[WSBAPT] Conflicted Estate Counsel v Creditor's Claim

[Mark Anderson]

Thanks for responding.  Consistent with your response, it looks like the most worthwhile challenge to the claim will be on the merits.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock Street, Suite 209, PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:07 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Conflicted Estate Counsel v Creditor's Claim

For what it's worth-
I don't think it's a violation of RPC 1.7 strictly speaking, but it's always a fraught problem when a PR is a creditor of the estate. My argument against an RPC violation is that the creditor claim has to be resolved by TEDRA under RCW 11.40.140, and therefore the PR "hat" does not have a direct conflict against the PR as an individual: the decision is always up to a judge.
The tricky bit is I think the lawyer has serious RPC 3.3 and RPC 3.3(f) candor requirements, especially if no interested party shows up to oppose the claim. So, the lawyer really should be presenting adverse case law and any adverse evidence to the court. That puts the crosshairs squarely on the lawyer, if the claim is approved and then an interested party cries foul later.
The safest course is always to tell the PR to get a separate lawyer to file the TEDRA petition to get the creditor claim approved.

Regardless of the lawyer's violation or non-violation of RPCs, I would say that the claim is still procedurally valid and has to be either withdrawn or resolved by TEDRA under RCW 11.40.140, before the estate can be closed. Whether it's actually valid is for the facts on the merits to determine.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Mark Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 3:22 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBAPT] Conflicted Estate Counsel v Creditor's Claim

Fun scenario.
I represent the Estate of Harry.  Harry's Estate is the sole beneficiary of the estate of Harry's late brother Dave.
After Dave died, an attorney was approached by new client Charlie to file a petition to open an intestate probate for decedent Dave.  In the petition, the attorney identified Charlie as a creditor of Dave's Estate and sought to have Charlie appointed as the Personal Representative.  The Court granted the petition and appointed Charlie as the Personal Representative.  The stage is set: we now have Charlie as the Personal Representative and the attorney as counsel for the Estate ("Estate Counsel").
Before expiration of the four month creditor claims period, Estate Counsel (and not Charlie himself) filed a substantial creditor's claim in Dave's Estate on behalf of Charlie - Estate Counsel signed the pleading as "Attorney for Claimant."  When I say that Estate Counsel signed and filed a "substantial" claim, I mean that it was so big that it would subsume all assets of Dave's Estate, which was worth about $300,000.  Charlie did not sign the claim.
To me, Estate Counsel clearly violated RPC 1.7 when he signed and filed a claim against Dave's Estate on behalf of Charlie.
The four month creditor claims period has long since passed.  The creditor's claim that Estate Counsel signed and filed on Charlie's behalf has not yet been approved or adjudicated by the Court.  I will be challenging the claim on several bases.
Here are my questions for discussion.

  *   Am I correct in saying that Estate Counsel violated RPC 1.7?
  *   If I am correct and, in light of the conflict, is the creditor's claim still valid?
  *   Is there any way that Charlie can cure any invalidity in the creditor's claim?
Any suggestions for how to proceed?
Thanks in advance for your collective wisdom.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock Street, Suite 209, PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20260121/3a0b70df/attachment.html>