Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.570 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The attorney general's office shall publish, and update when appropriate, a pamphlet, written in plain language, explaining this chapter.
(2) The attorney general, by February 1, 2006, shall adopt by rule advisory model rules for state and local agencies, as defined in RCW 42.56.010, addressing the following subjects:
(a) Providing fullest assistance to requestors;
(b) Fulfilling large requests in the most efficient manner;
(c) Fulfilling requests for electronic records; and
(d) Any other issues pertaining to public disclosure as determined by the attorney general.
(3) The attorney general, in his or her discretion, may from time to time revise the model rules.
(4) Local agencies should consult the advisory model rules when establishing local ordinances for compliance with the requirements and responsibilities of this chapter.
(5) The attorney general must establish a consultation program to provide information for developing best practices for local agencies requesting assistance in compliance with this chapter including, but not limited to: Responding to records requests, seeking additional public and private resources for developing and updating technology information services, and mitigating liability and costs of compliance. The attorney general may develop the program in conjunction with the advisory model rule and may collaborate with the chief information officer, the state archivist, and other relevant agencies and organizations in developing and managing the program.
(6) The state archivist must offer and provide consultation and training services for local agencies on improving record retention practices.
[ 2019 c 372 s 2; 2017 c 303 s 4; 2007 c 197 s 8. Prior: 2005 c 483 s 4; 2005 c 274 s 290; 1992 c 139 s 9. Formerly RCW 42.17.348.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · leading case: Forbes v. City of Gold Bar, 288 P.3d 384 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Forbes v. City of Gold Bar, 288 P.3d 384 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Pursuant to RCW 42.56.570(2) and (3), the legislature directed the attorney general to adopt advisory model rules on public records compliance setting forth the “best practices” for compliance with the PRA.”
Sargent v. Seattle Police Dep't, 260 P.3d 1006 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “This suggestion overlooks several practical realities, including personnel changes, the passage of time, and the fact that the request log is unlikely to be maintained in the squad room.”
John Doe v. Benton Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “520 to address an agency's obligations in responding to unclear records requests.”
Ron Gipson v. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 42.56.570; Sargent, 167 Wn. App. at 11 n.”
Health Pros Nw., Inc. V State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “HPNW relies on former WAC 44- 14-04003(4)(b) in support of its claim that an agency must provide a reasonable estimate of when it will “fully respond” to a request.”
Gipson v. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. 2019). “RCW 42.56.570(2). -14- Gipson V. Snohomish County, 96164-6 (Stephens, J.”
Palmer D. Strand, et ux v. Council 2-Washington State Council of Cnty. & City Employees (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The factors are: (1) Whether the entity performs a government function; 3 Recodified as RCW 42.56.570 pursuant to LAWS OF 2005, ch.”
Est. of Jonny Torres v. Kennewick Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Finally, RCW 42.56.570(1) charges the attorney general’s office with publishing and updating a pamphlet explaining the PRA.”
Cousins v. Dep't of Corr. (Wash. 2024). “See RCW 42.56.570; Kilduff v. San Juan County, 194 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.570(1) — 1 case
Est. of Jonny Torres v. Kennewick Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Finally, RCW 42.56.570(1) charges the attorney general’s office with publishing and updating a pamphlet explaining the PRA.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.570(2) — 3 cases
Forbes v. City of Gold Bar, 288 P.3d 384 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Pursuant to RCW 42.56.570(2) and (3), the legislature directed the attorney general to adopt advisory model rules on public records compliance setting forth the “best practices” for compliance with the PRA.”
Health Pros Nw., Inc. V State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “HPNW relies on former WAC 44- 14-04003(4)(b) in support of its claim that an agency must provide a reasonable estimate of when it will “fully respond” to a request.”
Gipson v. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. 2019). “RCW 42.56.570(2). -14- Gipson V. Snohomish County, 96164-6 (Stephens, J.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.570(4) — 1 case
John Doe v. Benton Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “520 to address an agency's obligations in responding to unclear records requests.”
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.