CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

A

PRINTED BY

MARTINDALE-HUBBELL, INC.

AS A SERVICE TO THE

LEGAL PROFESSION

V

, =

Preface

On August 14, 1964, at the request of President Lewis F. Powell, Jr., the House of Dele-gates of the American Bar Association created the Special Committee on Evaluation of Ethical Standards to examine the current Canons of Professional Ethics and to make recommendations for changes. Your Committee has been at work since that time with the extremely competent assistance of its Reporter, Professor John F. Sutton, Jr., of the University of Texas School of Law. Since August of 1967 we have been aided by Mrs. Sarah Ragle Weddington, a member of the Texas Bar, who has served as Assistant to Mr. Sutton. The supporting research work was conducted under the supervision of Mr. Sutton in his capacity as Director of a research project for the American Bar Foundation. We also acknowledge with thanks the effective help of Frederick R. Franklin of the American Bar Association Division of Professional Service Activities, who served as Staff Assistant in the crowded latter months of our work.

After substantial study and a number of meetings, we concluded that the present Canons needed revision in four principal particulars: (1) There are important areas involving the conduct of lawyers that are either only partially covered in or totally omitted from the Canons; (2) Many Canons that are sound in substance are in need of editorial revision: (3) Most of the Canons do not lend themselves to practical sanctions for violations; and (4) Changed and changing conditions in our legal system and urbanized society require new statements of professional principles.

The original 32 Canons of Professional Ethics were adopted by the American Bar As-sociation in 1908. They were based principally on the Code of Ethics adopted by the Alabama State Bar Association in 1887, which in turn had been borrowed largely from the lectures of Judge George Sharswood, published in 1854 under the title of Professional Ethics. Since then a limited number of amendments have been adopted on a piecemeal basis.

The thought of studying the Canons of Professional Ethics with a view of possible re-vision is not a new one,. In 1928, 1933 and 1937 special committees of the American Bar Association, appointed for the purpose of investigating the subject, made reports recom-mending overall revisions, but nothing came of these efforts. In 1954 a distinguished com-mittee of the American Bar Foundation made extensive studies of the Canons and recom-mended further work in the field, but the subject lay fallow for ten more years until the creation of our Committee.

As far back as 1934 Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) Harlan Fiske Stone, in his memorable address entitled The Public Influence of the Bar, made this observation:

Before the Bar can function at all as a guai.dian of the public interests committed to its care, there must be appraisal and comprehension of the new conditions, and the changed relationship of the lawyer to his clients, to his professional brethren and to the public. That appraisal must pass beyond the petty details of form and manners which have been so largely the subject of our Codes of Ethics, to more fundamental consideration of the way in which our professional activities affect the welfare of society as a whole. Our canons of ethics for the most part are generalizations designed for an earlier era.

Our studies led us unanimously to the conclusion that the need for change in the state-ments of professional responsibility of lawyers could not be met by merely amending the present Canons. A new Code of Professional Responsibility could be the only answer.

While the opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics of the American Bar As-sociation have been published and given fairly wide distribution with resulting value to the bench and bar, they certainly are not conclusive as to the adequacy of the present Canons. Because the opinions are necessarily interpretations of the existing Canons, they tend to support the Canons and are critical of them only in the most unusual case. Since a large number of requests for opinions from the Committee on Professional Ethics deal with the etiquette of law practice, advertising, partnership names, announcements and the like, there has been a tendency for many lawyers to assume that this is the exclusive field of in-terest of the Committee and that it is not concerned with the more serious questions of professional standards and obligations.

The present Canons are not an effective teaching instrument and they fail to give guid-ance, to young lawyers beyond the language of the Canons themselves. There is no organized interrelationship of the Canons and they often overlap. They are not cast in language designed for disciplinary enforcement and many abound with quaint expressions of the past. The present Canons, nevertheless, contain many provisions that are sound in substande, and all of these have been brought forward in the proposed Code.

In our studies and meetings we have relied heavily upon the monumental Legal Ethics (1953) of Henry S. Drinker, who served with great distinction for nine years as Chairman of the Committee on Professional Ethics (known in his day as the Committee on Profes-sional Ethics and Grievances) of the American Bar Association.

We have had constant recourse to the opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics. These opinions were collected and published in a single volume in 1967; since that time we have been favored with all opinions of the Committee in loose-leaf form.

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have necessitated intensive studies of certain Canons. Among the landmark cases in this regard are NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S. Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963), Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1113, 12 L.Ed.2d 89 (1964), and United Mine Workers v. Ill. State Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217, 88 S. Ct. 353, 19 L.Ed.2d 426 (1967). It is not here neces-sary to comment in detail on these far-reaching rulings since they are familiar to all lawyers.

Als

o in

recent y

ears

the S

upre

me C

ourt o

f the U

nite

d S

tate

s h

as m

ade im

porta

nt p

ro-

no

un

ce

me

nts

in th

e a

rea

s o

f ad

mis

sio

n to

the

ba

r an

d d

iscip

line

of la

wye

rs. W

itho

ut

atte

mptin

g a

n e

xhaustiv

e c

ata

logue in

this

regard

, we re

fer to

Se

hw

are

v. B

d. o

f Ba

r Exa

m-

iners, 3

53

U.S

. 23

2, 7

7 S

. Ct. 7

52

, 1 L

Ed

.2d

96

(19

57

), Sp

eva

ek v

. Kle

in, 3

85 U

.S. 5

11, 8

7

S. C

t. 62

5, 1

7 L

.Ed

2d

75

4 (1

96

7), a

nd

In re

Ru

ff alo

, 390 U

S. 5

44, 8

8 S

. Ct. 1

222. 2

0

L.E

d.2

d 1

17 (1

968).

Ou

r Co

mm

ittee

ha

s h

eld

me

etin

gs w

ith 3

7 m

ajo

r un

its o

f the

pro

fessio

n a

nd

ha

s c

or-

responded w

ith m

ore

than 1

00 a

dditio

nal g

roups. T

he e

ntire

Com

mitte

e h

as m

et a

tota

l of

71

da

ys a

nd

the

ed

itoria

l su

bco

mm

ittee

of th

ree

me

mb

ers

ha

s m

et 2

8 a

dd

ition

al d

ays.

