The bill adds a new chapter to Title 42 RCW that generally prohibits local public entities (counties, cities, towns, school districts, special purpose districts, and other municipal corporations or political subdivisions) from contracting with or otherwise procuring legal services from outside counsel. All legal services must be provided by public counsel (as defined) or obtained through interlocal agreements under chapter 39.34 RCW; payments under interlocal agreements may not be used to compensate private attorneys. The bill defines key terms including "legal services," "local public entity," "outside counsel," and "public counsel." The measure makes payments of public funds to outside counsel void and an unauthorized expenditure under RCW 43.09.210 and makes officers or employees who authorize such payments personally liable for restitution. Existing contracts with outside counsel must terminate within 90 days after the act’s effective date and may not be renewed or extended. The attorney general is directed to investigate violations, maintain a roster of public counsel for temporary interlocal assignment, and may impose civil penalties up to three times the improper payment amount. Residents or taxpayers may sue in superior court to enjoin violations, and prevailing plaintiffs may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs payable from the responsible entity’s administrative budget. The bill creates a temporary exception process: a local public entity may petition the attorney general for a written, time-limited authorization to retain outside counsel only if no public counsel is available and delay would cause substantial and immediate harm to public health or safety; authorizations expire automatically after 90 days, may not be renewed for the same legal matter, and any private firm retained under authorization may not contract again with the same local public entity for five years after the authorized services end. The bill does not affect the constitutional duties of the attorney general or prosecuting attorneys and does not restrict a public officer or employee from obtaining private representation at personal expense. Affected parties include local public entities and their officers and employees, the attorney general, the state auditor (which must receive quarterly legal expenditure reports and publish a searchable public database), private attorneys and firms, and residents or taxpayers who may enforce the law. The text provided does not specify the act’s effective date, does not set timelines for the attorney general’s roster or the state auditor’s database publication, and gives limited detail on procedures for investigations, restitution enforcement, and the attorney general’s process for imposing penalties; the bill also references external statutes (RCW 43.09.210 and chapter 39.34 RCW) without reproducing them.

If enacted, local governments would generally have to stop hiring private lawyers and rely on attorneys who are employees of a local public entity or those provided through formal agreements with other local governments. Existing private law contracts would have to end within 90 days, and any payments to outside counsel would be treated as unauthorized spending that local officials could be forced to repay personally; the attorney general could investigate, order civil penalties up to three times improper payments, and grant only short, 90‑day emergency exceptions that bar the same private firm from returning to that client for five years. Counties, cities, school districts, special purpose districts and their officers would feel the biggest effects: they would need to expand or reorganize in‑house legal capacity or rely on interlocal sharing, face new reporting and transparency when the state auditor publishes quarterly legal spending in a public database, and face increased financial and legal risk if they keep using outside counsel (civil penalties, lawsuits by residents, and possible personal restitution by officials). The attorney general and state auditor would take on new coordination, oversight, and reporting duties. Key implementation details are missing from the extracted text, including the bill’s effective date and exact timelines for publishing the roster and database and enforcing restitution.