About

Professor Karen Boxx joined the faculty of the University of Washington School of Law in 1997. She teaches in the areas of trusts and estates, community property, property law, conflicts of laws, cannabis law, and professional responsibility. She was co-reporter for the Fifth Edition of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel Commentaries on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and is the reporter for the Sixth Edition. Professor Boxx has served as past Chair of the Washington State Bar Association Real Property, Probate and Trust Section and the Elder Law Section, and has been active in legislative reform, including chairing a WSBA Task Force that drafted major revisions to Washington trust law enacted in 2011. She is a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and participates in its committees related to professional responsibility, elder law, and legal education. Her scholarly work includes numerous publications on estate planning, trust law, and legal ethics, and she has contributed to legal treatises and deskbooks. Professor Boxx is also known for her involvement in legislative reform and her active participation in professional legal organizations.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Law
• Psychiatry
• Psychology
• Business

Selected publications

• Tiptoeing Through the Landmines: The Evolution of States’ Legal Ethics Authority Regarding Representing Cannabis Clients

  Seattle University law review · 2020

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Law
  • Political Science

  Despite the continued federal classification of cannabis as an illegal drug, states have legalized the possession, use, production, and sale of cannabis. In order to do so, the states have created complex regulatory schemes to control and monitor the cannabis industry and satisfy the federal government concerns, such as use by minors and organized crime involvement. First, this Article presents the ethical dilemma of cannabis lawyering. Second, this Article describes the history, evolution, and current status of the various states’ pronouncements on a lawyer’s ethical duties with respect to the business and use of cannabis that may be legal under state law but illegal under federal law. Third, this Article briefly discusses the remaining dangers and concerns surrounding a cannabis law practice. Lastly, this Article concludes by emphasizing that states should clear the path for lawyers to represent cannabis clients by implementing a policy allowing cannabis representation, as such policies not only benefit the lawyers but also benefit the states that now have cannabis programs.

  PublisherOA PDF

• Janus As a Client: Ethical Obligations When Your Client Plays Two Roles in One Fiduciary Estate

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2019-01-01

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Is it possible for an attorney to have a conflict of interest when the attorney represents a trustee who is also a beneficiary of the trust? Is that situation similar to having two clients? What if the trustee is not only a beneficiary, but also a claimant against the trust? Since the trustee has three roles to play, is that situation similar to an attorney having three clients? The issue presented by these potential conflicts was one of the most vexing for the drafters of the Fifth Edition of the ACTEC Commentaries. The range of possible approaches goes from a requirement that a separate lawyer is needed for each role to a view that a client with multiple roles can rely on one lawyer. This article examines the various court and ethics opinions, considers the arguments for the different approaches, and recommends best practices for attorneys when their clients have such conflicts.

  Publisher

• Commentaries on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct

  2016-01-01 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author
  Publisher

• Washington Community Property Deskbook (4th ed.)

  2014-01-01

  article
  Publisher

• Shakespeare in the Classroom: How an Annual Student Production of King Lear Adds Dimension to Teaching Trusts and Estates

  Saint Louis University law journal · 2014-01-01

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  King Lear is the archetypal story of the tension an difficulties in parent-child and sibling relationships. In a Trusts and Estates class, it reinforces the message that those relationships are the starting point and bedrock of this body of law and the vast system of rules that has been developed to resolve these conflicts.This Article first summarizes the plot of King Lear and then describes the process I use to get the play produced by student volunteers. It then sets forth some of the estate planning and lawyering lessons King Lear presents and describes some of the skills I think the play production helps develop. Finally, the Article discusses the less traditional benefits from holding an in-class performance of a play. This Article is part of the St. Louis Law Journal's annual teaching issue, which is devoted to Trusts and Estates in 2014.

  Publisher

• [88WashLRev0813] Washington Trust Laws’ Extreme Makeover: Blending with the Uniform Trust Code and Taking Reform Further with Innovations in Notice, Situs, and Representation