Geoffre

y C

. Ha

za

rd, J

r., of C

hic

ag

o, Illin

ois

, Dire

cto

r of th

e A

me

rica

n B

ar F

ou

nd

atio

n,

John G

. Bonom

i, of N

ew

York

, New

York

, a m

em

ber o

f the A

.B.A

. Specia

l Com

mitte

e o

n

Evalu

atio

n o

f Dis

cip

linary

Enfo

rcem

ent, a

nd P

aul C

arrin

gto

n, o

f Dalla

s, T

exas, a

mem

ber

of th

e A

.B.A

. Sp

ecia

l Co

mm

ittee

on

Ava

ilab

ility o

f in

Legal S

erv

ices, a

ttended m

any o

f our

me

etin

g, a

nd

ea

ch

ma

de

inva

lua

ble

su

gg

estio

ns

the c

ours

e o

f our d

elib

era

tions.

La

wre

nce

E. W

als

h, o

f Ne

w Y

ork

, Ne

w Y

ork

, se

rve

d a

s a

me

mb

er o

f ou

r Co

mm

ittee

in

the firs

t two y

ears

of its

exis

tence a

nd re

ndere

d d

istin

ctiv

e s

erv

ice in

that p

erio

d.

"The C

ode o

f Pro

fessio

nal R

esponsib

ility v

ies a

dopte

d b

y th

e H

ouse o

f D

ele

gate

s o

f the A

meric

an B

ar A

ssocia

tion o

n A

ugust 12. 1

96

9 to

be

com

e

effe

ctiv

e fo

r Am

eric

an B

ar A

ssocia

tion m

em

bers

on J

anuary

1, 1

970."

0 C

op

yrig

ht 1

96

9 b

y A

me

rica

n B

ar A

sso

cia

tion

CO

DE

OF

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

L R

ES

PO

NS

IBIL

ITY

Ta

ble

of C

on

ten

ts

Page

PR

EA

MB

LE

AN

D P

RE

LIM

INA

RY

ST

AT

EM

EN

T

i

CA

NO

N i. A

LA

WY

ER

SH

OU

LD

assist: IN

MA

INT

AIN

ING

TH

E n

zra

narrz

A. C

OM

PE

TE

NC

E

OF

ma L

EG

AL

PR

OF

ES

SIO

N

3

Eth

ical C

onsid

era

tions

3

Dis

cip

linary

Rule

s

3

DR

1-1

01 M

ain

tain

ing In

tegrity

and C

om

pete

nce o

f the L

egal P

rofe

ssio

n

3

DR

1-1

02 M

isconduct

3

DR

1-1

03

Dis

clo

su

re o

f Info

rma

tion

to A

uth

oritie

s

3

CA

NO

N 2

. A

LA

WY

ER

SH

OU

LD

AS

SIS

T T

HE

LE

GA

LP

RO

FE

SS

ION

IN F

UL

FIL

LIN

G rrs

DU

TY

TO

MA

CE

LE

GA

L C

OU

NS

EL

AV

AIL

AB

LE

5

Eth

ical C

onsid

era

tions

5

Recognitio

n o

f Legal P

roble

ms

S

ele

ctio

n o

f a L

aw

ye

r: Ge

ne

rally

,

S

ele

ctio

n o

f a L

aw

yer: P

rofe

ssio

nal N

otic

es a

nd L

istin

gs

5

Fin

an

cia

l Ab

ility to

Em

plo

y C

ou

nse

l: Ge

ne

rally

F

ina

ncia

l Ab

ility S

c E

mp

loy C

ou

nse

l: Pe

rso

ns A

ble

to P

ay R

ea

so

na

ble

Fe

es

2

Fin

ancia

l Ability

to E

mplo

y C

ounsel: P

ers

ons U

nable

to P

ay R

easonable

Fees

6

Accepta

nce a

nd R

ete

ntio

n o

f Em

plo

ym

ent

6

Dis

cip

linary

Rule

s

7

DR

2-1

01

Pu

blic

ity in

Ge

ne

ral

7

DR

2-1

02 P

rofe

ssio

nal N

otic

es, L

ette

rheads, O

ffices, a

nd L

aw

Lis

ts

7

DR

2-1

03 R

ecom

mendatio

n o

f Pro

fessio

nal E

mplo

ym

ent

8

DR

2-1

04

Su

gg

estio

n o

f Ne

ed

of L

eg

al S

erv

ice

s

9

DR

2-1

05

Lim

itatio

n o

f Pra

ctic

e

9

DR

2-1

06 F

ees fo

r Legal S

erv

ices

9

DR

2-1

07 D

ivis

ion o

f Fees A

mong L

aw

yers

9

DR

2-1

08 A

gre

em

ents

Restric

ting th

e P

ractic

e o

f a L

aw

yer

9

DR

2-1

09 A

ccepta

nce o

f Em

plo

ym

ent

9

DR

2-1

10 W

ithdra

wal fro

m E

mplo

ym

ent

9

CA

NO

N 3

. A

LA

WY

ER

SH

OU

LD

AS

SE

ST

IN P

RE

VE

NT

ING

TH

E U

NA

UT

HO

RIZ

ED

PA

CT

ICE

OF

LA

W

15

E

thic

al C

onsid

era

tions

15

Dis

cip

lina

ry R

ule

s

IS

D

R 3

-101 A

idin

g U

nauth

oriz

ed P

ractic

e o

f Law

IS

D

R 3

-102 D

ivid

ing L

egal F

ees w

ith a

Non-L

aw

yer

15

DR

3-1

03

Fo

rmin

g a

Pa

rtne

rsh

ip w

ith a

No

n-L

aw

ye

r

15

CA

NO

N 4

. mw

rint S

HO

UL

D P

RE

SE

RV

E m

e C

ON

FID

EN

CE

S A

ND

SE

CR

ET

S O

P A

crim

e

16

E

thic

al C

on

sid

era

tion

16

D

iscipfinary RP

res

ule

s

17

D

R 4

-10

1

erv

atio

n o

f Confid

ences a

nd S

ecre

ts o

f a C

lient

17

CA

NO

N 5.

