New ethics rules affect you
By Mark L. Tuft
|
Tuft |
There are times when lawyers facing an ethics issue will examine the California
rules and wonder what the purpose of a particular rule is and how it applies.
Now is an opportune time to evaluate the thinking behind the professional conduct
rules for California lawyers and participate in the rule making process. The
State Bar Rules Revision Commission has been reviewing the California rules
and developing proposed amendments. Thirteen proposed rules were recently released
for a 90-day public comment period that will end June 6. The proposed rules
can be found at calbar.ca.gov.
This batch includes some of the most important rules that go to the core of
lawyer conduct, including rules regulating fees for legal services, conflicts
of interest among current clients, business transactions with clients, representing
organizations, terminating representation, the purchase and sale of a law practice,
communications with persons represented by counsel and avoiding interference
with a lawyer’s professional independence. There are plenty of issues
in the proposed amendments to warrant the attention of lawyers, bar organizations
and the public.
A little background may help explain why some of these rules may be controversial.
The last comprehensive review of the rules occurred in 1989 with some further
revisions in 1992. When that project began, many states were in the process
of replacing the ABA Model Code with the Model Rules. California decided in
1975 it would not follow the structure of the Model Code mainly because the
code did not lend itself to easy reference and enforcement. The code’s “disciplinary
rules” or “DRs” were a set of minimum standards of conduct
that lawyers must adhere to under threat of discipline. The DRs were grouped
by nine axiomatic norms or “canons” and were preceded by “ethical
considerations” (“ECs”) that were intended to preserve the
larger field of professional responsibility. California’s 1975 rules
were based in large part on the code’s “DRs” with the ABA
numbering system but without the “canons” and the “ECs.”
The Model Rules were developed in 1983 as a result of dissatisfaction with
the Model Code approach. The Model Rules contain black letter rules in a restatement-style
format with explanatory comments. Instead of a code of minimum standards intended
to serve as a disciplinary floor, the Model Rules are intended to reflect the
core of the law governing lawyers. A large majority of the states adopted a
version of the Model Rules in place of the Model Code.
By the late 1980s, bar membership in California had nearly tripled since the
1975 rules were adopted and complaints against lawyers had risen sharply. A
large backlog of cases drew legislative and media attention that eventually
led to the creation of the current disciplinary system. The California rules
were substantially revised in 1989 as a result of these developments and in
response to the 1983 Model Rules. The rules were reordered and renumbered and
added an official “discussion.” The ABA’s restatement approach
was rejected in favor of keeping a set of minimum standards to regulate lawyer
conduct through discipline. Thus, the current rules are not exclusive and lawyers
are bound by other law, including the State Bar Act and court decisions. Lawyers
are told to consult rules and ethics opinions of other jurisdictions for guidance
on proper professional conduct not expressly covered by California’s
rules.
A good deal has happened since the last full-scale review that justifies taking
a fresh look at the structure and scope of the California rules. The ABA made
extensive revisions to the Model Rules in 2002 in light of developments in
the law and the legal profession. In doing so, the ABA retained the restatement-style
format. Important amendments to the Model Rules relating to multi-jurisdictional
practice, confidentiality and entity representation were added in 2003. Most
states have adopted a version of the revised Model Rules while others are on
their way to doing so. California is the only state that currently employs
the “DR” approach originating from the outdated Model Code.
Since the adoption of the current rules, the law governing lawyers has become
increasingly complex. The legal profession is experiencing a rapidly changing
environment. These changes include the expansion of economic markets and client
activities, increasing lawyer mobility and consolidation of law practice, more
in-house lawyers and cross-border practice, technology and greater public scrutiny
of lawyers. These developments have led rule drafters to strive for greater
consistency in codes that regulate lawyer conduct. Today, most California lawyers
are familiar with the Model Rules. Since the 1980s, persons seeking admission
to the California bar have had to pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility
Examination which is based solely on the Model Rules. Court decisions and ethics
opinions often cite to the Model Rules, particularly where the California rules
do not provide guidance.
The rules revision commission has recommended the adoption of the Model Rule
restatement-style format and rule numbering system. Yet, there are many apparent
as well as subtle differences in the proposed rules from the comparable Model
Rules. In some instances, the rule retains the minimum standard rather than
the professional norm. One issue is whether this approach will enhance compliance
or confuse lawyers more. Comments on this and other issues are encouraged.
• Mark L. Tuft is a partner with Cooper White & Cooper LLP in San Francisco
and a vice chair of the State Bar Commission on the Revision of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
|