prosecutor must have both a duty to represent an official and a disability that prevents the prosecutor from representing the official.” Id. at 298. ¶134 The majority recognizes that the Grant County prosecuting attorney’s conflict of interest created a disability, but it concludes that the prosecuting attorney had no duty to Coroner Morrison because Grant County was not the real party in interest and Coroner Morrison “voluntarily inserted himself” into the litigation. Majority at 67. Washington cases have relied on the county being the real party in interest as one basis for requiring a prosecutor to represent a county official but have never held that it is the only basis on which an official is entitled to representation. See, e.g., Lewis, 51 Wn.2d at 202; Osborn, 130 Wn.2d at 629 (<HOLDING>). And to say that Coroner Morrison “voluntarily
holding that the grant county prosecutor had a statutory duty to be legal advisor to the county clerk even though she was not embroiled in litigation in which the county was the real party in interest holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions  holding county clerk sued in official capacity was entitled to the immunity the county enjoyed