A LA

WY

ER

SH

OU

LD

EX

ER

CIS

E m

menem

arrr P

RO

FE

SS

ION

AL

JU

DG

ME

NT

ON

B

EH

AL

F O

P A

CL

IEN

T

1

8

Eth

ical C

onsid

era

tions

18

Inte

rests

of a

Law

yer T

hat M

ay A

ffect H

is J

udgm

ent

18

Inte

rests

of M

ultip

le C

lients

19

De

sire

s o

f Th

ird P

ers

on

s

20

Dis

cip

linary

Rule

s

20

DR

5-1

01 R

efu

sin

g E

mplo

ym

ent W

hen th

e In

tere

sts

of th

e L

aw

yer M

ay Im

pair

His

Ind

ep

en

de

nt P

rofe

ssio

na

l Ju

dg

me

nt

20

DR

5-1

02 W

ithdra

wal a

s C

ounsel W

hen th

e L

aw

yer B

ecom

es a

Witn

ess

20

DR

5-1

03 A

void

ing A

cquis

ition o

f Inte

rest in

Litig

atio

n

21

DR

5-1

04 L

imitin

g B

usin

ess R

ela

tions w

ith a

Clie

nt

21

DR

5-1

05 R

efu

sin

g to

Acce o

r Contin

ue E

mplo

ym

ent if th

e In

tere

sts

of

An

oth

er C

lien

t Ma p

t y Imp

air th

e In

de

pe

nd

en

t Pro

fessio

na

l Judgm

ent o

f the L

aw

yer

21

DR

5-1

06

Se

ttling

Sim

ilar C

laim

s o

f Clie

nts

21

DR

5-1

07

Avo

idin

g In

flue

nce

by O

the

rs T

ha

n th

e C

lien

t

21

CA

NO

N 6

A

LA

WY

ER

SH

OU

LD

RE

PR

ES

EN

T a

CL

IEN

T C

OM

PE

TE

NT

LY

23

Eth

ical C

onsid

era

tions

23

D

iscip

linary

Rule

s

24

DR

6-1

01

Fa

iling

to A

ct C

om

pe

ten

tly

24

D

R 6

-10

2 L

imitin

g L

iab

ility to

Clie

nt

24

CA

NO

N 7

. L

AW

YE

R S

HO

UL

D R

EP

RE

SE

NT

A

CL

IEN

T Z

EA

LO

US

LY

WIT

HIN

TH

E B

OU

ND

S

OF

L. L

AW

24

Eth

ical C

onsid

era

tions

24

Duty

of th

e L

aw

yer to

a C

lient

24

D

uty

of th

e L

aw

yer to

the A

dvers

ary

Syste

m o

f Justic

e

26

HI

Pa

ge

D

iscip

linary

Rule

s

27

D

R 7

-101 R

epre

sentin

g a

Clie

nt Z

ealo

usly

27

D

R 7

-102 R

epre

sentin

g a

Clie

nt w

ithin

die

Bounds o

f the L

ew

27

D

R 7

-10

3 P

erfo

rmin

g th

e D

uty

of P

ublic

Pro

secuto

r or O

ther G

overn

ment L

aw

yer 2

7

DR

7-1

04

Co

mm

un

ica

ting

with

On

e o

f Ad

ve

rse

Inte

rest

28

D

R 7

-10

5 T

hre

ate

nin

g C

rimin

al P

rose

cu

tion

2

8

DR

7-1

06

Tria

l Co

nd

uct

28

DR

7-1

07 T

rial P

ublic

ity

28

DR

7-1

08

Co

mm

un

ica

tion

with

or In

ve

stig

atio

n o

f Ju

rors

29

DR

7-1

09

Co

nta

ct w

ith W

itne

sse

s

29

D

R 7

-11

0 C

on

tact w

ith O

fficia

ls

29

CA

NO

N 8.

A LA

WY

ER

SH

OU

LD A

SS

IST

IN IM

PR

OV

ING

TILE

LEG

AL S

YS

TE

M

E

thic

al C

onsid

era

tions

D

iscip

lina

ry R

ule

s

D

R 8

-101 A

ctio

n a

s a

Public

Offic

ial

D

R 8

-10

2 S

tate

me

nts

Co

nce

rnin

g J

ud

ge

s a

nd

Oth

er A

dju

dic

ato

ry O

ffice

rs

CA

NO

N 9. LA

WY

ER

SH

OU

LD A

VO

ID E

V. T

HE

AP

PE

AR

AN

CE

OP

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

L IMP

RO

PR

IET

Y

Eth

ical C

onsid

era

tions

D

iscip

linary

Rule

s

. D

R 9

-101 A

void

ing E

ven th

e A

ppeara

nce o

f Impro

prie

ty

D

R 9

-10

2 P

rese

rvin

g Id

en

tity o

f Fu

nd

s a

nd

Pro

pe

rty o

f a C

lien

t

DE

FIN

ITIO

NS

IN

D.

33

33

34

3

4

3

4

35

3

5

35

3

5

35

37

39

Pre

am

ble

T

he

co

ntin

ue

d e

xis

ten

ce

of a

free

an

d d

em

ocra

tic

ocie

ty d

epends u

pon re

cognitio

n o

f the c

oncept th

at

justic

e is

ba

se

d u

po

n th

e ru

le o

f law

gro

un

de

d in

re-

spect. fo

r the d

ignity

of . th

e in

div

idual a

nd h

is c

apacity

tth

ou

gh

re

aso

n fo

r enlig

hte

ned s

elf-g

overn

ment.' L

aw

so

gro

un

de

d m

ake

s ju

stic

e p

ossib

le, fo

r on

ly th

rou

gh

su

ch

law

do

es th

e d

ign

ity o

f the

ind

ivid

ua

l atta

in re

sp

ect

and p

rote

ctio

n. W

ithout it, in

div

idual rig

hts

becom

e

subje

ct to

unrm

train

ed p

ow

er, re

spect fo

r law

is d

e-

stro

yed, a

nd ra

tional s

elf-g

ovm

nm

ent is

impossib

le.

La

wye

rs, a

s g

ua

rdia

ns o

f the

law

, pla

y a

vita

l role

in

the p

reserv

atio

n o

f socie

ty. T

he fu

lfillment o

f this

role

re

quire

s a

n u

nders

tandin

g b

y la

wyers

of th

ek re

latio

n-

ship

with

and fu

nctio

n in

our le

gal s

yste

m.. A

conse-

quent o

blig

atio

n o

f law

yers

is to

main

tain

the h

ighest

sta

nd

ard

s o

f eth

ica

l co

nd

uct.

