Washington
Pacific Northwest wildfire recovery, built on California depth.
Overview
Where California Wildfire Practice Continues North
The legal landscape of Washington litigation
Washington's court system follows a four-tier structure. Trial courts of general jurisdiction are organized as Superior Courts across the state's 39 counties, hearing civil claims above limited-jurisdiction thresholds, felony criminal matters, family law, juvenile, and probate cases. District Courts handle civil claims up to $100,000, misdemeanors, traffic infractions, and small claims matters. Municipal Courts hear city ordinance violations. Intermediate appellate review runs through the Washington Court of Appeals, which is organized into three divisions: Division I sitting in Seattle (covering the Puget Sound region), Division II sitting in Tacoma (covering southwest Washington), and Division III sitting in Spokane (covering eastern Washington), with approximately 22 judges across the three divisions. The Washington Supreme Court, with nine justices sitting in Olympia, serves as the court of last resort and is one of the larger state supreme courts in the country.
Civil procedure operates under the Washington Civil Rules (CR), adopted by the Washington Supreme Court, which closely track the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with several Washington-specific variations in pleading and discovery practice. Washington applies pure comparative fault under RCW 4.22.005, which permits a plaintiff to recover even when more than 50 percent at fault, with damages reduced by the plaintiff's proportionate share. Washington joins California, New York, New Mexico, Arizona, and Louisiana as the firm's six pure-comparative service area states. Statutes of limitations under RCW Chapter 4.16 set three years for personal injury (RCW 4.16.080(2)), six years for breach of written contract (RCW 4.16.040), three years for oral contract and fraud, and three years for wrongful death. Washington's False Claims Act framework is Medicaid-specific, codified at RCW Chapter 74.66 (the Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act, enacted in 2012), placing Washington alongside Colorado, Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah as Medicaid-only state qui tam jurisdictions.
Federal practice, the Ninth Circuit, and Washington's wildfire and commercial litigation markets
Washington has two federal judicial districts. The Eastern District of Washington covers the eastern two-thirds of the state, with primary courthouses in Spokane (Thomas S. Foley United States Courthouse), Yakima (William O. Douglas Federal Building), and Richland. The Western District of Washington covers the Puget Sound region and Olympic Peninsula, with primary courthouses in Seattle (which also hosts the William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse for Ninth Circuit proceedings) and Tacoma. Federal appeals route through the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, headquartered in San Francisco, which reviews Washington appeals alongside those from California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Pacific territories. The Ninth Circuit's substantial body of utility-caused fire jurisprudence, developed primarily through California PG&E and Southern California Edison matters, provides cross-jurisdictional appellate precedent that increasingly shapes Pacific Northwest wildfire litigation.
Washington's wildfire history has accelerated dramatically over the past decade. The 2014 Carlton Complex Fire in Okanogan County burned approximately 256,000 acres and was, at the time, the largest wildfire in Washington state history. The following year, the 2015 Okanogan Complex surpassed it at over 300,000 acres. The 2020 Labor Day wind event that produced Oregon's catastrophic fires also drove significant Washington fires, including the Babb Road Fire (Whitman County) and the Cold Springs Fire (Okanogan County), with subsequent fire seasons in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 each producing major fire activity. Washington's utility framework involves PacifiCorp (operating as Pacific Power in southeast Washington), Puget Sound Energy (western Washington), Avista (eastern Washington), and the publicly owned Seattle City Light and Tacoma Power systems. Like Oregon, Washington wildfire litigation proceeds under negligence and gross negligence theories rather than the California strict-liability inverse condemnation framework. Separately, Washington hosts one of the country's most concentrated commercial litigation markets in Seattle, with headquarters for Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, Starbucks, Costco, Nordstrom, T-Mobile, Expedia, and Zillow generating significant commercial, securities, employment, and technology litigation activity.
The firm's Washington representative matter practice
Holdsworth & Inkwell does not currently maintain any attorneys admitted to the Washington State Bar. Washington matters are handled as a Pacific Northwest extension of the firm's California Wildfire Litigation practice, led by Wildfire Litigation Chair Patty Hewes from the Sacramento office, alongside Denver-based Senior Paralegal Erin Brockovich's case-development support across the firm's combined California, Mountain West, and Pacific Northwest wildfire dockets. The substantive overlap between California wildfire utility matters and Washington wildfire utility matters (including the shared Ninth Circuit federal appellate forum, the related but distinct comparative fault frameworks, and similar evidentiary requirements around utility maintenance, vegetation management, and weather forecasting) makes Washington a natural extension venue for the firm's California-anchored wildfire practice. Practice in Washington proceeds through pro hac vice admission of Holdsworth & Inkwell attorneys in specific matters, coordination with co-counsel Washington firms holding direct Washington State Bar admission, and federal-court appearances by attorneys admitted in the Ninth Circuit.
