the Conflicts Review Officer may either reopen the matter for investigation or refer it to a review committee under that rule.
(2) [No change]
(b) - (f) [No change]
RULE 3.3 APPLICATION TO STIPULATIONS, DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS, CUSTODIANSHIPS, AND DIVERSION CONTRACTS
(a) - (c) [No change]
(d) Diversion Contracts. Except as provided by rule 6.6, diversion contracts and supporting affidavits and declarations under rules 6.5 and 6.6 are confidential, despite rule 3.1 (b)(1). However, a lawyer may authorize release of a diversion contract or supporting affidavit may be authorized under rule 3.4(c). When a matter that has previously become public under rule 3.1(b) is diverted by a diversion contract, that contract and the supporting documents are confidential but the fact that the matter was diverted from discipline is public information and a notice of diversion will be placed in the public file. Upon the conclusion of the diversion, whether by successful completion of diversion and dismissal of the grievance, or by breach of the diversion contract, a notice of that result will be placed in the public file.
RULE 3.4 RELEASE OR DISCLOSURE OF OTHERWISE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
(a) - (i) [No change]
(j) Other Counsel. Conflicts review officers, special disciplinary counsel, adjunct disciplinary counsel, Association counsel, a custodian appointed under rule 7.7, counsel for a petitioner under rule 8.9(d), counsel appointed under rule 8.10, and any lawyer representing the Association in any matter have access to any otherwise confidential disciplinary information necessary to perform their duties.
(k) - (m) [No change]
(n) Information Not Subject to Subpoena. Information made confidential under these rules shall not be subject to a subpoena in any civil, criminal, or other proceeding except by leave of the Supreme Court upon a showing of compelling need.
RULE 4.2 FILING; ORDERS
(a) Filing and Signing of Originals. Except in matters before the Supreme Court, the original of any pleading, motion, or other paper authorized by these rules, other than discovery, must be filed with the Clerk. Original documents filed with the Clerk must be signed by the party or person filing the document or the attorney of record for the party or person filing the document. Filing may be made by first-class mail or electronically as set forth in subsection (c) of this rule. Filing may be made by first-class mail and is deemed accomplished on the date of mailing. Filing of papers for matters before the Supreme Court is governed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
(b) [No change]
(c) Electronic Filing. Filing of documents with the Clerk under subsections (a) and (b) of this rule may be accomplished by e-mail or by facsimile or an electronic system provided by the Clerk,. provided that a A document so filed electronically with the Clerk after 5:00 p.m. or on weekends or legal holidays shall be deemed to have been filed on the next business day. A paper original of documents filed under this subsection (c) should thereafter be filed as well. A document filed electronically shall be considered an original under this rule.
RULE 5.3 INVESTIGATION OF GRIEVANCE
(a) - (h) [No change]
(i) Objections. Within 30 days of service of an investigative inquiry under section (g) of this rule, A a lawyer may serve a written objection on disciplinary counsel who receives an investigative inquiry made under section (g) of this rule may object. An objection is reviewed by motion as provided in rule 5.6.
RULE 5.5 INVESTIGATORY SUBPOENAS
(a) - (d) [No change]
(e) Objections By Lawyers.
(1) To protect confidential client information, or for other good cause shown, a lawyer may object under rule 5.6 to an investigative subpoena issued pursuant to this rule or a disciplinary counsel request or inquiry during a deposition under this rule. An objection must be in writing or on the record and is reviewed by motion as provided in rule 5.6.
(2) A timely objection suspends any duty to respond as to the subpoena or to a request or inquiry under this rule until a ruling has been made under rule 5.6. An objection to a subpoena is timely if made prior to the date specified for production or the date of the deposition. An objection to a request or inquiry under this rule is timely if made in response to the request or inquiry during the course of the deposition.
RULE 5.6 REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS TO INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS TO DISCLOSE
(a) [No change]
(b) Procedure.
(1) A lawyer who has objected under rules 5.3(i) or 5.5(e) must file a motion seeking review of the objection within 15 days of the date of the objection.
(2) An objection must clearly and specifically set out the challenged inquiry or request and the basis for the objection.