In fu

lfilling h

is p

rofe

ssio

nal re

sponsib

ilities, a

law

yer

necessarily

assum

es v

ario

us ro

bes th

at re

quire

the p

er-

form

an

ce

of m

an

y d

ifficu

lt tasks. N

ot e

ve

ry s

itua

tion

w

hic

h h

e m

ay e

nco

un

ter c

an

be

fore

se

en

,' bu

t fun

da

-m

en

tal e

thic

al p

rincip

les a

re a

lwa

ys p

rese

nt to

gu

ide

him

. With

in th

e fra

mew

ork

of th

ese p

rincip

les, a

law

-yer m

ust w

ith c

oura

ge a

nd fo

resig

ht b

e a

ble

and re

ady

to s

ha

pe

the

bo

dy o

f the

law

to th

e e

ve

r-ch

an

gin

g re

la-

tionship

s o

f socie

ty'

Th

e C

od

e o

f Pro

fessio

na

l Re

sp

on

sib

ility p

oin

ts th

e

way to

the a

spirin

g a

nd p

rovid

es sta

ndard

s bye whic

h to

ju

dg

e th

e tra

nsg

resso

r. Ea

ch

law

ye

r mu

st fid

with

in

his o

wn

con

scien

ce th

e to

uchsto

ne a

gain

st w

hic

h to

test

the

exte

nt to

whic

h h

is a

ctio

ns s

hould

rise a

bove m

ini-

mu

m s

tan

da

rds. B

ut in

the

last a

na

lysis

it is th

e d

esire

fo

r the re

spect a

nd c

onfid

ence o

f the m

em

bers

of h

is

pro

fessio

nand o

f the s

ocie

ty w

hic

h b

e s

erv

es th

at

should

pro

vid

e to

a la

wyer th

e in

centiv

e fo

r the h

ighest

possib

le d

egre

e o

f eth

ica

l co

nd

uct. T

he

po

ssib

le lo

ss o

f th

at re

sp.ect a

nd

confidence

on

fide

nce

is th

e u

ltima

te s

an

ctio

n. S

o

long a

s its

pra

ctitio

ners

are

guid

ed b

y th

ese p

rincip

les,

the

law

will c

on

tinu

e to

be

a n

ob

le p

rofe

ssio

n. T

his

is

its g

reatn

ess a

nd its

stre

ngth

, whic

h p

erm

it of n

o c

om

-pro

mise

.

Pre

limin

ary

Sta

tem

en

t

In fu

rthera

nce o

f the p

rincip

les s

tate

d in

the P

re-

am

ble

, the A

meric

an B

ar A

ssocia

tion h

as p

rom

ulg

ate

d

this

Code o

f Pro

fessio

nal R

esponsib

ility, c

onsis

ting o

f

thre

e s

epara

te b

ut in

terre

late

d p

arts

: Ca

no

ns, E

thic

al

Consid

era

tions, a

nd D

iscip

linary

Rule

s.' T

he C

ode is

desig

ned to

be a

dopte

d b

y a

ppro

pria

te a

gencks b

oth

as

an in

spira

tional g

discip

linary

e

mbers

of th

e P

roffis

sio

. and a

s a

basis

for

actio

n w

he

n th

e c

on

du

ct

of a

law

ye

r falls

be

low

the

req

uire

d m

inim

um

sta

nd

ard

s

sta

ted in

the D

iscip

linary

Rule

s.

Obvio

usly

the C

anons, E

thic

al C

onsid

era

tions, a

nd

Dis

cip

linary

Rule

s c

annot a

pply

to n

on-la

wyers

; how

-e

ve

r, the

y d

o d

efin

e th

e ty

pe

of e

thic

al c

on

du

ct th

at th

e

public

has a

right to

expect n

ot o

nly

of la

wyers

but

als

o o

f their n

on-p

rofe

ssio

nal e

mplo

yees a

nd a

ssocia

tes

in a

ll matte

rs p

erta

inin

g to

pro

fessio

nal e

mplo

ym

ent

A la

wye

r sh

ou

ld u

ltima

tely

be

resp

on

sib

le fo

r the

co

n-

duct o

f his e

mplo

yees a

nd a

ssocia

tes in

the co

urse

of th

e

pro

fessio

nal re

pre

senta

tion o

f the c

lient.

The C

anons a

re s

tate

ments

of a

xio

matic

norm

s, e

x-

pre

ssing

in g

enera

l term

s th

e s

tandard

s o

f pro

fessio

nal

conduct e

xpecte

d o

f law

yers

iu th

eir re

latio

nship

s w

ith

the

pu

blic

, with

the

leg

al s

yste

m, a

nd

with

the

leg

al p

ro-

fesm

on. T

hey e

mbody th

e g

enera

l concepts

from

whic

h

the

Eth

ica

l Co

nsid

era

tion

an

d th

e D

iscip

lina

ry R

ule

s

are

de

rived

. T

he

Eth

ica

l Co

nsid

era

tion

s a

re a

sp

iratio

na

l in c

ha

rac-

ter a

nd re

pre

sent th

e o

bje

ctiv

es to

ward

whic

h e

very

m

em

ber o

f the p

rofe

ssio

n s

hould

striv

e. T

hey c

onsffi

tute

a b

od

y o

f prin

cip

les u

po

n w

hic

h th

e la

wye

r ca

n

rely

for g

uid

an

ce

in m

an

y s

pe

cific

situ

atio

ns.'

Th

e D

iscip

lina

ry R

ule

s, u

nlik

e th

e E

thic

al C

on

sid

era

-tio

ns, a

ren

da

tory

in c

ha

racte

r. Th

e D

iscip

lina

ry

the

Rule

s s

tate

the m

inim

um

level o

f conduct b

elo

w w

hic

h

no la

wyer c

an fa

ll with

out b

ein

g s

ubje

ct to

dis

cip

linary

actio

n. W

ithin

the fra

mew

ork

of fa

ir trial,' th

e D

is-

cip

linary

Rule

s s

hould

be u

nifo

rmly

applie

d to

all la

w-

yers

,' regard

less o

f the n

atu

re o

f their p

rofe

ssio

nal

activ

ities.. T

he C

ode m

akes n

o a

ttem

pt to

pre

scrib

e

eith

er d

iscip

linary

pro

cedure

s o

r penalu

m^ fo

r vio

la-

tion o

f a D

iscip

linary

Ruin

,. nor d

oes it u

nderta

ke to

d

efin

e s

tan

da

rds fo

r civ

il liab

ility o

f law

ye

rs fo

r pro

fes-

sio

nal c

onduct. T

he s

everity

ofju

dgm

ent a

gain

st o

ne

found g

uilty

of v

iola

ting a

Dis

cip

linary

Rule

should

be

de

term

ine

d b

y th

e c

ha

racte

r of th

e o

ffen

se

and th

e a

t-te

nd

an

t circ

um

sta

nce

s.. A

n e

nfo

rcin

g a

ge

ncy, in

ap

-p

lyin

g th

e D

iscip

lina

ry R

ule

s, m

ay fin

d in

terp

retiv

e

gu

ida

nce

in th

e b

asic

prin

cip

les e

mb

od

ied

in th

e C

an

on

s

and in

the o

bje

ctiv

es re

flecte

d in

th

e E

thic

al C

on-

side

ratio

ns.