The firm does not maintain a physical office in Washington. Washington matters are handled from the Sacramento office through pro hac vice procedures and co-counsel relationships established for specific matters, with regular travel between Sacramento and Seattle (a two-hour flight) or Spokane supporting hearings, depositions, and trial appearances. The firm's Washington practice scope is concentrated in Wildfire Litigation, although the Seattle commercial litigation market presents potential expansion opportunities should the firm's docket develop additional Washington matter activity. The Ninth Circuit's shared coverage of California, Oregon, and Washington provides natural federal-appellate continuity for the firm's Pacific Northwest practice. As the firm's Washington docket develops, direct Washington State Bar admission for one or more attorneys may follow.
Bar Admission
Practicing in Washington
Attorney licensure in Washington is governed by the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA), which operates under authority delegated by the Washington Supreme Court through the state's Admission and Practice Rules. As Washington's mandatory bar, the WSBA administers bar admission, attorney licensing and records, and the lawyer discipline system under the oversight of its Board of Governors.
Attorneys not otherwise admitted in Washington may appear in individual matters through pro hac vice admission, which is granted case by case by the presiding Washington court rather than by the WSBA itself, and which requires the out-of-state attorney to associate with local counsel admitted to the Washington bar.
Clients are welcome to verify the standing of any attorney working on their matter, whether admitted in Washington, admitted in another jurisdiction, or appearing pro hac vice, through our credentials page and the WSBA's public licensee directory and disciplinary records.
Holdsworth & Inkwell does not currently maintain attorneys admitted to the Washington State Bar. The firm's Washington matters are handled through pro hac vice admission granted on individual cases, in association with local counsel licensed in Washington, and through federal court appearances by attorneys admitted before the Ninth Circuit.
Procedural Notes
Jurisdiction by Jurisdiction
Procedure does not travel the same way across jurisdictions. The notes below capture what is specific to Washington: filing requirements, local rules, and other practical realities of litigating here. That is distinct from the question of admission addressed above.
Personal injury, wrongful death, and property damage claims must be filed within three years of accrual under RCW 4.16.080(2). Washington's three-year tort SOL is longer than the two-year majority among catalog states (CO, GA, IL, TX, NV, AZ, CT, KS, OK, OR, LA post-July 2024, FL post-HB 837, PA) and aligns Washington with New York, New Mexico, and Massachusetts in the three-year tort cohort. Utah's four-year period remains the catalog's longest at the general PI level. The discovery rule applies to latent injury claims where the plaintiff could not reasonably have discovered the injury within the standard period.
Medical malpractice claims operate under a distinctive framework at RCW 4.16.350: three years from the act or omission, or one year from when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the injury, whichever expires later. An absolute eight-year statute of repose operates as the outer limit regardless of discovery. The 'whichever expires later' framing is plaintiff-favorable, contrasting with Nevada's 'whichever occurs first' framework under NRS 41A.097. The eight-year repose places Washington among the longer outer caps in the catalog, comparable to Texas's ten-year repose and longer than Massachusetts's seven-year, Pennsylvania's seven-year, Georgia's five-year, Oregon's five-year, Kansas's four-year, Illinois's four-year, and Utah's four-year frameworks.
Written contract claims must be filed within six years of breach under RCW 4.16.040. Oral contract claims must be filed within three years of breach under RCW 4.16.080(3). Washington's six-year written contract period aligns with the catalog majority (NY, MA, NV, AZ, CT, UT, OR, TN, KS extended) and is more flexible than Pennsylvania's four-year framework. The three-year oral contract period parallels Arizona's framework but provides less time than the six-year oral contract treatment in Oregon and Tennessee. UCC sale-of-goods claims follow a four-year period from breach under RCW 62A.2-725.
Fraud claims must be filed within three years under RCW 4.16.080(4), with the discovery rule providing that accrual is delayed until the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the fraud through reasonable diligence. Washington's three-year fraud period aligns with the catalog majority (NM, TX, FL, CO, CT, AZ, NV, UT) and is more generous than the two-year fraud periods in KS, OK, and PA. The combined three-year tort and three-year fraud framework provides consistent timing for tort and fraud-based claims.
