Wash. Rev. Code » Title 59 · Chapter 59.18
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.640 (2026)

Indigent tenants

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose, the court must appoint an attorney for an indigent tenant in an unlawful detainer proceeding under this chapter and chapters 59.12 and 59.20 RCW. The office of civil legal aid is responsible for implementation of this subsection as provided in RCW 2.53.050, and the state shall pay the costs of legal services provided by an attorney appointed pursuant to this subsection. In implementing this section, the office of civil legal aid shall assign priority to providing legal representation to indigent tenants in those counties in which the most evictions occur and to indigent tenants who are disproportionately at risk of eviction.
(2) For purposes of this section, "indigent" means any person who, at any stage of a court proceeding, is:
(a) Receiving one of the following types of public assistance: Temporary assistance for needy families, aged, blind, or disabled assistance benefits, medical care services under RCW 74.09.035, pregnant women assistance benefits, poverty-related veterans' benefits, food stamps or food stamp benefits transferred electronically, refugee resettlement benefits, medicaid, or supplemental security income; or
(b) Receiving an annual income, after taxes, of 200 percent or less of the current federally established poverty level.
[ 2021 c 115 s 8.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—Application—Effective date—2021 c 115: See notes following RCW 59.18.620.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2023–2026 · leading case: Mosm, Llc, V. Allison Deegan & William Shelton, 544 P.3d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mosm, Llc, V. Allison Deegan & William Shelton, 544 P.3d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “Grays Harbor County Superior Court then adopted a standing order dictating that when a tenant defendant appears unrepresented at a show cause hearing or trial, the trial court must inquire whether they want counsel. If so, the court must continue the hearing and refer the tenant…”
Nichole Payton v. Samantha Nelson, 525 P.3d 244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7× “The trial court construed the new right to counsel provision, RCW 59.18.640, as not guaranteeing counsel under the circumstances.”
Sangha v. Keen (Wash. 2025). · cites it 10× “RCW 59.18.640; SPR 98.24W; RCW 59.18.365.”
Sangha v. Keen (Wash. 2025). · cites it 10× “RCW 59.18.640; SPR 98.24W; RCW 59.18.365.”
Orchard On The Green, LLC v. Mervin Hawkins (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 6× “Hawkins’ attorney was appointed by the trial court pursuant to RCW 59.18.640 and compensated by the state via Kitsap Legal Aid Services.”
Thrive Communities Mgmt. Llc, V. Vicki Chang (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “1 DISCUSSION Appointment of Counsel In addition to arguing the merits of her motions that were denied by the superior court, Chang maintains that she had a statutory right to court-appointed counsel under RCW 59.18.640. In 2021, the Washington legislature enacted RCW 59.”
Bolivar Real Est., LLC v. Rochelle Pratt & Diana Pratt (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The Pratts’ attorney had completed the scope of his representation under RCW 59.18.640 and, after several attempts to have the Pratts sign the release agreement, withdrew from the case.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.640(1) — 5 cases
Mosm, Llc, V. Allison Deegan & William Shelton, 544 P.3d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Grays Harbor County Superior Court then adopted a standing order dictating that when a tenant defendant appears unrepresented at a show cause hearing or trial, the trial court must inquire whether they want counsel. If so, the court must continue the hearing and refer the tenant…”
Nichole Payton v. Samantha Nelson, 525 P.3d 244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The trial court construed the new right to counsel provision, RCW 59.18.640, as not guaranteeing counsel under the circumstances.”
Sangha v. Keen (Wash. 2025). “RCW 59.18.640; SPR 98.24W; RCW 59.18.365.”
Sangha v. Keen (Wash. 2025). “RCW 59.18.640; SPR 98.24W; RCW 59.18.365.”
Thrive Communities Mgmt. Llc, V. Vicki Chang (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “1 DISCUSSION Appointment of Counsel In addition to arguing the merits of her motions that were denied by the superior court, Chang maintains that she had a statutory right to court-appointed counsel under RCW 59.18.640. In 2021, the Washington legislature enacted RCW 59.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.640(2) — 2 cases
Sangha v. Keen (Wash. 2025). “RCW 59.18.640; SPR 98.24W; RCW 59.18.365.”
Sangha v. Keen (Wash. 2025). “RCW 59.18.640; SPR 98.24W; RCW 59.18.365.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.640(2)(a) — 2 cases
Mosm, Llc, V. Allison Deegan & William Shelton, 544 P.3d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Grays Harbor County Superior Court then adopted a standing order dictating that when a tenant defendant appears unrepresented at a show cause hearing or trial, the trial court must inquire whether they want counsel. If so, the court must continue the hearing and refer the tenant…”
Thrive Communities Mgmt. Llc, V. Vicki Chang (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “1 DISCUSSION Appointment of Counsel In addition to arguing the merits of her motions that were denied by the superior court, Chang maintains that she had a statutory right to court-appointed counsel under RCW 59.18.640. In 2021, the Washington legislature enacted RCW 59.”
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.