reglab/statecodes huggingface dataset:
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.70A - Arbitration of Health Care Actions. › 7.70A.040 - Arbitration proceedings—Experts—Discovery.

RCW 7.70A.040
Arbitration proceedings—Experts—Discovery.
The arbitrator may conduct the arbitration in such manner as the arbitrator considers appropriate so as to aid in the fair and expeditious disposition of the proceeding subject to the requirements of this section and RCW 7.70A.050.
(1)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, each party is entitled to two experts on the issue of liability, two experts on the issue of damages, and one rebuttal expert.
(b) Where there are multiple parties on one side, the arbitrator shall determine the number of experts that are allowed based on the minimum number of experts necessary to ensure a fair and economic resolution of the action.
(2)(a) Unless the arbitrator determines that exceptional circumstances require additional discovery, each party is entitled to the following discovery from any other party:
(i) Twenty-five interrogatories, including subparts;
(ii) Ten requests for admission; and
(iii) In accordance with applicable court rules:
(A) Requests for production of documents and things, and for entry upon land for inspection and other purposes; and
(B) Requests for physical and mental examinations of persons.
(b) The parties shall be entitled to the following depositions:
(i) Depositions of parties and any expert that a party expects to call as a witness. Except by order of the arbitrator for good cause shown, the length of the deposition of a party or an expert witness shall be limited to four hours.
(ii) Depositions of other witnesses. Unless the arbitrator determines that exceptional circumstances require additional depositions, the total number of depositions of persons who are not parties or expert witnesses is limited to five depositions per side, each of which may last no longer than two hours in length. In the deposition of a fact witness, each side is entitled to examine for one hour of the deposition.
(3) An arbitrator may issue a subpoena for the attendance of a witness and for the production of records and other evidence at any hearing and may administer oaths. A subpoena must be served in the manner for service of subpoenas in a civil action and, upon motion to the court by a party to the arbitration proceeding or the arbitrator, enforced in the manner for enforcement of subpoenas in a civil action.
[ 2006 c 8 § 308.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.70A - Arbitration of Health Care Actions. › 7.70A.050 - Arbitration time frames.

RCW 7.70A.050
Arbitration time frames.
(1) An arbitration under this chapter shall be conducted according to the time frames specified in this section. The time frames provided in this section run from the date all defendants have agreed to arbitration in their answers where the parties elected arbitration in the initial complaint and answer, and from the date of the execution of the stipulation where the parties agreed to enter into arbitration after the commencement of the action through a stipulation filed with the court. The arbitrator shall issue a case scheduling order in every case specifying the dates by which the requirements of (b) through (f) of this subsection must be completed.
(a) Within forty-five days, the claimant shall provide stipulations for all relevant medical records to the defendants.
(b) Within one hundred twenty days, the claimant shall disclose to the defendants the names and curriculum vitae or other documentation of qualifications of any expert the claimant expects to call as a witness.
(c) Within one hundred forty days, each defendant shall disclose to the claimants the names and curriculum vitae or other documentation of qualifications of any expert the defendant expects to call as a witness.
(d) Within one hundred sixty days, each party shall disclose to the other parties the name and curriculum vitae or other documentation of qualifications of any rebuttal expert the party expects to call as a witness.
(e) Within two hundred forty days, all discovery shall be completed.
(f) Within two hundred seventy days, the arbitration hearing shall commence subject to the limited authority of the arbitrator to extend this deadline under subsection (2) of this section.
(2) It is the express public policy of the legislature that arbitration hearings under this chapter be commenced no later than twelve months after the parties elect to submit the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator may grant a continuance of the commencement of the arbitration hearing to a date more than twelve months after the parties elect to submit the dispute to arbitration only where a party shows that exceptional circumstances create an undue and unavoidable hardship on the party.
[ 2006 c 8 § 309.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.70A - Arbitration of Health Care Actions. › 7.70A.060 - Issuance of decision—Limitation on award of damages—Fees and expenses.