Defamation (libel and slander) operates under a two-year period under RCW 4.16.100(1). Washington's two-year defamation period is longer than the one-year periods in most catalog states (NY, CA, DC, GA, IL, CO, TX, AZ, KS, OK, OR, PA, UT) and aligns with Florida (post-HB 837), Nevada, and Connecticut. The longer period provides more time for defamation matters to develop and is plaintiff-favorable compared to most catalog states.
Washington Tort Claims Act requirements under RCW 4.92 (state claims) and RCW 4.96 (local government claims), covered separately, impose additional procedural deadlines for claims against governmental entities. The 60-day pre-claim filing period and notice content requirements operate as conditions precedent to suit, with missing requirements barring the claim independently of the general SOL framework. The three-year SOL under RCW 4.16.080(2) applies to WTCA claims after the pre-claim filing period concludes.
Washington applies a pure comparative fault framework under RCW 4.22.005. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's proportionate share of fault, regardless of the percentage. A plaintiff who is 99 percent at fault may still recover one percent of damages. The pure comparative framework places Washington among the catalog's pure comparative jurisdictions: California (Li v. Yellow Cab, 1975), New York (CPLR § 1411), New Mexico (Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding, 1982), Arizona (A.R.S. § 12-2505), and Louisiana (La. Civ. Code art. 2323).
Washington adopted pure comparative fault by statute in 1981 (Washington Tort Reform Act of 1981, codified at RCW 4.22.005), replacing the prior contributory negligence rule. The 1981 adoption was relatively late in the nationwide comparative fault movement, occurring after the major 1970s statutory adoption wave (CT 1973, KS 1974, NV 1973, OK 1973, OR 1971, PA 1976). The Washington statute explicitly adopted the pure comparative framework rather than the more common modified comparative framework, placing the state alongside the judicial pure comparative adoptions in California (1975) and the statutory adoption in Arizona (1984).
The 1981 Tort Reform Act also established the several liability framework under RCW 4.22.070, which was further refined through subsequent amendments. The combination of pure comparative fault with the distinctive plaintiff-fault threshold for several liability creates Washington's operational framework, which differs from the broader frameworks in other pure comparative jurisdictions.
Washington's most operationally distinctive comparative fault feature is the plaintiff-fault threshold under RCW 4.22.070. Under subsection (1)(b), if the trier of fact determines that the claimant or party suffering bodily injury or property damage was not at fault, the defendants against whom judgment is entered shall be jointly and severally liable for the sum of their proportionate shares of the claimant's total damages. Under subsection (1), if the claimant has any fault, several liability applies to each defendant for their proportionate share only.
The plaintiff-fault threshold framework is unique among catalog states. Pennsylvania's Fair Share Act uses a defendant-fault threshold (60% threshold for joint and several preservation); Washington uses a plaintiff-fault threshold (zero vs. positive fault). The framework creates strong strategic incentive for defendants to argue plaintiff was at least partially at fault, since any plaintiff fault triggers several-only liability. Conversely, plaintiffs have strong incentive to establish complete absence of plaintiff fault to preserve joint and several liability. The threshold approach is operationally distinctive and shapes Washington multi-defendant tort strategy substantially.
Joint and several liability is also preserved categorically under RCW 4.22.070(1)(a) regardless of the plaintiff-fault threshold for: defendants acting in concert with one another, and defendants where one was acting as an agent or servant of the other (vicarious liability relationships). The categorical preservation operates as a substantive exception to the otherwise broad plaintiff-fault threshold framework. Joint and several liability is also preserved for hazardous waste claims under the Model Toxics Control Act and certain other specific statutory categories.
The combined Washington framework (pure comparative threshold, plaintiff-fault several liability threshold, categorical preservation for concert and agency, hazardous substance preservation) creates one of the more procedurally complex comparative fault frameworks in the catalog. Practitioners must carefully analyze the plaintiff's fault status, the relationships among defendants, and the substantive nature of the claim to determine which liability allocation framework applies.
