Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.19
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.19.180 (2026)

Confidential communications

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An individual credentialed under this chapter shall not disclose the written acknowledgment of the disclosure statement pursuant to RCW 18.19.060 nor any information acquired from persons consulting the individual in a professional capacity when that information was necessary to enable the individual to render professional services to those persons except:
(1) With the written consent of that person or, in the case of death or disability, the person's personal representative, other person authorized to sue, or the beneficiary of an insurance policy on the person's life, health, or physical condition;
(2) That a person credentialed under this chapter is not required to treat as confidential a communication that reveals the contemplation or commission of a crime or harmful act;
(3) If the person is a minor, and the information acquired by the person credentialed under this chapter indicates that the minor was the victim or subject of a crime, the person credentialed may testify fully upon any examination, trial, or other proceeding in which the commission of the crime is the subject of the inquiry;
(4) If the person waives the privilege by bringing charges against the person credentialed under this chapter;
(5) In response to a subpoena from a court of law or the secretary. The secretary may subpoena only records related to a complaint or report under chapter 18.130 RCW;
(6) As required under chapter 26.44 RCW; or
(7) When disclosure of health care information is permitted under chapter 70.02 RCW.
[ 2025 c 83 s 2; 2023 c 425 s 17; 2001 c 251 s 24; 1991 c 3 s 33; 1987 c 512 s 11.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 425 ss 1-7, 13-20, and 22-26: See note following RCW 18.83.170.
Severability—2001 c 251: See RCW 18.225.900.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1996–2001 · leading case: Hamilton v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 109 Wash. App. 718 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hamilton v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 109 Wash. App. 718 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 11× “Hamilton contends that the court erred in concluding that the counselor-patient privilege provided *721 by RCW 18.19.180 does not apply in dependency proceedings, and by ordering the testimony of her counselors and the production of evidence from the clinic she attended.”
In Re Jf, 37 P.3d 1227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “According to Hamilton, the State failed to produce sufficient admissible evidence to sustain a finding of dependency.”
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). · cites it 6× “See Wash. Rev. Code § 18.19.180 (1994) (disclosure of information required "[i]n response to a subpoena from a court of law").”
CJC v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 985 P.2d 262 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals applied RCW 18.19.180, the client-counselor statute, to find a privilege.”
C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 138 Wash. 2d 699 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals applied RCW 18.19.180, the client-counselor statute, to find a privilege.”
State v. Ackerman, 953 P.2d 816 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “RCW 18.19.180. In State v. Warner, 125 Wn.”
State v. Diemel, 914 P.2d 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “4 See RCW 18.19.180(5). 5 CrR 4.7(d). 6 Pitchie, 480 U.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.19.180(1) — 1 case
State v. Ackerman, 953 P.2d 816 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 18.19.180. In State v. Warner, 125 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.19.180(3) — 1 case
State v. Ackerman, 953 P.2d 816 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 18.19.180. In State v. Warner, 125 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.19.180(5) — 3 cases
Hamilton v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 109 Wash. App. 718 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Hamilton contends that the court erred in concluding that the counselor-patient privilege provided *721 by RCW 18.19.180 does not apply in dependency proceedings, and by ordering the testimony of her counselors and the production of evidence from the clinic she attended.”
In Re Jf, 37 P.3d 1227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “According to Hamilton, the State failed to produce sufficient admissible evidence to sustain a finding of dependency.”
State v. Diemel, 914 P.2d 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “4 See RCW 18.19.180(5). 5 CrR 4.7(d). 6 Pitchie, 480 U.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.19.180(6) — 2 cases
Hamilton v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 109 Wash. App. 718 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Hamilton contends that the court erred in concluding that the counselor-patient privilege provided *721 by RCW 18.19.180 does not apply in dependency proceedings, and by ordering the testimony of her counselors and the production of evidence from the clinic she attended.”
In Re Jf, 37 P.3d 1227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “According to Hamilton, the State failed to produce sufficient admissible evidence to sustain a finding of dependency.”
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.