Wash. Rev. Code » Title 21 · Chapter 21.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 21.20.020 (2026)

Unlawful acts of person advising another

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It is unlawful for any person who receives any consideration from another party primarily for advising the other person as to the value of securities or their purchase or sale, whether through the issuance of analyses or reports or otherwise:
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud the other person;
(b) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the other person; or
(c) To engage in any dishonest or unethical practice as the director may define by rule.
This subsection (1) applies whether or not the person is an investment adviser, federal covered adviser, or investment adviser under this chapter or the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
(2) It is unlawful for an investment adviser, acting as principal for his or her own account, knowingly to sell any security to or purchase any security from a client, or act as a broker for a person other than such client, knowingly to effect any sale or purchase of any security for the account of such client, without disclosing to such client in writing before the execution of such transaction the capacity in which he or she is acting and obtaining the consent of the client to such transaction.
This subsection (2) does not apply to a transaction with a customer of a broker-dealer if the broker-dealer is not acting as an investment adviser in relation to the transaction.
[ 2002 c 65 s 2; 1998 c 15 s 2; 1959 c 282 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1979–2018 · leading case: Brin v. Stutzman, 951 P.2d 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brin v. Stutzman, 951 P.2d 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 18× “010 and damages under an implied private cause of action for his alleged violation of RCW 21.20.020. Stutzman appeals the replevin judgment contending, among other things, that the trial court erred by dismissing his malicious prosecution counterclaim.”
Ives v. Ramsden, 174 P.3d 1231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Also omitted from this list is a violation of RCW 21.20.020, which makes it unlawful for a broker "[t]o engage in any dishonest or unethical practice as the director may define by rule," including the recommendation of unsuitable investments.”
Ives v. Ramsden, 142 Wash. App. 369 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Also omitted from this list is a violation of RCW 21.20.020, which makes it unlawful for a broker “[t]o engage in any dishonest or unethical practice as the director may define by rule,” including the recommendation of unsuitable investments.”
Baerlein v. State, 595 P.2d 930 (Wash. 1979). “Plaintiffs point to RCW 21.20.020, .100, .230, .280(5), .360, .”
Halleran v. Nu West, Inc., 123 Wash. App. 701 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The court examined the statute and the sections of the Securities Act relied on by the investors, including RCW 21.20.020, .100, .230, .280(5), .360, .”
Halleran v. Nu West, Inc., 98 P.3d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The Court examined the statute and the sections of the Securities Act relied on by the investors, including RCW 21.20.020, .100, .230,.280(5), .360, .”
Peter Graham, Et Ano., Resps v. Jeffery A. Mascio, Et Ano., Apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “RCW 21.20.020 makes it unlawful for an investment advisor to employ any scheme to defraud investors or to engage in any act that would operate as a fraud on investors.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 21.20.020(4) — 2 cases
Ives v. Ramsden, 174 P.3d 1231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Also omitted from this list is a violation of RCW 21.20.020, which makes it unlawful for a broker "[t]o engage in any dishonest or unethical practice as the director may define by rule," including the recommendation of unsuitable investments.”
Ives v. Ramsden, 142 Wash. App. 369 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Also omitted from this list is a violation of RCW 21.20.020, which makes it unlawful for a broker “[t]o engage in any dishonest or unethical practice as the director may define by rule,” including the recommendation of unsuitable investments.”
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.