Background
A.R. was admitted to Western State Hospital in August 2023 for competency restoration in a felony case. He was transferred between facilities, including Olympic Heritage Behavioral Health (a state hospital) and eventually Aristo Healthcare (a private facility). In February 2024, Olympic filed a petition for a 180-day less restrictive alternative order (LRO), resulting in A.R.’s placement at Aristo. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) represented the petitioner in these proceedings.
When Aristo’s 180-day LRO approached expiration in December 2024, a designated crisis responder (DCR) from Aristo filed a new petition for a continued 180-day LRO. A dispute erupted over whether the AGO or the King County prosecutor should represent the DCR. The trial court ordered the AGO to remain counsel, citing RCW 71.05.130. The AGO appealed, arguing that as Aristo is a private facility—not a state hospital or institution—representation responsibility had shifted to the county prosecutor.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the trial court erred by ordering the AGO to represent the DCR. Under RCW 71.05.130, the statute allocates representation between the county prosecuting attorney (general rule) and the Attorney General (limited exception for state hospitals and institutions). Aristo Healthcare is a private facility, not a state hospital or institution, and therefore falls outside the AGO’s statutory mandate.
The court rejected the argument that the AGO should remain counsel because it had represented prior petitions in the same case. Instead, the court held that each successive petition constitutes a “new petition” under RCW 71.05.320(4), requiring fresh assessment of who must represent the current petitioner. The December 2024 petition was filed by Aristo’s DCR, not by Olympic (the state hospital that filed the June 2024 petition). Accordingly, once the July 2024 LRO expired, the county prosecutor became responsible for representing the DCR petitioner.
The court also determined the case was justiciable despite technical mootness, as it involved issues of continuing and substantial public interest—clarifying recurring disputes over representation responsibility when patients transfer between facilities within a county.
Key Takeaways
- RCW 71.05.130 limits AGO representation to petitions filed by state hospitals and institutions; private facilities’ petitions must be represented by county prosecutors.
- Representation responsibility is determined by the identity of the current petitioner at each successive petition, not by historical involvement or prior counsel assignments.
- Each new commitment petition triggers a fresh assessment of which public attorney must represent the petitioner under the statute.
- Trial courts lack authority to override the statutory allocation of representation duties between county prosecutors and the Attorney General.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies a critical procedural issue in involuntary commitment litigation: the allocation of legal representation between state and local prosecutors. As patients transition between state hospitals and private facilities during ongoing involuntary treatment, the responsible attorney changes accordingly. Without this clarity, parties faced uncertainty over which government counsel would appear, potentially delaying proceedings and disrupting continuity of care decisions.
The holding ensures proper resource allocation within state government, preventing the AGO from being conscripted into cases outside its statutory authority while guaranteeing that county prosecutors—who have primary responsibility for ITA litigation—are equipped to handle new petitions. For healthcare facilities and state agencies, the decision provides important guidance: representation responsibility must be reassessed with each new petition based on the current petitioner’s status under the statute.