Also known as: report misconduct of another lawyer · reports misconduct of another lawyer · reporting lawyer misconduct · duty to report · Rule 8.3
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An ethical duty requiring a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct raising a substantial question as to honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to inform the appropriate professional authority. The obligation is limited to serious misconduct and does not extend to information protected by confidentiality rules unless the client consents to disclosure.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Roland Rhodes learns from a county health department inspection form that opposing counsel submitted falsified compliance documents in a hotel negligence case. Roland reports the misconduct to the disciplinary authority after confirming the form qualifies as a public record of a matter observed under a legal duty. The report proceeds because the form's admissibility under the public records exception supplies reliable evidence of the violation.
Rachel Ramirez discovers that her client’s prior lawyer misappropriated settlement funds. The client urges Rachel to stay silent in exchange for private restitution. Rachel reports the misconduct anyway because the information is not protected by confidentiality and the duty to report serious dishonesty overrides the client’s preference.
Rowan Russell reports another lawyer’s repeated forgery of client signatures on engagement letters to the disciplinary board. The reported lawyer sues Rowan for defamation. The court dismisses the suit because Rowan’s communication was made to discharge an ethical reporting duty and is therefore absolutely privileged even though Rowan relied on information from others.
The duty requires actual knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation raising a substantial question as to honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. Knowledge may be inferred from circumstances but is not satisfied by mere suspicion, unverified casual remarks, or information whose reliability is undermined by context such as levity or lack of corroboration.
Yes. The reporting obligation does not require disclosure of information protected by Rule 1.6. When the lawyer learns of the misconduct solely in the course of representing the client who committed it, the confidentiality exception controls and no duty to report arises absent client consent.
Yes when the information is not itself confidential under Rule 1.6. A client’s desire to keep the matter quiet or the existence of a private restitution agreement does not override the reporting duty for serious misconduct such as misappropriation of funds.
Yes. Communications made to discharge an ethical duty to report are absolutely privileged against defamation actions even when the reporting lawyer relies on information received from others rather than personal knowledge.
No. The duty applies whenever the lawyer possesses the requisite knowledge, regardless of whether the information comes from direct observation or from another source, provided the information is not protected by confidentiality.