CO

DE

OF

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

L R

ES

PO

NS

IBIL

ITY

PR

EA

MB

LE

AN

D P

RE

LIM

INA

RY

ST

AT

EM

EN

T

NO

TE

S

I. The fo

otn

Ote

S a

re In

ten

de

d m

ere

ly to enable the reader

to relate the provisions of this Code to the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics adopted in 1908, as amended, the O

pin-ions of the ABA Committee on Professional Ethics, and limited number of other sources; they are not intended to be an annotation of the views taken by the ABA Special Committee on Evaluation of Ethical Standards. Footnotes

Bing ABA Canons refer to the ABA Canons of Prof.-

donal Ethics, adopted In 1908, as amended. 2. C

f. ABA Catio

Na, Preamble.

3. Illhe lawyer stands today in special n

ee

d o

f cle

ar

understanding of his ob

liga

tion

s and of the vital connection between those obligations and the role his profession plays in society."

Pro

les.o

na

l Re

sp

on

sib

ility: R

ep

ort o

f the

Jo

int

Co

nfe

ren

ce

, A.B.AJ. 1159, 1160 (1958).

4. "No general statement of the responsibilities of the legal

Pro

fusio

n

can

en

co

mp

ass S

i! the situations in which th

e

tewyer may be placed. Each position held by him m

ake

hs own peculiar demands. These demands the lawyer must clarity for himself In the light of the paO

icstae role in which he serves."

Pro

fessio

nal R

esponsib

ility: R

eport o

f the J

oin

t C

onfe

rence, 44 A.B.A.J. 1139. 1215 (1958).

5. "The law and its Institutions change as social con-

Utions change. They must change If they ere to preserve, much less advance. the political and social rabies from which they derive their

purposes and their life

. This is true of the most important of legal institutions, the

prw

famine of taw. The profession, too, must change when conditions change in order

to preserve and advance the

social calms that are Its reasons for being." Cheatham, A

va

ilab

ility o

f Le

ga

l Se

rvic

es: T

he

Re

sp

on

sib

ility o

f the

In

div

idual L

aw

yer a

nd th

e O

rganiz

ed B

ar, 12 U.C.L.A.

Ray. 438. 440 (1965). 6. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin adopted a Code of

Judicial Ethics In 1967. "The code Is divided into standards and lulu. the standards being statements of what dm gen-eral desirable

tenet of conduct should be, the rules being particular canons, the Notation of which shall subject an individual judge to aanMions." In m Promulgation of Code of Judicial Ethics,

36 Wis. 2d 252, 255, In N

. W. ad

573, 874 (1967). T

he p

ortio

n o

f the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Ethics en-titled "Standards" slates T

hat "MU following standards set forth the significant qualities of th

e ideal Judge

. Id

., 16 W.. 24 at 256, 153 N. W. 241 at 875. The portion en- ailed "Rules"

tea th

at "Mho court promulgates the fol-

lowing rules because the requirements of judicial conduct embodied therein are of sufficient gravity to warrant sanc- tIons if they am not obeyed .

." Id

., 36 Wis. 2d at 259, 153 N. W. 24 at 876. 7. "Under the

conditio

ns o

f modern pra

ctic

e it Is p

ecu

- lia

rly necessary i Un ht

dm lawyer should understand. not

ert

merely the established standards of professional conduct, but dm reasons underlying thug standards. Today the lawyer plays changing and Increasingly varied role. In many developing fields the precise contribution of the legal

Stffie",: d riCe.. IPS"Z.111"..1"1. 1

15

9 (1

95

8).

iv

AM

ER

ICA

N B

AR

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N

CA

NO

N 1

A L

aw

yer Sh

ou

ld A

ssist in

Main

tain

ing th

e Integ

rity and

Com

peten

ce of th

e Leg

al

Profession

"A tru

e s

ense o

f pro

fessio

nal re

sponsib

ility n

om

deriv

e

Bo

unders

tandin

g o

f the re

asons th

at lie

back o

f ape-

eih

c re

stra

ints

. such a

s th

ose e

mbodie

d in

the C

anons. T

he

Q ro

und. fo

r the lo

wycc's

peculia

r oblig

atio

ns a

reto

be

fou

nd

to th

e n

atu

re o

f his

ca

lling

. Th

e la

wye

r wh

o s

ee

ks

tcle

ar u

nders

tandin

g o

f his

Maks w

ill be le

d to

refle

ct o

n

he s

pecie

/ serv

ices h

is p

rofe

ssio

n re

nders

to s

ocie

ty a

nd th

e

serv

ices it m

ight re

nder if its

full c

apacitie

s w

ere

realiz

ed.

When th

e la

wyer fu

lly u

nders

t.ds th

e n

atu

re o

f his

ofh

m.

he w

ill then d

iscern

what re

stra

int. a

re n

em

ssary

to k

eep

that o

ffice w

hole

som

e a

nd e

ffectiv

e."

Id.

8. "D

isbarm

ent, d

esig

ned to

pro

tect th

e p

ublic

, ls a

pun-

ishment

or p

en

alty

imp

ose

d o

n th

e la

wye

r.. . . Ile Is

accord

ingly

entitle

d to

pro

cedura

l due p

roces.,w

hic

h in

-clu

de

s fa

ir no

tice

of th

e c

ha

rge

." In re

Mo

ffat. 3

90

U.S

. 544, 5

50, 2

0 L

. Ed. 2

d 1

17, 1

22, 8

8 S

. Ct. 1

222, 1

226 0

968).

rehearin

g d

enie

d, 3

91 U

S. 9

61, 2

0 L

. Ed. 2

d 1

74, 8

8 S

. CI.

1833 (1

968).

"A S

tate

cannot e

xclu

de p

ers

on fro

m th

e p

ractic

e o

f la

w o

r from

any o

ther o

ccupatio

n in

a m

anner o

r for re

asons

that c

ontra

vene th

e D

ue P

rocess o

r Equal P

rote

ctio

n C

lause

of th

e F

ourte

enth

Am

endm

ent. . . . A

Sta

te c

an re

quire

h

igh

sta

nd

ard

s o

f qu

alific

atio

n . . . b

ut a

ny q

ua

lifica

tion

m

ust h

ave ra

tional c

onnectio

n w

ith th

e a

pplk

ant's

fitness

or c

apacity

to p

ractic

e la

w." S

chw

are

v. E

d. o

f Bar E

x-

am

iners

. 353 U

.S. 2

31, 2

39, 1

I.. Ed. 2

d 7

96, 8

01-0

2, 7

7 S

. C

t. 752, 7

56 (1

957).

