§2A.8 Strategic and Practical Considerations

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§2A.8 STRATEGIC AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Stipulations between parties or counsel should be reduced to writing and signed by the parties and/or counsel. Informal communications and letter exchanges between counsel—although perfectly proper and effective in most cases—do not necessarily meet the requirements of CR 2A and, even if ultimately enforceable, may result in unnecessary disagreements and expenditure of resources.

Practice Tip: A prudent lawyer should practice as though the court will strictly interpret CR 2A and RCW 2.44.010(1) and should scrupulously comply with the provisions of both. Counsel should not rely upon the dicta in Stottlemyre v. Reed, 35 Wn.App. 169, 665 P.2d 1383, review denied, 100 Wn.2d 1015 (1983), or Lavigne v. Green, 106 Wn.App. 12, 23 P.3d 515 (2001), as permitting any deviation from either the civil rule or the statute.

In light of the prerequisites of CR 2A, it may be prudent to have a court reporter present for all proceedings with the court that are not otherwise reported, or to confirm any oral agreement with a written agreement between counsel.

Practice Tip: To reduce the possibility that a party will change his or her mind about a stipulation or claim that counsel lacked authority to enter into a stipulation, you should consider having the parties and counsel expressly agree to the terms of the stipulation whether on the record in open

...