Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation And Allocation of Authority Between Client And Lawyer

Client-Lawyer Relationship

Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer

[1] Paragraph (a) confers upon the client the ultimate authority to determine the purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by law and the lawyer’s professional obligations. The decisions specified in paragraph (a), such as whether to settle a civil matter, must also be made by the client. See Rule 1.4(a)(1) for the lawyer’s duty to communicate with the client about such decisions. With respect to the means by which the client’s objectives are to be pursued, the lawyer shall consult with the client as required by Rule 1.4(a)(2) and may take such action as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.

[2] On occasion, however, a lawyer and a client may disagree about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives. Clients normally defer to the special knowledge and skill of their lawyer with respect to the means to be used to accomplish their objectives, particularly with respect to technical, legal and tactical matters. Conversely, lawyers usually defer to the client regarding such questions as the expense to be incurred and concern for third persons who might be adversely affected. Because of the varied nature of the matters about which a lawyer and client might disagree and because the actions in question may implicate the interests of a tribunal or other persons, this Rule does not prescribe how such disagreements are to be resolved. Other law, however, may be applicable and should be consulted by the lawyer. The lawyer should also consult with the client and seek a mutually acceptable resolution of the disagreement. If such efforts are unavailing and the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement with the client, the lawyer may withdraw from the representation. See Rule

Read the rest

Washington judge overturns insurance rate credit scoring ban

A judge on Friday overturned a Washington state rule prohibiting insurers from using credit scoring to set rates for auto, homeowner and renter insurance.

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler adopted the rule in February, immediately drawing a legal challenge from insurer groups. The rule, which was set to take effect March 4, was paused while the legal proceedings continued.

In her oral ruling invalidating the rule, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Indu Thomas said that Kreidler exceeded his statutory authority, according to Kreidler’s office. Kreidler spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis said in an email that a written ruling from the court wasn’t expected until next week.

“We will consult with our assistant attorney general on next steps and whether to appeal the decision,” Marquis wrote.

Earlier this year, Kreidler’s office started the process of implementing the permanent rule after an emergency rule the commissioner issued last year was struck down by a court, which found there was no justification to bypass normal rulemaking procedures.

Kreidler had argued that people who have struggled financially during the pandemic are at risk of having delinquencies show up on their credit reports, and has said that insurers charge good drivers with low credit scores nearly 80% more for mandatory auto insurance.

Republicans, insurers and others decried the move at the time, saying that it would add costs to people on fixed incomes, like the elderly, who have benefited from reduced insurance rates because of their good credit scores.

“Today’s decision is a win for Washington consumers, especially seniors, who will be able to continue paying lower insurance rates that more accurately reflect their risk,” Erin Collins, senior vice president of state and policy affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies , said in a statement.

In a statement, Kreidler said that while

Read the rest