RCW 7.70A.060
Issuance of decision—Limitation on award of damages—Fees and expenses.
(1) The arbitrator shall issue a decision in writing and signed by the arbitrator within fourteen days after the completion of the arbitration hearing and shall promptly deliver a copy of the decision to each of the parties or their attorneys.
(2) The arbitrator may not make an award of damages under this chapter that exceeds one million dollars for both economic and noneconomic damages.
(3) The arbitrator may not make an award of damages under this chapter under a theory of ostensible agency liability.
(4) With or without the request of a party, the arbitrator shall review the reasonableness of each party's attorneys' fees taking into account the factors enumerated in RCW 4.24.005.
(5) The fees and expenses of the arbitrator shall be paid by the nonprevailing parties.
[ 2006 c 8 § 310.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.70A - Arbitration of Health Care Actions. › 7.70A.070 - Motion for judgment.

RCW 7.70A.070
Motion for judgment.
After a party to the arbitration proceeding receives notice of a decision, the party may file a motion with the court for a judgment in accordance with the decision, at which time the court shall issue such a judgment unless the decision is modified, corrected, or vacated as provided in RCW 7.70A.080.
[ 2006 c 8 § 311.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.70A - Arbitration of Health Care Actions. › 7.70A.080 - Appeal of decision.

RCW 7.70A.080
Appeal of decision.
There is no right to a trial de novo on an appeal of the arbitrator's decision. An appeal of the arbitrator's decision is limited to the bases for appeal provided in RCW 7.04A.230(1) (a) through (d) and 7.04A.240, or equivalent provisions in a successor statute.
[ 2006 c 8 § 312.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.70A - Arbitration of Health Care Actions. › 7.70A.090 - Application of chapter 7.04A RCW.

RCW 7.70A.090
Application of chapter 7.04A RCW.
The provisions of chapter 7.04A RCW do not apply to arbitrations conducted under this chapter except to the extent specifically provided in this chapter.
[ 2006 c 8 § 313.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.70A - Arbitration of Health Care Actions. › 7.70A.900 - Findings—Intent—Part headings and subheadings not law—Severability—2006 c 8.

RCW 7.70A.900
Findings—Intent—Part headings and subheadings not law—Severability—2006 c 8.
See notes following RCW 5.64.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.71 - Health Care Peer Review. › 7.71.010 - Legislative finding.

RCW 7.71.010
Legislative finding.
The legislature finds the assurance of quality and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of health care can be assisted through the review of health care by health care providers. It also recognizes that some peer review decisions may be based on factors other than competence or professional conduct. Although it finds that peer review decisions based on matters unrelated to quality and utilization review need redress, it concludes that it is necessary to balance carefully the rights of the consuming public who benefit by peer review with the rights of those who are occasionally hurt by peer review decisions based on matters other than competence or professional conduct.
The legislature intends to foreclose federal antitrust actions to the extent Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), allows and to permit only those actions in RCW 7.71.020 and 7.71.030.
[ 1987 c 269 § 1.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.71 - Health Care Peer Review. › 7.71.020 - Federal law applicable in Washington state.

RCW 7.71.020
Federal law applicable in Washington state.
Pursuant to P.L. 99-660 Sec. 411(c)(2), Title IV of that act shall apply in Washington state as of July 26, 1987.
[ 1987 c 269 § 2.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.71 - Health Care Peer Review. › 7.71.030 - Actions by health care peer review body—Exclusive remedy.

RCW 7.71.030
Actions by health care peer review body—Exclusive remedy.
(1) If the limitation on damages under RCW 7.71.020 and P.L. 99-660 Sec. 411(a)(1) does not apply, this section shall provide the exclusive remedies in any lawsuit by a health care provider for any action taken by a professional peer review body of health care providers as defined in RCW 7.70.020.
(2) Remedies shall be limited to appropriate injunctive relief, and damages shall be allowed only for lost earnings directly attributable to the action taken by the professional peer review body, incurred between the date of such action and the date the action is functionally reversed by the professional peer review body.
(3) Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs shall be awarded if approved by the court under RCW 7.71.035.
(4) The statute of limitations for actions under this section shall be one year from the date of the action of the professional peer review body.
[ 2013 c 301 § 1; 2012 c 165 § 1; 1987 c 269 § 3.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.71 - Health Care Peer Review. › 7.71.035 - Actions by health care peer review body—Award of costs to substantially prevailing party.

