Also known as: model rules of professional conduct · model rule · model rules · MRPC · ABA Model Rules
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A collection of standards promulgated by the American Bar Association to guide lawyer conduct and to serve as a model for state disciplinary rules. The rules address duties to clients, the public, and the legal system, including obligations concerning candor, conflicts, and reporting of misconduct.
Miranda Morales learns from a client that another lawyer has misappropriated client funds. The client asks Morales not to report the theft. Morales discloses the misconduct to disciplinary authorities because the information is not protected as confidential.
Megan Moore represents a defendant who insists on testifying falsely. Moore refuses to present the perjured testimony and informs the court after attempting to dissuade the client.
Maya Malik sends truthful letters to individuals known to face specific legal problems. The state bar challenges the mailings, but the practice is protected because it is neither false nor deceptive.
In 1985, petitioner Shapero, a member of Kentucky’s integrated bar, applied to the Kentucky Attorneys Advertising Commission for approval of a letter he proposed to send to potential clients who had foreclosure suits filed against them. The proposed letter stated that it had come to the lawyer’s attention that the recipient’s home was being foreclosed on, suggested that federal law might allow the recipient to keep the home, and offered free information from the lawyer’s office during business hours, urging the recipient to call immediately. The Commission found the letter neither false nor misleading yet declined approval under Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.135(5)(b)(i), which barred written advertisements precipitated by a specific event involving the addressee. The Commission recommended amending the rules to conform with constitutional requirements as interpreted in Zauderer, prompting Shapero to seek an advisory opinion from the Committee on Legal Ethics of the Kentucky Bar Association. The Ethics Committee upheld the prohibition, finding it consistent with ABA Model Rule 7.3. On review, the Kentucky Supreme Court deleted Rule 3.135(5)(b)(i) and replaced it with ABA Model Rule 7.3, which likewise prohibits targeted direct-mail solicitation by lawyers for pecuniary gain absent any finding that a particular letter is false or misleading. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the First Amendment question.
View caseMelissa Mills places an advertisement that includes a required disclosure about contingent fees. The bar seeks to discipline her for the format, but the disclosure requirement is upheld as constitutional.
Michael Miller states on his letterhead that he is certified as a specialist by a recognized organization. The bar challenges the claim, but truthful statements of certification receive First Amendment protection.
Gary E. Peel practices law in Edwardsville, Illinois. He was licensed to practice in Illinois in 1968, in Arizona in 1979, and in Missouri in 1981. Peel has served as president of the Madison County Bar Association and has been active in both national and state bar association work. He has tried to verdict over 100 jury trials and over 300 nonjury trials. NBTA issued Peel a Certificate in Civil Trial Advocacy in 1981, renewed it in 1986, and listed him in its 1985 Directory of Certified Specialists and Board Members. Since 1983 petitioner's professional letterhead has contained a statement referring to his NBTA certification and to the three States in which he is licensed, appearing as Gary E. Peel, Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy, Licensed: Illinois, Missouri, Arizona. In 1987 the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois filed a complaint alleging that Peel, by use of this letterhead, was publicly holding himself out as a certified legal specialist in violation of Rule 2-105(a)(3) of the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint also alleged violations of Rule 2-101(b) and Rule 1-102(a)(1). After a hearing the Commission recommended censure for a violation of Rule 2-105(a)(3). The Illinois Supreme Court adopted the Commission's recommendation for censure in 1989. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, with argument held on January 17, 1990.
Musa Mensah holds a press conference about an ongoing case and makes statements that the bar claims create a substantial likelihood of material prejudice. The statements receive protection because they do not pose that risk.
Gentile, a Las Vegas criminal defense attorney, represented Grady Sanders, the owner of Western Vault Corporation. On January 31, 1987, undercover police officers with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department reported that four kilograms of cocaine and almost $300,000 in travelers' checks were missing from a safety deposit vault at Western Vault. The items had been used as part of an undercover operation conducted by Metro's Intelligence Bureau. Sheriff John Moran held a press conference on February 2, 1987, naming the police and Western Vault employees as suspects. Over the following year, press reports indicated that investigators focused on Sanders and Western Vault rather than the two police officers who enjoyed free access to the vault. Reports described other customers claiming missing items, Western Vault suffering heavy losses and going out of business, police officers being cleared after passing lie detector tests administered by Ray Slaughter, and Sanders refusing a police polygraph. One report noted that $264,900 in currency had been seized from an unrented box at Western Vault. Hours after Sanders was indicted, Gentile held a press conference on February 5, 1988. He stated that the evidence would prove Sanders innocent, that Detective Steve Scholl was the person most likely to have stolen the drugs and checks, and that four of the other alleged victims were known drug dealers and convicted money launderers who had been pressured by police after getting into trouble themselves. Gentile had researched Rule 177 the evening before with two colleagues and concluded that the timing six months before trial and the general nature of his comments placed the statements within the rule's safe harbor. Six months later the criminal case was tried to a jury in August 1988 and Sanders was acquitted on all counts. The trial judge questioned the jury venire about publicity, but not a single juror indicated any recollection of Gentile or his press conference. The State Bar of Nevada then filed a complaint against Gentile alleging a violation of Rule 177. Following a hearing, the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board found that Gentile had made the statements and recommended a private reprimand. Gentile appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the board.
Yes. Rule 8.1(a) prohibits knowingly making a false statement of material fact on a bar application. An interview focused on possible deceptive reporting is a regulatory inquiry that must be disclosed even if no charges result.
Good cause exists when acceptance would likely produce a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. An unconsented concurrent representation of directly adverse clients satisfies the exception even if an ethical screen is in place.
…(c) (1969). Cf. the proposal of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency that a "clear and convincing" standard be adopted. Model Rules for Juvenile Courts, Rule 26, p. 57 (1969). See generally Cohen, The Standard of Proof in Juvenile Proceedings: Gault Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 567 (1970). :…
…Wright & V. Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence §6076, pp. 580–583 (2d ed. 2007) (Wright); see also Variations of ABA Model Rules of Professional
…employment resulting from in person unsolicited advice. Some States, like the American Bar Association in its Model Rules of Professional Conduct
…but nonetheless upheld Rule 3.135(5)(b)(i) on the ground that it was consistent with Rule
…appear fair to all who observe them. Both the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Professional
Yes. Physical travel for strategy discussions and filings directed to an agency in the jurisdiction constitute the provision of legal services, triggering disciplinary authority even if drafting occurred elsewhere.
No. Rule 1.7(b) requires a reasonable belief that competent and diligent representation remains possible for each client. Discovery showing one client bears greater responsibility defeats that belief and requires withdrawal from at least one representation.
Yes. When one client accuses another of misappropriation and the lawyer is asked to support both opposing positions, the conflict is nonconsentable. Rule 1.7 prohibits continued representation and triggers mandatory withdrawal.
Yes. Actual knowledge of repeated forgery and deceptive billing that raises a substantial question about honesty triggers the reporting duty when no Rule 1.6 confidentiality barrier prevents disclosure.