Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.44
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.44.030 (2026)

Production of authority to act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court, or a judge, may, on motion of either party, and on showing reasonable grounds therefor, require the attorney for the adverse party, or for any one of several adverse parties, to produce or prove the authority under which he or she appears, and until he or she does so, may stay all proceedings by him or her on behalf of the party for whom he or she assumes to appear.
[ 2011 c 336 s 59; Code 1881 s 3282; 1863 p 405 s 8; RRS s 132.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Engstrom v. Goodman, 271 P.3d 959 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Engstrom v. Goodman, 271 P.3d 959 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “Alternatively, he could have submitted it to the court under RCW 2.44.030. The court, or a judge, may, on motion of either party, and on showing reasonable grounds therefor, require the attorney for the adverse party, or for any one of several adverse parties, to *915 produce or…”
Tori Kruger-willis v. Heather Hoffenburg, 393 P.3d 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “Kruger-Willis appeals the trial court’s decision denying her RCW 2.44.030 motion and ruling that defense counsel had the authority to represent Hofferbert, entering judgment against Kruger-Willis, and denying her motion to reconsider.”
In re Dependency of E.M., 484 P.3d 461 (Wash. 2021). “RCW 2.44.030. This raises the question as to whether an attorney has authority to properly represent a client with whom she has never even met, particularly when that client is a three-year old child who likely will not understand the nature of the proceedings or the role of an…”
Johnsen v. Petersen, 719 P.2d 607 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “RCW 2.44.030 provides: The court, or a judge, may, on motion of either party, and on showing reasonable grounds therefor, require the attorney for the adverse party, or for any one of several adverse parties, to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and until he…”
Citibank v. Daniel Peterson & Kristi Peterson (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “To the extent the Petersons argue that the superior court erred by not requiring the attorneys to provide proof of their authority to act on Citibank’s behalf under RCW 2.44.030, this issue was not properly presented to the superior court, and therefore, we do not consider it.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Kathy Jo Rohrs, V. Joel Damon Rohrs (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “18 Kathy also relies on CR 5(b)(4) and subsection (6) and RCW 2.44.030 to bolster her assertion that, because McGlothin was not her appointed representative during the amended QDRO dispute arbitration, any notice served upon him could not be imputed to her.”
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.