Washington's Tort Claims Act under RCW 4.92 (state claims) and RCW 4.96 (local government claims) governs tort claims against the State of Washington, counties, cities, school districts, and other governmental entities. RCW 4.92.110 requires written claim filing with the appropriate governmental agency at least 60 days before commencing suit against the State. RCW 4.96.020 imposes the parallel 60-day pre-claim filing requirement for local government claims. The 60-day pre-claim filing period operates as a procedural waiting requirement before suit can be filed, providing the governmental entity an opportunity to investigate, settle, or formally deny the claim.
The Washington framework operates as a pre-suit waiting period measured from the date of claim filing, similar to Kansas's K.S.A. § 12-105b 120-day pre-suit waiting period rather than the accrual-based notice deadlines used in most catalog states (CA 6-month, GA 6-month, TX 6-month, DC 6-month, AZ 180-day, NM 90-day). The shorter 60-day Washington period provides faster procedural turnaround than Kansas's 120 days, allowing claimants to proceed to suit more quickly after fulfilling the pre-claim requirement.
The written claim must comply with specific content requirements under RCW 4.92.100 (state) and RCW 4.96.020 (local government): the claimant's full name, current residence address, and date of birth; the date, time, place, and circumstances of the act or omission giving rise to the claim; a description of the injury or damage; the amount of damages claimed; and the name and address of any witnesses or other involved parties. The claim must be sworn or notarized depending on the specific framework. Content failures and procedural failures can bar the claim independently of timing compliance.
The general three-year SOL under RCW 4.16.080(2) applies to WTCA claims, with the 60-day pre-claim filing period operating within that broader timeline. Practitioners must coordinate the three-year SOL with the 60-day pre-claim filing requirement to ensure both deadlines are met. The combined timeline is more flexible than most other catalog state GTCA frameworks: Tennessee's 12-month GTLA SOL, Oklahoma's 1-year notice + 180-day filing, and Utah's 1-year notice + 1-year filing all provide less total time than Washington's three-year SOL combined with the brief 60-day pre-claim period.
Washington is distinctive among catalog states in not imposing statutory damages caps on governmental tort claims. Most catalog states impose specific damages caps: Florida ($200K/$300K), Nevada ($200K per claimant), Massachusetts ($100K per claimant), Kansas ($500K per occurrence), Oklahoma ($175K per claimant + $1M per occurrence), Arizona (sum certain framework), Tennessee ($300K per claimant + $700K per occurrence), Pennsylvania ($250K per claimant + $1M aggregate for state; $500K aggregate for local), Utah (CPI-adjusted), Oregon (CPI-adjusted), and Louisiana (per-occurrence/per-claimant frameworks). Washington imposes no statutory damages caps on tort claims against the state or local government, allowing recovery up to the full amount of proven damages.
The absence of damages caps in Washington is rooted in constitutional considerations. The Washington Supreme Court in Sofie v. Fibreboard, 112 Wn.2d 636 (1989), struck down statutory damages caps as violating the right to jury trial under Article I, Section 21 of the Washington Constitution. The decision constrains legislative imposition of damages caps on tort claims, distinguishing Washington from most catalog states where state constitutions do not similarly constrain tort reform. The constitutional framework continues to operate as a significant limitation on Washington tort reform efforts, particularly regarding damages caps in tort and tort-adjacent contexts.
The three-year SOL under RCW 4.16.080(2) applies to WTCA claims, paralleling the general tort SOL for private tort matters. The unified timing framework simplifies the procedural analysis: practitioners calculate from the date of accrual three years for the underlying SOL and ensure the 60-day pre-claim filing requirement is satisfied within that timeline. Missing the three-year SOL bars the claim regardless of compliance with the 60-day pre-claim requirement, and missing the 60-day pre-claim requirement bars the claim regardless of timely filing within the SOL.
The Washington framework's combination of the longer three-year SOL, brief 60-day pre-claim period, and absence of damages caps creates one of the most plaintiff-favorable governmental tort frameworks in the catalog. Practitioners with Washington governmental tort exposure benefit from substantial time to develop the claim and uncapped recovery potential, distinguishing Washington from the more restrictive frameworks in most other catalog states.
Washington's Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act under RCW 74.66 provides the state's primary false claims framework, focused specifically on Medicaid fraud. The statute was adopted in 2012 (Initiative 1163 and subsequent legislative refinement) and creates civil penalties and treble damages for false claims against Washington's Medicaid program (Apple Health), with qui tam provisions allowing private relators to bring actions on behalf of the state.
