<p>Forensic evaluations that are undertaken to assess a defendant’s mental state at the time of an alleged offense (MSO evaluations) play a critical role in criminal proceedings. In Washington State, however, case law has eroded traditional work product protections, allowing prosecutors to access defense-retained forensic evaluators’ materials (e.g., notes, correspondence, and testing results) even when the defense does not introduce the forensic evaluator’s opinions as evidence. By exposing defense-retained evaluators’ work to prosecutorial scrutiny, Washington’s case law framework contradicts fundamental principles of an adversarial system, thereby raising constitutional and ethical concerns with implications beyond Washington State. This framework undermines the defense’s ability to prepare confidentially by compelling disclosure of materials that were never intended for use at trial. This article explores the ethical and legal dilemmas that arise under this framework, particularly when defendants are incompetent to stand trial or their competence remains unadjudicated. The article examines the risks of compelled disclosure, implications for defense strategy, and potential reforms. It concludes by offering best-practice recommendations for forensic evaluators and defense attorneys, highlighting legal and policy solutions that safeguard both forensic best practices and defendants’ constitutional rights.</p>