IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 53062-7-II

Respondent,

v.

FRANK A. WALLMULLER, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant.

Frank Wallmuller appeals the superior court’s denial of his motion to compel his former 

trial counsel to provide him with a copy of his client file. The State concedes, and we accept the 

State’s concession. We reverse and remand. 

In 2008, the State charged Wallmuller with multiple criminal charges. Eric Valley 

represented Wallmuller as appointed counsel. On September 24, 2018, Wallmuller filed a 

motion to compel Valley to provide him with a copy of his client file from the criminal case. 

According to the motion, Wallmuller had written Valley multiple times requesting the file, but 

Valley never responded.

The superior court held a hearing on the motion in October 2018. Valley appeared at the 

hearing and argued that the superior court did not have jurisdiction over him. Valley claimed to 

be Wallmuller’s attorney of record and filed a notice of intent to withdraw as his counsel then 

left the hearing before Wallmuller argued his motion. Wallmuller argued that he was entitled to 

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

November 24, 2020
No. 53062-7-II

2

a copy of his client file and discovery materials, subject to nonprejudicial withholdings under 

Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.16(d) and redaction under CrR 4.7(h)(3). The State 

appeared and agreed that Wallmuller was entitled to a copy of his case file, subject to appropriate 

redactions.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the superior court reserved ruling. The superior court 

held a second hearing in January 2019. Valley refused to attend the second hearing. The 

superior court stated it would enter an order directing Valley to produce the file if he still had it, 

but because the criminal trial ended over seven years prior, and attorneys are required to retain 

criminal files for approximately seven years, Wallmuller’s best recourse was likely through the 

bar association. But the superior court’s written order did not reflect its oral ruling.

The superior court’s written order acknowledged that the RPCs require an attorney to 

provide a requested case file after representation ends, but concluded that Valley had not 

represented Wallmuller since the entry of the judgment and sentence in December 2009. The 

superior court denied the motion to compel stating that “the Court denies the motion to compel 

given the passage of time, but would indicate that this denial does not prohibit Mr. Valley from 

sending the file to Mr. Wallmuller if [Valley] still has the file.” Clerk’s Papers at 123. 

Wallmuller appeals the superior court’s order denying his motion to compel. Wallmuller 

argues that the superior court erred by not ordering Valley to provide him a copy of his client file 

under CrR 4.7(h)(3) and RPC 1.16(d). The State concedes, and we accept the State’s concession. 

The professional conduct rules require defense counsel to “‘surrender papers and 

property to which the client is entitled’” unless retention is “‘permitted by other law.’” State v. 

Padgett, 4 Wn. App. 2d 851, 854, 424 P.3d 1235 (2018) (quoting RPC 1.16(d)). The 
No. 53062-7-II

3

Washington State Bar Association issued an ethics advisory opinion interpreting RPC 1.16(d) to 

mean that absent an express agreement to the contrary, the file generated in the course of 

representation, with limited exceptions, must be turned over to the client at the client’s request at 

the conclusion of representation. WASH. STATE BAR ASS’N RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT COMM., 

Advisory Op. 181 (1987, amended 2009). CrR 4.7(h)(3) authorizes defense counsel to provide to 

the defendant any discovery materials received from the prosecution “after making appropriate 

redactions which are approved by the prosecuting authority or order of the court.” 

Reading CrR 4.7(h)(3) and RPC 1.16(d) together, an attorney must surrender the client 

file when a criminal defendant requests copies of his file, and relevant discovery at the 

conclusion of representation. Padgett, 4 Wn. App. 2d at 854. The requesting client need not 

show any need for the disclosure. Padgett, 4 Wn. App. 2d at 854. 

In this case, the superior court denied Wallmuller’s motion to compel, apparently 

assuming that Valley no longer possessed the file. But nothing in the record suggests that Valley 

did not possess Wallmuller’s file. And the superior court’s finding that Valley’s representation 

of Wallmuller had ended in 2009 with the entry of the judgment and sentence in the underlying 

criminal case is at odds with Valley’s contention at the hearing that he continued to represent 

Wallmuller. 

Neither CrR 4.7(h) nor RPC 1.16(d) place a time limit on a client’s right to a copy of his 

file. Under CrR 4.7(h)(3), RPC 1.16(d), and Padgett, Wallmuller is entitled to an appropriately 

redacted copy of his client file and any discovery materials retained by Valley. 
No. 53062-7-II

4

We reverse the superior court’s order denying Wallmuller’s motion to compel production 

of his case file, and we remand for the superior court to enter an order compelling Valley to 

produce copies of the file in his possession after any appropriate redactions. 

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

_____________________________

Worswick, J.

_____________________________

Maxa, J.

_____________________________

Lee, C.J.