Washington's Medicaid-only framework is narrower than the broad qui tam False Claims Acts in many other catalog states (NY, CA, IL, GA, MA, NM, TX, NV, CT, OR, TN). Washington joins Colorado, Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah in the Medicaid-only state FCA camp, where qui tam relator actions are limited to healthcare fraud claims rather than spanning the broader range of state contract fraud, tax fraud, and procurement fraud covered by general FCA frameworks.
The Washington Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act includes qui tam provisions allowing private individuals (relators) to bring civil actions on behalf of the State of Washington against parties alleged to have submitted false claims to the Apple Health program. Relators must file actions under seal and serve the Washington Attorney General with the complaint and supporting evidence. The Attorney General has the right to intervene in the action and pursue it directly, or to allow the relator to continue the action.
Successful qui tam actions provide relators with a percentage of the state's recovery, typically ranging from 15 to 25 percent when the Attorney General intervenes and from 25 to 30 percent when the relator pursues the action without intervention. The relator percentage framework parallels the federal False Claims Act qui tam structure and similar state FCA provisions in other catalog states. Washington's framework includes specific provisions for relator participation, evidence sharing, and dispute resolution between relators and the Attorney General.
Successful actions under the Washington Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act may recover treble damages (three times the amount of actual damages caused by the false claims), civil penalties per violation, attorney's fees and costs, and investigation costs. The treble damages provision and civil penalties framework parallels the federal False Claims Act remedies under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). The combined remedies create significant exposure for defendants in Washington Medicaid fraud actions.
Washington's anti-retaliation provisions under RCW 74.66.090 protect whistleblowers from retaliation by employers in connection with FCA actions. The anti-retaliation framework provides civil remedies for employees who suffer adverse employment actions based on their FCA-related activities, including reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages. The provisions parallel similar protections in the federal FCA and most state FCA frameworks.
Washington Medicaid Fraud FCA actions frequently involve coordination with federal FCA enforcement under 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Medicaid is a joint federal-state program, so Washington Medicaid fraud cases often implicate both federal and state FCA frameworks. Federal and state prosecutors frequently coordinate investigations, and qui tam actions may proceed in federal court (for federal FCA claims involving Medicaid's federal match) and Washington state court (for state FCA claims involving state Medicaid funds) simultaneously.
Practitioners with Washington Medicaid fraud exposure must understand the coordination between federal and state frameworks and the strategic implications of parallel actions. The Medicaid-only Washington framework limits qui tam exposure to healthcare claims rather than the broader range of state contract fraud covered by general FCA frameworks, requiring practitioners to identify whether claims fall within the Medicaid-specific scope or require alternative enforcement mechanisms for non-Medicaid state-funded program fraud.
Attorneys are licensed only in the jurisdictions listed in their individual credentials. Admission to practice varies by attorney and by court; nothing on this page implies licensure in any jurisdiction not expressly stated.
Locations
Counsel Built Around the Matter
Holdsworth & Inkwell staffs each matter with the attorneys it calls for, not simply whichever office happens to sit closest. The same preparation and oversight apply whether that team is based in-state or drawn from elsewhere in the firm's office network.
Wildfire litigation, insurance recovery, and complex commercial disputes reward depth in the specific issue at hand. The firm draws that depth from within the practice and applies it here under the same standard as everywhere else.
That is simply how the firm works: one practice, assembled around the matter rather than around the map.
headquarters
Sacramento
The firm's founding office and headquarters since 1962, located one block from the California State Capitol.
regional
Atlanta
Southeast office opened 2008 near the Georgia State Capitol, anchoring the firm's False Claims Act practice in the Eleventh Circuit.
regional
Austin
Texas office opened 2014 near the State Capitol, anchoring insurance recovery for Texas and Oklahoma severe weather events.
regional
Denver
Mountain West office opened 2019 near the Colorado State Capitol, covering wildfire litigation and Tenth Circuit federal practice.
Matters
Record in Washington
What follows is not a description of capability but a record of it: matters the firm has actually handled touching Washington, shown as they occurred. Some service-area jurisdictions carry a long docket; a jurisdiction reached through admission rather than a resident office will often carry fewer entries, and that reflects how the practice is structured, not a gap in it. Whatever is shown below is presented as what happened, not as what the firm expects to happen again.
Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every engagement is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances.
The practice behind the reach
Beyond the Jurisdiction
The wildfire work that reaches Washington is one continuous practice, not a separate one. Explore the wildfire litigation practice, or get in touch about a specific matter.