Abstract
This Comment arrives at the conclusion that Admission to Practice Rule 12.1 (c)(1) does indeed give rise to an unconstitutional taking. Beginning with a definition of an escrow, Part II of this Comment provides an overview of a transaction in escrow and an analysis of the escrow holder's relationship with and duties to his client depositor. Part III discusses the statutory and regulatory constraints imposed on escrow holders under Washington's Escrow Agent Registration Act. Part IV explores the evolution of the limited practice officer in Washington and the advent of Admission to Practice Rule 12. Part V analyzes the takings implicated by Admission to Practice Rule 12. Finally, Part VI offers both a conclusion and suggested alternatives to current practices.
Recommended Citation
Robert C. Farrell, Limited Practice Officers and Admission to Practice Rule 12: Taking or Not?, 23 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 735 (2000).
