This bill creates a new private civil cause of action against criminal defense attorneys in Washington when a person previously arrested for a violent offense is released from custody before trial as a result of the attorney’s advocacy and then injures someone, on the theory the attorney failed to adequately consider the risk of public harm. It establishes a substantive and procedural framework for that cause of action, including a requirement that "adequate consideration" include a written and published assessment analyzing known evidence about the alleged violent offense and criminal record, the risk of further violence, the vulnerability of prior or likely future victims, and the adequacy of noncustodial alternatives; and requires counsel to consider all relevant and reasonably available evidence, including public records and testimony from law enforcement, experts, crime victims, and victim advocates. The bill bars any form of legal immunity as a defense in these actions, including claims of absolute immunity for defense counsel. Remedies for a prevailing plaintiff may include actual damages (as determined by the trier of fact), at least nominal damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and possible declaratory or injunctive relief. It preserves the existing state or local obligation to provide a legal defense and satisfy judgments in most cases, but creates an exception: if a trier of fact finds by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly disregarded the risk of public harm when advocating release, the attorney is personally liable for the judgment and defense costs, the state or political subdivision must not pay subsequent costs or judgment, and any defense costs previously paid by the state or local government must be repaid by the attorney within one year of judgment. The act amends RCW 4.92.070, 4.92.075, and RCW 4.96.041 to add those exceptions, declares Section 1 to be a new chapter in Title 7 RCW, sets a three‑year statute of limitations running from discovery, directs liberal construction for remedial purposes, restricts application to causes of action arising on or after the effective date, and takes effect January 1, 2026. The extracted text does not say who must prepare or publish the required written assessment, does not provide the text of the definition of "violent offense" beyond referencing RCW 9.94A.030, and omits other procedural and enforcement details.

If enacted, the bill would make criminal defense lawyers in Washington personally more vulnerable to civil lawsuits when a client accused of a violent offense is released before trial and then injures someone, unless the lawyer has completed and published a specified written assessment and considered available evidence and testimony showing the release did not create an unacceptable risk. Plaintiffs who prevail could recover actual damages, at least nominal damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and could seek declaratory or injunctive relief; lawyers cannot assert legal immunity as a defense. The measure also changes who pays for defense and judgments: normally the state or local government still provides and pays for a defense, but if a factfinder finds by clear and convincing evidence that the lawyer intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly disregarded public safety in advocating release, the lawyer becomes personally liable for all defense costs and any judgment and must repay previously paid public defense costs within one year, with the state or locality barred from paying thereafter. The most affected parties are criminal defense attorneys (greater litigation risk, need to document decision-making, and potential personal financial exposure), people injured by defendants released pretrial (expanded ability to sue), and state and local governments (exposure to paying defense and judgments in most cases, but with an exception that can shift costs back to attorneys in proven misconduct cases). The act takes effect January 1, 2026 and lawsuits must be filed within three years of when a plaintiff discovers the claim. It is unclear from the provided text who must prepare or publish the required written assessment, how and when publication must happen, and how repayment and enforcement procedures would operate in practice.