Assistant Attorney General Doug Bowling asks appeals court to reverse order forcing state lawyers to represent private behavioral facility

Assistant Attorney General Doug Bowling told a three-judge panel that the Superior Court "unlawfully ordered the Attorney General's Office to represent a private behavioral health facility and the designated crisis responder," and asked the court to reverse that order.

Bowling framed the dispute as a question of statutory text and constitutional boundaries for the Attorney General's authority under the Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA). He said the relevant provision—referred to in argument as Section 130 (RCW 71.05.130)—does not support the trial court's interpretation and that the Superior Court exceeded the AG's role by directing the AG to represent a private facility and a designated crisis responder.

The issue arose from the procedural history of an individual identified in argument as AR. Bowling said AR was arrested in 2023, sent for competency restoration, found incompetent to stand trial, and committed at Western State Hospital for 90 days. After a later petition and order, AR was transferred to Olympic Heritage Behavioral Health in King County; Olympic Heritage filed a new petition in June 2024 to continue detention, which triggered statutory rights including the right to counsel and appeal. Bowling told the panel that a less-restrictive placement was proposed at Aristo Intensive Behavioral Health Treatment Facility in Renton and that the treatment team and facility provided proposed conditions.

A judge pressed whether the appeal was moot and whether the case would affect the individual at issue; Bowling argued King County conceded the appeal was not moot and said the question has broader public importance as state-run ITA facilities expand, potentially producing recurring conflicts between the Attorney General's Office and county prosecutors.

A senior deputy prosecuting attorney for the King County Prosecutor's Office — identified in argument as representing the petitioner and the ITA unit — told the panel there are two primary pathways into the ITA process. The deputy said community 14-day petitions and the pathway carved out in RCW 71.05.130 (the transfer-from-competency-restoration population) are distinct, and the latter involves a special population with criminal-case origins that historically have involved the Attorney General. The county attorney said the King County cause number opened in June 2024 and that the county office had not previously handled the matter, lacked the usual supporting documentation that accompanies 14-day petitions, and therefore had limited discovery and notice in the brief window before the petition's expiration.

The county prosecutor also pointed to RCW 71.05.320 and 2015 amendments that, the deputy said, reflect legislative intent to streamline renewals of less-restrictive orders for this population so they can be processed "quickly and easily," which the prosecutor argued supported placing responsibility with the entity best positioned to renew the orders promptly.

Bowling responded that DSHS and the Attorney General's Office are separate state entities and that the AG practiced in King County only because a DSHS facility opened there. He stressed statutory and constitutional constraints on the AG's authority to provide legal advice to non-state clients and invoked the statute's origin—Section 130 was added in 1973 and expanded in 1979—to argue the provision was designed to assist state hospitals rather than to authorize representation of private facilities. He also cited the statute that lists AG authorities (referred to in argument as RCW 43.10.04) and said exceptions for duties of county prosecuting attorneys must be considered in a plain-language analysis.

Both sides presented statutory readings and policy concerns; judges pressed on the practical consequences (record access, timing of filings, and whether the later petition constitutes a new proceeding or an extension of an earlier commitment). The transcript contains no ruling; the panel moved on to the court's next calendar matter after oral argument concluded.