  Washington law review · 2013-10-01

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract: Washington trust laws were comprehensively revised in and 2013, resulting in the integration of concepts from the Uniform Trust Code and the addition of some novel provisions. This article discusses in depth the evolution of Washington law regarding the duties to inform and report, the situs of a trust, and representation of interested parties. In addition, this article discusses other UTC provisions that were integrated into Washington statutes and gives an explanation of any departures from UTC language and prior Washington law.INTRODUCTIONThe Washington State legislature passed a sweeping update of the Washington trust statutes in its legislative session (the 2011 Legislation).1 The Legislation was a product of a Washington State Bar Association task force formed in (the 2003 Task Force) to evaluate the Uniform Trust Code (UTC), which was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2000.2 The Task Force3 initially determined that instead of a wholesale adoption of the UTC, it would develop and propose a bill that incorporated aspects of the UTC but essentially preserve the structure and substance of the existing Washington trust statutes. Washington already had a well-developed statutory framework for trust law as a result of major efforts by the state bar that resulted in legislation in 1984 and 1999.4 Some existing Washington law had even been used as models for UTC provisions.5 The Task Force wanted to retain the groundbreaking innovations already part of Washington trust law while recognizing that there were still gaps and room for improvement. The resulting Legislation, which became law January 1, 2012, included many provisions of the UTC as written, several UTC provisions that were amended by the Task Force to better suit Washington trust practice, and some provisions that addressed issues that were not covered by the UTC but which the Task Force believed were necessary. Implementation of the Legislation raised numerous issues within the Washington practitioner community, and the Real Property, Probate, and Trust section of the state bar formed another task force (the 2012 Task Force) to consider amendments to the Legislation.6 The result of the second task force was Senate Bill 5344, which was signed into law on May 16, and became effective July 28, (the 2013 Legislation).7This Article first gives a brief description of the scope, purpose, and history of the UTC and a brief summary of the status of Washington law on trusts before 2011. It then covers in depth three significant aspects of the Washington and Legislation: the trustee's duty to keep beneficiaries informed, determination of a trust's situs, and representation of beneficiaries by other beneficiaries or third parties. First, the issue of required notice to beneficiaries has been one of the most controversial aspects of the UTC,8 and the new Washington statutes have adopted those provisions with significant modifications. Second, the UTC drafters declined to address the determination of situs because of its complexity,9 but the Task Force believed this was a critical issue that needed resolution. Washington law now contains an innovative provision that redefines situs for the era of cloud computing and national corporate trustees. 10 Third, Washington provisions regarding representation of interested parties by other parties with interests in the trust needed updating. Since 1984, Washington has had a broad virtual representation statute that is more expansive than common law. Both the and Legislation substantially updated that statute by retaining its expansion of the common law doctrine, by including provisions of the UTC and by making the application of the statute more streamlined for modern trusts and estates practice. After discussion of the three most complex areas that were updated, this Article gives a brief description of other UTC provisions that were integrated into Washington statutes, such as a statutory duty of loyalty and codification of cy pres, together with an explanation of any departures from UTC language and prior Washington law. …

  Publisher

• Washington Trust Laws' Extreme Makeover: Blending with the Uniform Trust Code and Taking Reform Further with Innovations in Notice, Situs, and Representation

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2013-10-15 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Washington trust laws were comprehensively revised in 2011 and 2013, resulting in the integration of concepts from the Uniform Trust Code and the addition of some novel provisions. This article discusses in depth the evolution of Washington law regarding the duties to inform and report, the situs of a trust, and representation of interested parties. In addition, this article discusses other UTC provisions that were integrated into Washington statutes and gives an explanation of any departures from UTC language and prior Washington law.

  Publisher

• Too Many Tiaras: Conflicting Fiduciary Duties in the Family-Owned Business Context

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2012-04-15 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Family-owned businesses have been called the “backbone of the U.S. economy,” but passing control of a family business to the next generation is so complex that the majority of family businesses do not survive the transition. A common scenario that leads to problems is where owners want to leave the business to their children but only one child is interested in and capable of managing the business. A popular solution is to leave the interested child an equal share of the business, together with management control, and leave the other children interests in the business in trust, with the manager child as trustee. This raises difficulties for the manager–-trustee because the fiduciary duties of a trustee are much stricter than those of a business entity fiduciary. The children whose shares are in trust may also be disadvantaged if the manager–-trustee child is able to use the lower business fiduciary standard to reduce the value of the trust's’ interests in the business. The resulting uncertainty and litigation increase the likelihood that the business will not survive. This Article first reviews the specific duties owed by trustees and by fiduciaries of the various business entity formats. It then analyzes the theories supporting imposition of fiduciary duty and the purposes of fiduciary duty in the various roles in order to determine what level of duty is essential to the trustee–-business fiduciary. Next it reviews case law where courts have had to identify the applicable fiduciary duty for a dual-role fiduciary. Finally, it argues for a new, hybrid duty that allows for the flexibility to take on risk as needed in the business context and that accommodates the fiduciary’'s personal interests in the business, but still recognizes the vulnerability of the trust beneficiary. A clearer level of duty tailored to this unique position would protect not only the business owners but all who benefit from the continued viability of the family business.

  Publisher

• A Call for Standards: An Overview of the Current Status and Need for Guardian Standards of Conduct and Code Ethics

  Utah law review · 2012-01-01

  article1st authorCorresponding

  The role of trust in guardianships is rarely discussed, perhaps because of the assumption that court supervision of guardians reduces their power to act in any way other than trustworthy. However, as the number of persons needing guardianship protection increases while the resources available to courts to finance supervision decreases, the role of guardian is starting to become a more conventional fiduciary relationship complete with a hallmark downside—lack of supervision. Because of this trend, the concept of delineated standards for performance of a guardian’s duties has taken on critical importance.

  PublisherDOI

• A Call for Standards: An Overview of the Current Status and Need for Guardian Standards of Conduct and Codes of Ethics

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2011-11-30 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  The 2001 Wingspan Conference on guardianship reform included as Recommendation 45 the directive for states to adopt minimum standards of practice for guardians, but progress has been slow. This article explores the historical definition of a guardian’s duties, discusses the increasing call for delineated standards for guardians, due in part to the inability of courts to monitor guardianships adequately, and sets forth the existing standards and codes of ethics for guardians in various states. The article discusses the optimal content and use of standards for guardians and the need for standards as a way to define the fiduciary obligations of a guardian.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Terry W. Hammond

  2 shared

• Katie S. Groblewski

  2 shared

• Philip Jones

  University of Bath

  1 shared

• Samuel A. Donaldson

  Georgia State University

  1 shared

• Ann Mooney Murphy

  Stevens Institute of Technology

  1 shared

• Thomas Andrews

  Stantec (United States)

  1 shared

• Philip N. Jones

  University of Manchester

  1 shared

• Thomas R. Andrews

  University of Washington

  1 shared

Awards & honors

• Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel