Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.150 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever a state officer or employee is charged with a criminal offense arising out of the performance of an official act which was fully in conformity with established written rules, policies, and guidelines of the state or state agency, the employing agency may request the attorney general to defend the officer or employee. If the agency finds, and the attorney general concurs, that the officer's or employee's conduct was fully in accordance with established written rules, policies, and guidelines of the state or a state agency and the act performed was within the scope of employment, then the request shall be granted and the costs of defense shall be paid by the requesting agency: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, If the agency head is the person charged, then approval must be obtained from both the attorney general and the state auditor. If the court finds that the officer or employee was performing an official act, or was within the scope of employment, and that his or her actions were in conformity with the established rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines of the state and the state agency, the cost of any monetary fine assessed shall be paid from the liability account.

[ 2010 c 8 s 1005; 1999 c 163 s 6; 1975 1st ex.s. c 144 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—1999 c 163: See note following RCW 4.92.130.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1984–2009 · leading case: Issel v. State, 694 P.2d 34 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Issel v. State, 694 P.2d 34 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Issel's attorney contacted the State Attorney General's office and requested that the Attorney General, pursuant to RCW 10.01.150, either defend or reimburse him for a defense against criminal charges arising from official acts of state employees.”

Sanders v. State, 207 P.3d 1245 (Wash. 2009). “The legislature has not limited the attorney general's duty to represent judges accused of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.”

Sanders v. State, 166 Wash. 2d 164 (Wash. 2009). “070) and when a state officer is accused of a crime (RCW 10.01.150). This case, however, concerns ethical violations, not a tort claim or criminal charge.”

Sanders v. State, 159 P.3d 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.01.150. But this duty turns on an agreement between the officer's employing agency and the attorney general that the officer's conduct was "in accordance with established written rules, policies, and guidelines of the state or a state agency and the act performed was…”

Sanders v. State, 139 Wash. App. 200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.01.150. But this duty turns on an agreement between the officer’s employing agency and the attorney general that the officer’s conduct was “in accordance with established written rules, policies, and guidelines of the state or a state agency and the act performed was…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.