RCW 7.71.035
Actions by health care peer review body—Award of costs to substantially prevailing party.
(1) Except as provided for in subsection (2) of this section, at the conclusion of an action under RCW 7.71.030 the court shall award to the substantially prevailing party the costs of the suit attributable to any claim or defense asserted in the action by the nonprevailing party, including reasonable attorneys' fees, if the nonprevailing party's claim, defense, or conduct was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith.
(2) At the conclusion of an action under RCW 7.71.030 the court shall award to the substantially prevailing defendant the cost of the suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, if the nonprevailing plaintiff failed to first exhaust all administrative remedies available before the professional peer review body.
(3) A party shall not be considered to have substantially prevailed if the opposing party obtains an award for damages or permanent injunctive relief under this chapter.
[ 2012 c 165 § 2.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.71 - Health Care Peer Review. › 7.71.040 - Chapter does not limit or repeal other immunities conferred by law.

RCW 7.71.040
Chapter does not limit or repeal other immunities conferred by law.
Nothing in this chapter limits or repeals any other immunities conferred upon participants in the peer review process contained in any other state or federal law.
[ 1987 c 269 § 4.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.71 - Health Care Peer Review. › 7.71.050 - Medical staff privileges and membership—Revocation, suspension, reduction.

RCW 7.71.050
Medical staff privileges and membership—Revocation, suspension, reduction.
(1) A medical staff privilege sanction process that results in a revocation, suspension, or reduction of medical staff privileges or membership at a health care facility must meet the requirements of RCW 70.41.200(1)(b).
(2) A professional peer review action taken by a health care facility that imposes a revocation, suspension, or reduction of medical staff privileges or membership must meet the requirements of and is subject to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 11112.
(3) In this section, "health care facility" has the same meaning as in RCW 43.70.075.
[ 2019 c 62 § 2.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.72 - Product Liability Actions. › 7.72.020 - Scope.

RCW 7.72.020
Scope.
(1) The previous existing applicable law of this state on product liability is modified only to the extent set forth in this chapter.
(2) Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the recovery of direct or consequential economic loss under Title 62A RCW.
[ 1981 c 27 § 3.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.72 - Product Liability Actions. › 7.72.040 - Liability of product seller other than manufacturer—Exception.

RCW 7.72.040
Liability of product seller other than manufacturer—Exception.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a product seller other than a manufacturer is liable to the claimant only if the claimant's harm was proximately caused by:
(a) The negligence of such product seller; or
(b) Breach of an express warranty made by such product seller; or
(c) The intentional misrepresentation of facts about the product by such product seller or the intentional concealment of information about the product by such product seller.
(2) A product seller, other than a manufacturer, shall have the liability of a manufacturer to the claimant if:
(a) No solvent manufacturer who would be liable to the claimant is subject to service of process under the laws of the claimant's domicile or the state of Washington; or
(b) The court determines that it is highly probable that the claimant would be unable to enforce a judgment against any manufacturer; or
(c) The product seller is a controlled subsidiary of a manufacturer, or the manufacturer is a controlled subsidiary of the product seller; or
(d) The product seller provided the plans or specifications for the manufacture or preparation of the product and such plans or specifications were a proximate cause of the defect in the product; or
(e) The product was marketed under a trade name or brand name of the product seller.
(3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply to a pharmacist who dispenses a prescription product in the form manufactured by a commercial manufacturer pursuant to a prescription issued by a licensed practitioner if the pharmacist complies with recordkeeping requirements pursuant to chapters 18.64, 69.41, and 69.50 RCW, and related administrative rules.
[ 1991 c 189 § 2; 1981 c 27 § 5.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.72 - Product Liability Actions. › 7.72.050 - Relevance of industry custom, technological feasibility, and nongovernmental, legislative or administrative regulatory standards.

RCW 7.72.050
Relevance of industry custom, technological feasibility, and nongovernmental, legislative or administrative regulatory standards.
(1) Evidence of custom in the product seller's industry, technological feasibility or that the product was or was not, in compliance with nongovernmental standards or with legislative regulatory standards or administrative regulatory standards, whether relating to design, construction or performance of the product or to warnings or instructions as to its use may be considered by the trier of fact.
(2) When the injury-causing aspect of the product was, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with a specific mandatory government contract specification relating to design or warnings, this compliance shall be an absolute defense. When the injury-causing aspect of the product was not, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with a specific mandatory government specification relating to design or warnings, the product shall be deemed not reasonably safe under RCW 7.72.030(1).
[ 1981 c 27 § 6.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.72 - Product Liability Actions. › 7.72.060 - Length of time product sellers are subject to liability.