(2 3) [No change to text of former subsection (b)(2)]
(3 4) [No change to text of former subsection (b)(3)]
(4 5) [No change to text of former subsection (b)(4)]
(5 6) [No change to text of former subsection (b)(5)]
(c) - (d) [No change]
RULE 6.6 AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING DIVERSION
A diversion contract must be supported by the respondent lawyer's affidavit or declaration as approved by disciplinary counsel setting forth the respondent's misconduct related to the grievance or grievances to be deferred under this title. If the diversion contract is terminated due to a material breach, the affidavit or declaration is admissible into evidence in any ensuing disciplinary proceeding. Unless so admitted, or unless release is authorized by the respondent under rule 3.4(c), the affidavit or declaration is confidential and must not be provided to the grievant or any other individual outside the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, but may be provided to a review committee or the Board considering the grievance.
RULE 9.3 RESIGNATION IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE
(a) [No change]
(b) Process. The respondent first notifies disciplinary counsel that the respondent intends to submit a resignation and asks disciplinary counsel to prepare a statement of alleged misconduct and to provide a declaration of costs and a proposed resignation form. After receiving the statement and the declaration of costs, if any, the respondent may resign by signing and submitting to disciplinary counsel the resignation form prepared by disciplinary counsel, sworn to or affirmed under oath and notarized, which must include the following:
(c) - (e) [No change]
(f) Costs and Expenses. If a respondent resigns under this rule, the expenses under rule 13.9(c) are $1,000 $1,500 and respondent must consent to the entry of an order assessing these expenses under rule 13.9(e). With the resignation, the respondent must pay this $1,000 expense, plus all actual costs as defined by rule 13.9(b). If the respondent demonstrates inability to pay these costs and expenses, instead of paying this amount, the respondent must execute, in disciplinary counsel's discretion, a confession of judgment or a deed of trust for that amount. Disciplinary counsel may file a claim under section (g) for costs not covered by this amount the payment, confession of judgment, or deed of trust.
(g) [No change]
RULE 10.7 AMENDMENT OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
(a) [No change]
(b) Amendments Dismissing Charges. Disciplinary counsel may dismiss charges at any time and amend a formal complaint accordingly. The respondent may, within ten days of service of the amendment, object to the amendment by a motion to the hearing officer. The hearing officer will consider the motion under the procedure provided by rule 10.8.
(b c) Other Amendments. Disciplinary counsel must obtain authorization from the chief hearing officer for amendments other than those under sections (a) or (b) or rule 10.3(c). Disciplinary counsel must give respondent notice of a request for authorization to amend. A request to amend will be considered under the procedure provided by rule 10.8. The chief hearing officer, after consultation with any assigned hearing officer, may authorize the amendment, may require that the additional facts or charges be the subject of a separate formal complaint, or may direct disciplinary counsel to report the matter to a review committee under rule 5.7(c).
(c d) Decision. In ruling on a motion under section (a) or (b) this rule, a hearing officer or the chief hearing officer may grant or deny the motion in whole or part. Authorization to amend should be freely given when justice so requires.
(d e) Service and Answer. Disciplinary counsel serves an amendment to a formal complaint on the respondent as provided in rule 4.1 but need not serve a Notice to Answer with the amendment. Rule 10.5 governs the answer to an amendment except that any part of a previous answer may be incorporated by reference.
RULE 10.16 DECISION OF HEARING OFFICER
(a) [No change]
(b) Preparation of Findings. Either party may submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation as part of their argument of the case. Proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation, if any, must be submitted within 20 days after the disciplinary hearing is concluded or as otherwise ordered by the hearing officer. The hearing officer either (1) writes findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations without requiring submission of proposed findings, conclusions, or recommendations or (2) announces a tentative decision then requests one or both parties to prepare proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. After notice and an opportunity to respond, the hearing officer considers the proposals and responses and enters findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
(c) - (d) [No change]
TITLE 15 - AUDITS, AND TRUST ACCOUNT EXAMINATIONS, OVERDRAFT NOTIFICATION, AND IOLTA
RULE 15.1 RANDOM EXAMINATION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS
(a) Authorization. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is authorized to examine the books and records of any lawyer or law firm selected at random to determine whether the lawyer or law firm is complying with RPC 1.15A, 1.15B, and other Rules of Professional Conduct referencing RPC 1.15A or RPC 1.15B. As used in this Title, the term law firm has the same meaning as prescribed in RPC 1.0A(c).
(b) – (e) [No change]
Reviser's note: The brackets and enclosed material in the text of the above section occurred in the copy filed by the agency and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.