"(Ale

accused la

wyer m

ay e

xpect th

at h

e w

ill not b

e

condem

ned o

ut o

f a c

atn

icio

u s

elf-rio

hte

ousnen o

r denie

d

the

esse

ntia

ls o

f a fa

ir he

arin

g. s .. K

ing

sla

nd

v. D

on

ey, 3

38

U

.S. 3

18

, 32

0, 9

4 L

. Ed

. 12

3, 1

26

, 70

S. C

O. 1

23

, 12

4-2

5

(1949).

"Th

e a

ttorn

ey a

nd

co

un

se

llor b

ein

g, b

y th

e s

ole

mn

O

kla

l act o

f the c

ourt, c

loth

ed w

ith h

is o

ffice, d

oes n

ot h

old

It a

s m

atte

r of g

race

an

d fa

vo

r. Th

e rig

ht w

hic

h It c

on

-fe

rs u

pon h

im to

appear fo

r suito

rs. a

nd to

arg

ue c

auses.

Is s

om

eth

ing m

ore

than m

ere

indulg

ence, re

vocable

at th

e

ple

asure

of th

e c

ourt, o

r at th

e c

om

mand o

f the le

gia

latu

re.

It is a

right o

f whic

h h

e c

an o

nly

be d

epriv

ed b

y th

e ju

dg-

ment o

f the c

ourt, fo

r mora

l or p

rofe

ssio

nal d

anguenc,"

Ex p

an

e G

arla

nd

, 71

U.S

. (4 W

alt.) 3

33

, 37

8-7

9, 1

8 L

. Ed

. 366, 3

70 (1

866).

cht,erig;, 11,.`;,7 -1,;1.4

=1,71 ,517:.!'r.`gf, ,.1^4

(1963).

9.

The c

an o

f pro

fessio

na

l eth

ics m

ust b

e e

nfo

rce

d

by th

e C

ourt. a

nd m

ust b

e re

specte

d b

y m

em

bers

of th

e

Bar If w

e a

re to

main

tain

public

confid

ence in

the ...th

y

Barr It of th

e a

dm

inis

tratio

n o

f justic

e." In

re

Me

eke

r. 76

N. M

. 35

4, 3

57

. 41

4 P

IO 8

62

. 86

4 (1

96

6), a

p-

peal d

ism

issed,

385 U

.S. 4

49 (1

9671.

10.

Se

e A

BA

Canoe 4

5.

"Th

e C

an

on

s o

f this

Associa

tion g

overn

all its

mem

bers

, irre

spectiv

e o

f the e

ra

of' th

eir p

ractic

e. a

nd th

e a

nn.-

catio

n o

f Me C

anons is

not a

ffecte

d b

y s

tatu

tes o

r regu

latio

ns g

ove

rnin

g c

erta

in a

ctiv

ities o

f law

ye

rs w

hic

h m

ay

pre

scrib

e le

ss s

tringent s

tandard

s." A

BA

Com

m. n

o P

an-

s B

ea

ten

, OP

INIO

NS

. No. 2

03,1

940) [h

ere

inafte

r

e"Cl?). 0,1

174'

g

rtit

e 1

5r( .1

';'3'1

')i. Op

inio

n' ).

"Th

ere

is g

en

era

lly n

o

pre

scrib

ed

dis

cip

line

for a

ny

Partic

ula

r type o

f Impro

per c

onduct. T

he d

iscip

linary

m

easure

s ta

ken a

re d

iscre

tionaseen

y w

ith th

e e

ntitle

. whic

h

may d

isbar, s

uspend, o

r mere

ly

sure

the a

ttorn

ey m

the

natu

re o

f the o

ffense a

nd p

ast In

dic

ts o

f cheraC

ler m

ay

wa

rran

t." No

te, 4

3 C

oa

nsti L

.Q. 4

89

. 49

5 (1

95

8).

12. T

he

Co

de

se

eks o

nly

to s

pe

cify

co

nd

uct fo

r wh

ich

la

wyer s

hould

be d

iscip

lined. R

ecom

mendatio

ns a

s to

the

pro

cedure

s to

be u

sed in

dis

cip

linary

actio

ns a

nd th

e g

roanty

of d

iscip

linary

mem

urm

apprO

prie

le fo

r vio

latio

ns o

f the

Code a

re w

ithin

the ju

risdic

tion o

f the A

meric

an B

ar A

ssoci-

atio

n S

pe

cia

l Co

mm

ittee

en

Eva

lua

tion

of D

iscip

lina

ry E

n-

orc

em

ent.

13. "T

he

se

ve

rity o

f the

Ju

dg

me

nt o

f this

co

urt s

ho

uld

be

In

pro

portio

n to

the g

ravity

of th

eoffe

nses, th

e m

ora

l tu

rpitu

de In

volv

ed, a

nd th

e e

xte

nt th

at th

e d

efe

ndant's

acts

and c

onduct a

ffect h

is p

rofe

ssio

nal q

ualific

atio

ns . p

ractic

e

law

." Louis

iana S

tate

Bar A

ssn v

. Ste

iner, 2

04 L

a. 1

073,

1092-9

3, 1

6 S

o. 3

4 8

43, 8

50 (1

944) (H

iggin

s, J

., concurrin

g

indecre

e).

"Certa

inly

an e

rring la

wyer w

ho h

as b

een d

iscip

lined a

nd

who h

avin

g p

aid

the p

enalty h

as g

iven m

dsfa

cto

ry evic

knce

of re

penta

nce a

nd h

as b

een re

habilita

ted a

nd re

sto

red to

Mt

pla

ce e

t the b

ar b

y th

e c

ourt w

hic

h kn

ow

s him

be

st o

ug

ht

not to

have w

hat a

mounts

to a

n o

rder o

f perm

anent d

is-

barm

ent e

nte

red a

gain

st h

im b

y a

federa

l court s

ole

ly o

n

the b

asis

ot a

n e

arlie

r crim

inal re

cord

and w

ithout re

gard

to

Ida s

ubsequent re

habilita

tion a

nd p

resent g

ood c

har-

ate

r . W

e th

ink, th

ere

fore

, that th

e d

istric

t w

on

shotild

reconsid

er th

e a

ppella

nt's

aP

Plic

atio

o fo

r sfirn

imio

n

and g

rant it u

nle

ss th

e c

ourt fin

ds it to

r.be

fa

cto

tha

tat.h

e

ghee;a"lc

r:'W

42, 151 F.1,1

4.1 6

9-7

0 ( lot (7,1' C

Iul

19

58

).