RCW 7.72.060
Length of time product sellers are subject to liability.
(1) Useful safe life. (a) Except as provided in subsection (1)(b) hereof, a product seller shall not be subject to liability to a claimant for harm under this chapter if the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the harm was caused after the product's "useful safe life" had expired.
"Useful safe life" begins at the time of delivery of the product and extends for the time during which the product would normally be likely to perform or be stored in a safe manner. For the purposes of this chapter, "time of delivery" means the time of delivery of a product to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of either selling such products or using them as component parts of another product to be sold. In the case of a product which has been remanufactured by a manufacturer, "time of delivery" means the time of delivery of the remanufactured product to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of either selling such products or using them as component parts of another product to be sold.
(b) A product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused by a product used beyond its useful safe life, if:
(i) The product seller has warranted that the product may be utilized safely for such longer period; or
(ii) The product seller intentionally misrepresents facts about its product, or intentionally conceals information about it, and that conduct was a proximate cause of the claimant's harm; or
(iii) The harm was caused by exposure to a defective product, which exposure first occurred within the useful safe life of the product, even though the harm did not manifest itself until after the useful safe life had expired.
(2) Presumption regarding useful safe life. If the harm was caused more than twelve years after the time of delivery, a presumption arises that the harm was caused after the useful safe life had expired. This presumption may only be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3) Statute of limitation. Subject to the applicable provisions of chapter 4.16 RCW pertaining to the tolling and extension of any statute of limitation, no claim under this chapter may be brought more than three years from the time the claimant discovered or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered the harm and its cause.
[ 1981 c 27 § 7.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.72 - Product Liability Actions. › 7.72.070 - Food and beverage consumption.

RCW 7.72.070
Food and beverage consumption.
(1) Any manufacturer, packer, distributor, carrier, holder, marketer, or seller of a food or nonalcoholic beverage intended for human consumption, or an association of one or more such entities, shall not be subject to civil liability in an action brought by a private party based on an individual's purchase or consumption of food or nonalcoholic beverages in cases where liability is premised upon the individual's weight gain, obesity, or a health condition associated with the individual's weight gain or obesity and resulting from the individual's long-term purchase or consumption of a food or nonalcoholic beverage.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term "long-term consumption" means the cumulative effect of the consumption of food or nonalcoholic beverages, and not the effect of a single instance of consumption.
[ 2004 c 139 § 1.]
NOTES:
Short title—2004 c 139: "This act may be cited as the commonsense consumption act." [ 2004 c 139 § 2.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.010 - Legislative findings and intent.

RCW 7.75.010
Legislative findings and intent.
(1) The legislature finds and declares that:
(a) The resolution of many disputes can be costly and complex in a judicial setting where the parties involved are necessarily in an adversary posture and subject to formalized procedures; and
(b) Alternative dispute resolution centers can meet the needs of Washington's citizens by providing forums in which persons may voluntarily participate in the resolution of disputes in an informal and less adversarial atmosphere.
(2) It is the intent of the legislature that programs established pursuant to this chapter:
(a) Stimulate the establishment and use of dispute resolution centers to help meet the need for alternatives to the courts for the resolution of certain disputes.
(b) Encourage continuing community participation in the development, administration, and oversight of local programs designed to facilitate the informal resolution of disputes between and among members of the community.
(c) Offer structures for dispute resolution which may serve as models for resolution centers in other communities.
(d) Serve a specific community or locale and resolve disputes that arise within that community or locale.
(e) Educate the community on ways of using the services of the neighborhood dispute resolution center directly and in a preventive capacity.
[ 1984 c 258 § 501.]
NOTES:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.020 - Dispute resolution center—Creation—Plan—Approval by county or municipality.

