§11.3 Historical Development

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§11.3HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

CR 11 became effective July 1, 1967, superseding RCW 4.36.010 and .030. At the time, it was substantially the same as then-current FED. R. CIV. P. 11. CR 11 was amended effective September 1, 1985, substantially adopting the 1983 amendments to the federal rule. Minor amendments, effective September 1, 1990, added a requirement that attorneys provide their Washington State Bar Association number and substituted gender-neutral language where appropriate.

In 1992, controversy over the efficacy of CR 11 spawned much debate in the WSBA Court Rules and Procedures Committee, leading the committee to recommend deleting the sanctions provision, which required trial courts to impose sanctions for violations of the rule. The committee cited three justifications for its recommendation: (1) the sanctions provision is overly broad; (2) other means (such as RCW 4.84.185) adequately protect against truly frivolous litigation; and (3) other rules address discovery abuses. The Board of Governors debated the issues extensively, finally rejecting the committee's proposal and instead suggesting the following sanctions provision: "For a willful violation of this rule, any attorney or party may be subjected to appropriate action as for contempt. Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted." In 1993, the Washington Supreme Court reviewed and rejected the proposal from the Board of Governors, leaving the rule's existing sanctions provision mostly intact. Significantly, however, it changed the word "shall" in the sanctions provision of the rule to "may," making sanctions discretionary rather than mandatory.

In 2002, the Supreme Court amended CR 11 by renumbering the existing rule as CR 11(a) and adding a new section, CR 11(b). CR 11(b) clarified that the requirements of CR 11 apply to an attorney who is not counsel of record in a case but assists in drafting a...