EC

1.2

Th

e p

ub

lic s

ho

uld

be

pro

tecte

d fro

m th

ose

wh

o

am

not q

ualifie

d to

be la

wyers

by re

ason o

f a d

efic

iency

in e

du

ca

tion

` or m

ora

l sta

nd

ard

s' o

r of o

the

r rele

va

nt

facto

rs' b

ut w

ho n

everth

ele

ss s

eek to

pra

ctic

e la

w. T

o

assure

the m

ain

tenance o

f hig

h m

ora

l and e

ducatio

nal

sta

ndard

s o

f the le

gal p

rofe

ssio

n, la

wyers

should

af-

firmativ

ely

assis

t courts

and o

ther a

ppro

pria

te b

odie

s in

pro

millg

atin

g, e

nfo

rcin

g, a

nd im

pro

vin

g re

qoire

ments

fo

r adm

issio

n to

the b

ar' In

like m

anner, th

e b

ar h

as a

positiv

e o

blig

atio

n to

aid

in th

e c

on

tinu

ed

imp

rove

me

nt

of a

ll phases o

f pre

-adm

issio

n a

nd p

ost-a

dm

issio

n le

gal

educa

tion.

EC

1-3

Be

fore

reco

mm

en

din

g a

n a

pp

liun

t for a

dm

is-

sio

n, a

law

ye

r sh

ou

ld s

atis

fy h

imse

lf tha

t the

ap

plic

an

t is

of g

oo

d In

itial c

ha

racte

r. Alth

ou

gh

a la

wye

r should

not

becom

e a

self-a

ppoin

ted in

vestig

ato

r or ju

dge o

f appli-

cts

for a

dm

issio

n, h

e s

ho

uld

rep

ort to

pro

pe

r offic

ials

all anu

nfa

vora

ble

info

rmatio

n h

e p

ossesses re

latin

g to

the

chara

cte

r or o

ther q

ualific

atio

ns o

f an a

pplic

ant'

EC

1-4

The in

tegrity

of th

e p

rofe

ssio

n c

an b

em

ain

-ta

ined o

nly

if conduct o

f law

yers

in v

iola

tion o

f the

DR

1-1

02 M

isconduct

(A) A

law

yer s

hall n

os

(1)

Vio

late

a D

iscip

litsik

Y

(2)

Circ

um

vent a

Dis

cip

linary

Rule

thro

ugh a

ctio

ns

of a

noth

er..

(3)

En

ga

ge

In Ille

ga

l con

du

ct invo

lving

mo

ral W

rath

. tu

de..

Dis

cip

lina

ry R

ule

s is

bro

ug

ht to

the

atte

ntio

n o

f the

pro

per o

fficia

ls. A

law

yer s

hould

reveal v

olu

nta

rily to

th

ose

offic

ials

all u

np

rivile

ge

d k

no

wle

dg

e o

f co

nd

uct o

f la

wyers

whic

h h

e b

elie

ves c

learly

to b

e in

vio

latio

n o

f th

e D

iscip

lina

ry R

ule

s! A

law

ye

r sh

ou

ld, u

po

n re

qu

est

se

rve

on

an

d a

ssis

t co

mm

ittee

s a

nd

bo

ard

s h

avin

g re

-sponsib

ility fo

r the a

dm

inis

tratio

n o

f the D

iscip

linary

ues.'

EC

1-5

A la

wye

r sh

ou

ld m

ain

tain

hig

h s

tan

da

rds o

f pro

fessio

nal c

onduct a

nd s

hould

encoura

ge fe

llow

law

-yers

to d

o lik

ew

ise. H

e s

hould

be te

mpera

te a

nd d

igni-

fied

, an

d h

e s

ho

uld

refra

in fro

m a

ll illeg

al a

nd

mo

rally

re

pre

hensib

le c

onduct. B

ecause o

f his

positio

n in

so-

cie

ty, e

ven m

inor v

iola

tions o

f law

by a

law

yer m

ay te

nd

to le

sse

n p

ub

lic c

on

fide

nce

in th

e le

ga

l pro

fessio

n. O

be

-d

ien

ce

to la

w e

xe

mp

lifies re

sp

ect fo

r law

. To

law

ye

rs

esp

ecia

lly, re

sp

ect fo

r the

law

sh

ou

ld b

e m

ore

tha

n a

pla

titude.

EC

1-6

An a

pplic

ant fo

r adm

issio

n to

the b

ar o

r a

law

yer m

ay b

e u

nqualifie

d, te

mpora

rily o

r perm

anently

, fo

r oth

er th

an m

ora

l an

d e

du

catio

na

l rea

son

s, such

as

menta

l or e

motio

nal in

sta

bility

. Law

yers

should

be d

ili-g

en

t in ta

kin

g s

tep

s to

se

e th

at d

urin

g a

pe

riod

of d

is-

qualific

atio

n s

uch p

ers

on is

not g

rante

d a

license o

r, if lic

ensed, is

not p

erm

itted to

pra

ctic

e.' In

like m

anner,

when th

e d

isqualific

atio

n h

as te

rmin

ate

d, m

em

bers

of

the b

ar s

hould

assis

t such p

ers

on in

bein

g lic

ensed, o

r, if lic

ensed, in

bein

g re

sto

red to

his

full rig

ht to

pra

ctic

e.

(4)

En

ga

ge

in c

on

du

ct In

vo

lvin

g d

ish

on

esty

, frau

d,

deceit, o

r mis

repre

senta

tion.

(5)

Engage In

conduct th

at is

pre

judkffil to

the a

d-

min

istra

tion o

f justic

e.

(6)

En

ga

ge

la a

ny o

the

r co

nd

uct th

at a

dve

rse

ly re

-fle

cts

on

his

illne

ss to

pra

ctic

e la

w..

DR

1-1

03 D

isclo

sure

of In

form

atio

n to

Auth

oritie

s.

(A)

A la

wyer p

ossessin

g u

npriv

ileged k

now

ledge o

f a

vio

latio

n o

f DR

1-1

02 th

an re

port s

uch k

now

ledge

to a

tribu

na

l or o

the

r au

tho

rity e

mp

ow

ere

d to

In-

vestig

ate

or a

ct u

pon m

elt v

iole

tion..

(B)

A la

wyer p

ossessin

g u

npriv

ileged k

now

ledge o

r evid

ence

conce

rnin

g a

noth

er la

wye

r or a

judge sh

all

reveal fu

lly s

uch k

now

ledge o

r evid

ence u

pon

pro

per re

quest o

f a trib

unal o

r oth

er a

uth

ority

em

-p

ow

ere

d to

Inve

stig

ate

or a

ct u

po

n th

e c

on

du

ct o

f la

wis

er o

r lodge..