RCW 7.75.020
Dispute resolution center—Creation—Plan—Approval by county or municipality.
(1) A dispute resolution center may be created and operated by a municipality, county, or by a corporation organized exclusively for the resolution of disputes or for charitable or educational purposes. The corporation shall not be organized for profit, and no part of the net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholders or individuals. The majority of the directors of such a corporation shall not consist of members of any single profession.
(2) A dispute resolution center may not begin operation under this chapter until a plan for establishing a center for the mediation and settlement of disputes has been approved by the legislative authority of the municipality or county creating the center or, in the case of a center operated by a nonprofit corporation, by the legislative authority of the municipality or county within which the center will be located. A plan for a dispute resolution center shall not be approved and the center shall not begin operation until the legislative authority finds that the plan adequately prescribes:
(a) Procedures for filing requests for dispute resolution services with the center and for scheduling mediation sessions participated in by the parties to the dispute;
(b) Procedures to ensure that each dispute mediated by the center meets the criteria for appropriateness for mediation set by the legislative authority and for rejecting disputes which do not meet the criteria;
(c) Procedures for giving notice of the time, place, and nature of the mediation session to the parties, and for conducting mediation sessions that comply with the provisions of this chapter;
(d) Procedures which ensure that participation by all parties is voluntary;
(e) Procedures for obtaining referrals from public and private bodies;
(f) Procedures for meeting the particular needs of the participants, including, but not limited to, providing services at times convenient to the participants, in sign language, and in languages other than English;
(g) Procedures for providing trained and certified mediators who, during the dispute resolution process, shall make no decisions or determinations of the issues involved, but who shall facilitate negotiations by the participants themselves to achieve a voluntary resolution of the issues; and
(h) Procedures for informing and educating the community about the dispute resolution center and encouraging the use of the center's services in appropriate cases.
[ 1997 c 41 § 4; 1984 c 258 § 502.]
NOTES:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.030 - Services to be provided without charge or for fee based on ability to pay.

RCW 7.75.030
Services to be provided without charge or for fee based on ability to pay.
A dispute resolution center established under this chapter shall provide dispute resolution services either without charge to the participants or for a fee which is based on the participant's ability to pay.
[ 1984 c 258 § 503.]
NOTES:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.035 - Surcharge by county legislative authority.

RCW 7.75.035
Surcharge by county legislative authority.
(1) A county legislative authority may impose a surcharge of up to ten dollars on each civil filing fee in district court and a surcharge of up to fifteen dollars on each filing fee for small claims actions for the purpose of funding dispute resolution centers established under this chapter.
(2) Any surcharge imposed shall be collected by the clerk of the court and remitted to the county treasurer for deposit in a separate account to be used solely for dispute resolution centers established under this chapter. Money received under this section is not subject to RCW 3.62.020(2) or 3.62.090. The accounts created pursuant to this subsection shall be audited by the state auditor in accordance with RCW 43.09.260.
[ 1990 c 172 § 1.]
NOTES:
Effective date—1990 c 172: "This act shall take effect July 1, 1990." [ 1990 c 172 § 4.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.040 - Dispute resolution agreement required—When admissible as evidence.

RCW 7.75.040
Dispute resolution agreement required—When admissible as evidence.
(1) In conducting a dispute resolution process, a center established under this chapter shall require:
(a) That the disputing parties enter into a written agreement which expresses the method by which they shall attempt to resolve the issues in dispute; and
(b) That at the conclusion of the dispute resolution process, the parties enter into a written agreement which sets forth the settlement of the issues and the future responsibilities, if any, of each party.
(2) A written agreement entered into with the assistance of a center at the conclusion of the written dispute resolution process is admissible as evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding.
[ 1984 c 258 § 504.]
NOTES:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.050 - Confidentiality of centers' files, etc.—Exception—Privileged communications.

RCW 7.75.050
Confidentiality of centers' files, etc.—Exception—Privileged communications.
Regardless of any provision to the contrary in *chapter 42.17 RCW, all memoranda, work notes or products, or case files of centers established under this chapter are confidential and privileged and are not subject to disclosure in any judicial or administrative proceeding unless the court or administrative tribunal determines that the materials were submitted by a participant to the center for the purpose of avoiding discovery of the material in a subsequent proceeding. In all other respects, chapter 7.07 RCW, shall govern the privilege and confidentiality to be accorded to communications made in conjunction with a mediation conducted by a dispute resolution center established under this chapter.
[ 2005 c 172 § 16; 1984 c 258 § 505.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note: Provisions in chapter 42.17 RCW relating to public disclosure were recodified in chapter 42.56 RCW by 2005 c 274.
Short title—Effective date—2005 c 172: See RCW 7.07.900 and 7.07.904.
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.060 - Withdrawal from dispute resolution process.

