King County Superior Court Vacates Dismissal of Consumer Protection Act Claim in $2.1 Million Professional Malpractice Case

May 15, 2026 —King County Superior Court granted Albert Law’s request to vacate a prior order dismissing its clients’ Washington Consumer Protection Act claim after new information came to light about who had altered critical escrow instructions that ruined a real estate transaction.

The case is professional malpractice claim involving failed real estate transaction and allegations that the title and escrow company mishandled closing documents. The court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ Consumer Protection Act claim on summary judgment. After that ruling, however, the plaintiffs obtained a discovery response stating that the licensed Limited Practice Officer did not sign the closing agreement and escrow instructions allowing the escrow company to withhold closing documents. Instead, an unlicensed junior escrow officer allegedly signed the document on the officer’s behalf.

The Court found that new information changed its analysis. The order explained that Limited Practice Officers receive a limited license to practice law and must follow rules that prohibit them from allowing others to use their signature, stamp, or LPO number. The court also noted that an LPO’s duties are personal and cannot be delegated to someone who is not licensed.

The court rejected the defense argument that the issue was merely technical. Instead, the court focused on whether the alleged unauthorized signing and changes to closing instructions could support a Consumer Protection Act claim. The court relied on Washington law recognizing that escrow agents and Limited Practice Officers may affect the public interest when they mishandle legal closing documents or fail to follow escrow instructions.

The court also found that the question of causation should go to the jury. The plaintiffs argued that the unauthorized changes to the instructions, without their knowledge or consent, prevented access to necessary funds and led to the failed transaction. The Court agreed that, under the summary judgment standard, the claim should proceed.

As a result, the Court vacated the earlier dismissal of the Consumer Protection Act claim and denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on that claim. Albert Law will continue pursuing the revived claim as the case moves forward.