## Facts

- Michael Hawkins was booked on July 1, 1975, for marijuana possession.
- Richard Sanders was appointed as Hawkins’s criminal defense attorney on July 3, 1975, and met with Hawkins, who wanted release from jail.
- On July 3, Sanders spoke with Palmer Smith, retained by Hawkins’s mother to pursue hospitalization or civil commitment; Smith stated Hawkins was mentally ill and dangerous and later reiterated that view in a letter.
- On July 8, psychiatrist Dr. Elwood Jones called and wrote Sanders, stating Hawkins was mentally ill, dangerous to himself and others, and should not be released.
- Sanders proceeded to seek Hawkins’s release consistent with the client’s request.
- On July 9, 1975, a district judge released Hawkins on a personal surety bond; Sanders did not volunteer information about alleged mental illness or dangerousness, and neither the judge nor prosecutor asked Sanders about it.
- After release, Hawkins assaulted his mother and attempted suicide, causing serious injury.
- Hawkins (through a guardian ad litem) and his mother sued for damages; Sanders was added on a legal malpractice/negligence theory for failing to disclose the mental-condition information at the bail hearing.
- The King County Superior Court granted summary judgment dismissing Sanders; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a court-appointed criminal defense attorney has a legal duty to disclose third-party reports of a client’s alleged mental illness and dangerousness at a bail hearing when disclosure would be detrimental to the client’s interest in obtaining release.
2. Whether the elements of legal malpractice (duty, breach, causation, damages) could be established on a theory based on the attorney’s nondisclosure in the bail context.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed summary judgment for Sanders.
- The court held Sanders owed no legal duty to disclose the alleged mental illness or dangerousness to the court or others under the circumstances.
- Because no cognizable duty (and thus no breach) existed on plaintiffs’ theory, the malpractice claim failed as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Legal malpractice requires: an attorney-client relationship, a duty of the attorney, breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach.
- The professional standard of care is the care, skill, diligence, and knowledge commonly possessed and exercised by a reasonable, careful, prudent lawyer practicing in the jurisdiction.
- A lawyer is not generally required to disclose information believed detrimental to the client’s interest, except in limited circumstances such as information indicating a criminal intention toward an unknowing victim.
- Absent a recognized exception or a duty created by specific circumstances, an attorney’s failure to volunteer adverse client-related information at a bail hearing does not establish malpractice liability.

## Conclusion

The court declined to expand a criminal defense lawyer’s obligations beyond loyalty and confidentiality to require disclosure of generalized warnings about a client’s alleged dangerousness at a bail hearing, and it affirmed dismissal of the malpractice claim because the attorney owed no such duty.


Hawkins v. King County, 24 Wn. App. 338, 602 P.2d 361 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979)