RCW 7.75.060
Withdrawal from dispute resolution process.
Any person who voluntarily enters a dispute resolution process at a center established under this chapter may revoke his or her consent, withdraw from dispute resolution, and seek judicial or administrative redress prior to reaching a written resolution agreement. The withdrawal shall be in writing. No legal penalty, sanction, or restraint may be imposed upon the person.
[ 1984 c 258 § 506.]
NOTES:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.070 - Center may seek and expend funds.

RCW 7.75.070
Center may seek and expend funds.
A dispute resolution center established under this chapter may seek and accept contributions from counties and municipalities, agencies of the state and federal governments, private sources, and any other available funds, and may expend the funds to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
[ 1984 c 258 § 507.]
NOTES:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.080 - Statutes of limitations tolled until dispute resolution process concluded.

RCW 7.75.080
Statutes of limitations tolled until dispute resolution process concluded.
Any applicable statute of limitations shall be tolled as to participants in dispute resolution at a center established under this chapter during the period which begins with the date of the participants' execution of the written agreement required by RCW 7.75.040(1)(a) and ends on the date that a written agreement at the conclusion of the dispute resolution process is executed under RCW 7.75.040(1)(b) or a participant's written notice of withdrawal from the dispute resolution process is executed under RCW 7.75.060.
[ 1984 c 258 § 508.]
NOTES:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.090 - Application of chapter.

RCW 7.75.090
Application of chapter.
Nothing in this chapter precludes any person or persons not operating under RCW 7.75.020 from providing dispute resolution services. However, the provisions of RCW 7.75.050, relating to confidentiality, and RCW 7.75.080, relating to statutes of limitation, apply only to proceedings conducted by a dispute resolution center established under this chapter.
[ 1984 c 258 § 509.]
NOTES:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.75 - Dispute Resolution Centers. › 7.75.100 - Immunity from civil action.

RCW 7.75.100
Immunity from civil action.
(1) Members of the board of directors of a dispute resolution center are immune from suit in any civil action based upon any proceedings or other official acts performed in good faith as members of the board.
(2) Employees and volunteers of a dispute resolution center are immune from suit in any civil action based on any proceedings or other official acts performed in their capacity as employees or volunteers, except in cases of wilful or wanton misconduct.
(3) A dispute resolution center is immune from suit in any civil action based on any of its proceedings or other official acts performed by its employees, volunteers, or members or its board of directors, except (a) in cases of wilful or wanton misconduct by its employees or volunteers, and (b) in cases of official acts performed in bad faith by members of its board.
[ 1986 c 95 § 2.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.020 - Applicability.

RCW 7.77.020
Applicability.
(1) This chapter applies to a collaborative law participation agreement that meets the requirements of RCW 7.77.030 signed on or after July 28, 2013.
(2) The use of collaborative law applies only to matters that would be resolved in civil court and may not be used to resolve matters in criminal cases.
[ 2013 c 119 § 3.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.030 - Collaborative law participation agreement—Requirements.

RCW 7.77.030
Collaborative law participation agreement—Requirements.
(1) A collaborative law participation agreement must:
(a) Be in a record;
(b) Be signed by the parties;
(c) State the parties' intention to resolve a collaborative matter through a collaborative law process under this chapter;
(d) Describe the nature and scope of the matter;
(e) Identify the collaborative lawyer who represents each party in the process; and
(f) Contain a statement by each collaborative lawyer confirming the lawyer's representation of a party in the collaborative law process.
(2) Parties may agree to include in a collaborative law participation agreement additional provisions not inconsistent with this chapter.
[ 2013 c 119 § 4.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.040 - Beginning and concluding collaborative law process.

