Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.12.010 (2026)

Barratry

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state.
[ 2001 c 310 s 3. Prior: 1995 c 285 s 27; 1915 c 165 s 1; 1909 c 249 s 118; Code 1881 s 901; 1873 p 204 s 100; 1854 p 92 s 91; RRS s 2370.]

Notes:

Purpose—Effective date—2001 c 310: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Effective date—1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.
Attorneys-at-law: Chapter 2.44 RCW.
State bar act: Chapter 2.48 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. Sullivan, 19 P.3d 1012 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sullivan, 19 P.3d 1012 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 33× “, Sullivan, in violation of RCW 9.12.010. Review was granted on May 18, 2000.”
State v. Sullivan, 143 Wash. 2d 162 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 33× “, Sullivan, in violation of RCW 9.12.010. Review was granted on May 18, 2000.”
Danzig v. Danzig, 904 P.2d 312 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 14× “Such a contract would be illegal, as to the lawyer, under RCW 9.12.010, Washington's barratry statute.”
State v. Duffey, 981 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 11× “The State charged Timothy Charles Duffey 1 with barratry, RCW 9.12.010, alleging that the “Demand for Particulars” (Demand) Duffey served on the police officers who had cited him for traffic offenses purported to be or resembled a “judicial process.”
State v. Scott, 757 P.2d 492 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “100); "barratry" (RCW 9.12.010). Under the majority's holding, a defendant is constitutionally entitled to instruction on technical definitions if they are within the listed elements of a crime, but not if they are elsewhere in the criminal code.”
Giambattista v. Nat'l Bank of Com., 586 P.2d 1180 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 8× “123 (1910); RCW 9.12.010. [1] We agree with the modern definition of these doctrines as stated by the Supreme Court of Oregon: Champerty is the intermeddling of a stranger in the litigation of another, for profit, and maintenance is the financing of such intermeddling.”
State v. Knowles, 957 P.2d 797 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “110(25)(d) and (j), and one count of barratry, in violation of RCW 9.12.010. At trial, Knowles moved to dismiss, arguing that the intimidating statute is unconstitutionally overbroad.”
State Of Washington v. Philip G. Kong (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “On January 15, 2016, the State amended the information to add a charge of barratry in violation of RCW 9.12.010. The State also alleged that the theft was a major economic offense under RCW 9.”
Lyon v. Thurston Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2025). “47 at 31-33; see also RCW 9.12.010. For reasons discussed throughout this 17 opinion, none of their arguments in support of this claim are persuasive.”
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.