RCW 7.77.040
Beginning and concluding collaborative law process.
(1) A collaborative law process begins when the parties sign a collaborative law participation agreement.
(2) A tribunal may not order a party to participate in a collaborative law process over that party's objection.
(3) A collaborative law process is concluded by a:
(a) Resolution of a collaborative matter as evidenced by a signed record;
(b) Resolution of a part of the collaborative matter, evidenced by a signed record, in which the parties agree that the remaining parts of the matter will not be resolved in the process; or
(c) Termination of the process.
(4) A collaborative law process terminates:
(a) When a party gives notice to other parties in a record that the process is ended; or
(b) When a party:
(i) Begins a proceeding related to a collaborative matter without the agreement of all parties; or
(ii) In a pending proceeding related to the matter:
(A) Initiates a pleading, motion, order to show cause, or request for a conference with the tribunal without the agreement of all parties as to the relief sought;
(B) Requests that the proceeding be put on the tribunal's active calendar; or
(C) Takes similar contested action requiring notice to be sent to the parties; or
(c) Except as otherwise provided by subsection (7) of this section, when a party discharges a collaborative lawyer or a collaborative lawyer withdraws from further representation of a party.
(5) A party's collaborative lawyer shall give prompt notice to all other parties in a record of a discharge or withdrawal.
(6) A party may terminate a collaborative law process with or without cause.
(7) Notwithstanding the discharge or withdrawal of a collaborative lawyer, a collaborative law process continues, if not later than thirty days after the date that the notice of the discharge or withdrawal of a collaborative lawyer required by subsection (5) of this section is sent to the parties:
(a) The unrepresented party engages a successor collaborative lawyer; and
(b) In a signed record:
(i) The parties consent to continue the process by reaffirming the collaborative law participation agreement;
(ii) The agreement is amended to identify the successor collaborative lawyer; and
(iii) The successor collaborative lawyer confirms the lawyer's representation of a party in the collaborative law process.
(8) A collaborative law process does not conclude if, with the consent of the parties, a party requests a tribunal to approve a resolution of the collaborative matter or any part thereof as evidenced by a signed record.
(9) A collaborative law participation agreement may provide additional methods of concluding a collaborative law process.
[ 2013 c 119 § 5.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.050 - Proceedings pending before tribunal—Status report.

RCW 7.77.050
Proceedings pending before tribunal—Status report.
(1) Persons in a proceeding pending before a tribunal may sign a collaborative law participation agreement to seek to resolve a collaborative matter related to the proceeding. Parties shall file promptly with the tribunal a notice of the agreement after it is signed. Subject to subsection (3) of this section and RCW 7.77.060 and 7.77.070, the filing operates as an application for a stay of the proceeding.
(2) The parties shall file promptly with the tribunal notice in a record when a collaborative law process concludes. The stay of the proceeding under subsection (1) of this section is lifted when the notice is filed. The notice may not specify any reason for termination of the process.
(3) A tribunal in which a proceeding is stayed under subsection (1) of this section may require the parties and collaborative lawyers to provide a status report on the collaborative law process and the proceeding. A status report may include only information on whether the process is ongoing or concluded. It may not include a report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation, finding, or other communication regarding a collaborative law process or collaborative matter.
(4) A tribunal may not consider a communication made in violation of subsection (3) of this section.
(5) A tribunal shall provide parties notice and an opportunity to be heard before dismissing a proceeding in which a notice of collaborative law process is filed based on delay or failure to prosecute.
[ 2013 c 119 § 6.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.060 - Emergency order.

RCW 7.77.060
Emergency order.
During a collaborative law process, a tribunal may issue emergency orders to protect the health, safety, welfare, or interest of a party or of a family or household member or intimate partner, as defined in RCW 7.105.010.
[ 2021 c 215 § 91; 2020 c 29 § 1; 2013 c 119 § 7.]
NOTES:
Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Effective date—2020 c 29: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 18, 2020]." [ 2020 c 29 § 19.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.080 - Disqualification of collaborative lawyer and lawyers in associated law firm.

RCW 7.77.080
Disqualification of collaborative lawyer and lawyers in associated law firm.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, a collaborative lawyer is disqualified from appearing before a tribunal to represent a party in a proceeding related to the collaborative matter.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section and RCW 7.77.090, a lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated is disqualified from appearing before a tribunal to represent a party in a proceeding related to the collaborative matter if the collaborative lawyer is disqualified from doing so under subsection (1) of this section.
(3) A collaborative lawyer or a lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated may represent a party:
(a) To ask a tribunal to approve an agreement resulting from the collaborative law process; or
(b) To seek or defend an emergency order to protect the health, safety, welfare, or interest of a party, or family or household member or intimate partner, as defined in RCW 7.105.010, if a successor lawyer is not immediately available to represent that person.
(4) If subsection (3)(b) of this section applies, a collaborative lawyer, or lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated, may represent a party or family or household member or intimate partner only until the person is represented by a successor lawyer or reasonable measures are taken to protect the health, safety, welfare, or interest of the person.
[ 2021 c 215 § 92; 2020 c 29 § 2; 2013 c 119 § 9.]
NOTES:
Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Effective date—2020 c 29: See note following RCW 7.77.060.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.090 - Governmental entity as party.

RCW 7.77.090
Governmental entity as party.
(1) The disqualification of RCW 7.77.080(1) applies to a collaborative lawyer representing a party that is a government or governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality.
(2) After a collaborative law process concludes, another lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated may represent a government or governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality in the collaborative matter or a matter related to the collaborative matter if:
(a) The collaborative law participation agreement so provides; and
(b) The collaborative lawyer is isolated from any participation in the collaborative matter or a matter related to the collaborative matter through procedures within the law firm which are reasonably calculated to isolate the collaborative lawyer from such participation.
[ 2013 c 119 § 10.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.100 - Disclosure of information.

RCW 7.77.100
Disclosure of information.
Except as provided by law other than this chapter, during the collaborative law process, on the request of another party, a party shall make timely, full, candid, and informal disclosure of information related to the collaborative matter without formal discovery. A party also shall update promptly previously disclosed information that has materially changed. The parties may define the scope of disclosure during the collaborative law process.
[ 2013 c 119 § 11.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.110 - Standards of professional responsibility and mandatory reporting not affected.

RCW 7.77.110
Standards of professional responsibility and mandatory reporting not affected.
(1) This chapter does not affect the professional responsibility obligations and standards applicable to a lawyer or other licensed professional or relieve a lawyer or other licensed professional from the duty to comply with all applicable professional responsibility obligations and standards.
(2) This chapter does not affect the obligation of a person to report abuse or neglect, abandonment, or exploitation of a child or adult under the law of this state.
(3) Noncompliance with an obligation or prohibition imposed by this chapter does not in itself establish grounds for professional discipline.
[ 2013 c 119 § 12.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.120 - Appropriateness of collaborative law process.

RCW 7.77.120
Appropriateness of collaborative law process.
Before a prospective party signs a collaborative law participation agreement, the prospective party must:
(1) Be advised as to whether a collaborative law process is appropriate for the prospective party's matter;
(2) Be provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision about the material benefits and risks of a collaborative law process as compared to the material benefits and risks of other reasonably available alternatives for resolving the proposed collaborative matter, such as litigation, mediation, arbitration, or expert evaluation;
(3) Be informed that after signing an agreement if a party initiates a proceeding or seeks tribunal intervention in a pending proceeding related to the collaborative matter, the collaborative law process terminates;
(4) Be informed that participation in a collaborative law process is voluntary and any party has the right to terminate unilaterally a collaborative law process with or without cause; and
(5) Be informed that the collaborative lawyer and any lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated may not appear before a tribunal to represent a party in a proceeding related to the collaborative matter, except as authorized by law or court rule.
[ 2013 c 119 § 13.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.130 - Coercive or violent relationship among parties.

RCW 7.77.130
Coercive or violent relationship among parties.
(1) Before a prospective party signs a collaborative law participation agreement, a prospective collaborative lawyer shall make reasonable inquiry whether the prospective party has a history of a coercive or violent relationship with another prospective party.
(2) Throughout a collaborative law process, a collaborative lawyer reasonably and continuously shall assess whether the party the collaborative lawyer represents has a history of a coercive or violent relationship with another party.
(3) If a collaborative lawyer reasonably believes that the party the lawyer represents or the prospective party who consults the lawyer has a history of a coercive or violent relationship with another party or prospective party, the lawyer may not begin or continue a collaborative law process unless:
(a) The party or the prospective party requests beginning or continuing a process; and
(b) The collaborative lawyer reasonably believes that the safety of the party or prospective party can be protected adequately during a process.
[ 2013 c 119 § 14.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 7 - Special Proceedings and Actions › Chapter 7.77 - Uniform Collaborative Law Act. › 7.77.140 - Confidentiality of collaborative law communication.

RCW 7.77.140
Confidentiality of collaborative law communication.
Subject to RCW 7.77.110, a collaborative law communication is confidential to the extent agreed by the parties in a signed record or as provided by law of this state other than this chapter.
[ 2013 c 119 § 15.]