ET

HIC

AL C

ON

SID

ER

AT

ION

S

EC

1.1

A b

an

e te

ne

t of th

e p

rofe

ssio

na

l resp

on

sib

ility

f law

yers

is th

at e

vent P

ers

on in

our s

ocie

ty s

hould

have

ready a

ccess to

the

ind

ep

en

de

nt p

rofe

ssio

na

l se

r-vic

es o

f a la

wyer o

f inte

grity

and c

oto

pete

nce. M

ain

-ta

inin

g th

e in

tegrity

and im

pro

vin

g th

e c

om

pete

nce o

f th

e b

ar to

inle

t the h

ighest s

tandard

s is

the e

thic

al re

- sp

on

sib

ility o

f eve

ry la

wye

r.

DIS

CIP

LIN

AR

Y R

ULE

S

DR

1.1

01 M

ain

tain

ing In

tegrity

and C

om

pete

nce o

f th

e L

egal P

rofe

ssio

n.

(A)

A la

wyer Is

subje

ct to

dis

cip

line if h

e h

as n

ude a

tu

ate

rially

fals

e S

lain

inent la

, or if h

e b

as d

ab.

era

tely

faile

d to

dis

clo

se

a m

ate

rial fa

ct re

qu

este

d

In c

onnectio

n w

ith, h

is a

pplic

atio

n fo

r adm

issio

n to

th

e b

ar..

(B)

A la

wyer s

hall n

ot fu

rther th

e a

pplic

atio

n fo

r ad-

mis

sio

n to

the b

ar o

f anoth

er p

ers

on k

now

n b

y h

im

to b

e u

nqualifie

d In

respect to

chara

cte

r, educatio

n,

or o

ther re

levant a

ttribute

:.

NO

TE

S

. 1.

(Me

ca

nn

ot co

nclu

de

tha

t all e

du

ca

tion

al re

stric

tion

s

[on b

ar a

dm

issio

n] a

re u

nla

wfu

l. We a

ssum

e th

at fe

w w

ould

deny th

at a

gra

mm

ar s

chool e

ducatio

n re

quire

ment, b

efo

re

takin

g th

e b

ar e

xam

inatio

n, w

as re

asonable

. Or th

at a

n a

p-

plic

ant h

ad to

be

ab

le to

read o

r write

. Once w

e c

onclu

de

tha

t som

e re

stric

tion

Is p

rop

er, th

en

It be

co

me

s m

atte

r of

degre

e

the p

roble

m o

f dra

win

g th

e lin

e.

;We c

onclu

de th

e fu

ndam

enta

l questio

n h

em

is w

heth

er

Rule

IV, S

ectio

n 6

of th

e R

ule

s P

erta

inin

g to

Adm

ishon o

f A

pp

lica

nts

to th

e S

tate

Ba

r of A

rizo

na

is 'a

rbitra

ry, c

ap

ricio

us

so

d u

nre

a.n

ab

ie, W

e c

on

clu

de

an

ed

uca

tion

ai re

qu

imm

en

t of g

raduatio

n fro

m a

n a

ccre

dite

d la

w s

chool is

not." H

ackln

Lockw

ood, 3

61 P

.2c1

499. 5

03-4

(9th

Cir. 1

966), c

ur. d

en

ied

, 3

85

U.S

. 96

0, 1

7 L

. Ed

.24

30

5, fil S

. Ct. 3

96

(19

66

). 2

. "Eve

ry s

tate

in th

e U

nite

d S

tate

s, e

s a

pre

req

uis

ite fo

r a

dm

issio

n to

the

pra

ctic

e

of la

w, re

quire

s th

at a

pplic

ants

P

okm

s 'g

ood m

ora

l chara

cte

r.' Alth

ough th

e re

dld

rein

ein

is of ju

dic

ial o

rigin

, it is n

ow

em

bodie

d in

legis

latio

n In

most

sta

tes." C

om

ment.

Pro

cedura

l One P

rocess a

nd C

hara

cte

r H

earin

g. fo

r Bar A

pplic

ant, 1

5 S

mn. L

. Rev. 5

00 (1

963).

"Good c

hara

cte

r in th

e m

em

bers

of th

e b

ar Is

essentia

l to

the p

rem

rvatio

n o

f the In

tegrity

of th

e c

ourts

. The d

uly a

nd

pow

er o

f the c

ourt to

guard

its p

orta

ls a

gain

st in

trusio

n b

y

me

n a

nd

wo

me

n w

ho

are

me

nta

lly a

nd

mo

rally

dis

ho

ne

st, e

n

fit because o

f bad c

hara

ner, e

vid

enced b

y th

eir c

ours

e o

f con-

duct, tO

particip

ate

In th

e a

dm

inis

trativ

e la

w, w

ould

seem

to

be u

nquestio

ned In

the m

atte

r of p

reserv

atio

n o

f judic

ial

dig

nity

an

d in

teg

rity." In

re M

on

ag

ha

n, 1

16

VI. 5

3,1

22

A.2

d

665, 6

70 (1

966).

"Fundam

enta

lly, th

e q

uern

ion in

volv

ed In

bath

situ

atio

n.

adm

issio

n a

nd d

iscip

linary

pro

ceedin

gs] is

the s

am

e

la

the

ap

pik

en

t for a

dm

issto

n o

r the

atto

rne

y s

ou

gh

t to be d

is-

cip

lined a

fit and p

roper p

erso

n to

be p

erm

itted to

pra

ctice

taw, a

nd th

at u

sually

turn

s u

pon w

heth

er h

e h

as c

om

mitte

d

or is

Mo

ly to

co

ntin

ue

to c

om

mit a

cts

of m

ora

l turp

itud

e.

At th

e tim

e o

f ora

l arg

um

ent th

e a

ttorn

ey fo

r respondent

frankly

.oceded th

at th

e le

st fo

r adm

issio

n a

nd fo

r dis

cip

line

is a

nd

sh

ou

ld b

e th

e n

ow

. We

ag

ree

with

Mb

co

nce

ssio

n."

allin

an v

. Com

m. o

f Bar E

xam

iners

, 65 C

a1.2

d 4

47, 4

53, 4

21

P.a

d 7

6. 8

1, 5

5 C

al.R

ptr. 2

28, 2

33 (1

966).

3. "P

roceedin

gs to

gain

adm

issio

n to

the b

ar a

re fo

r the

purp

ose o

f pro

tectin

g th

e p

ublic

and th

e c

ourts

from

the

min

istra

tion

. of p

ers

on

s u

nlit to

pra

ctic

e th

e p

rofe

ssio

n. A

l' a

re o

fficers

of th

e c

ourt a

ppoin

md to

assis

t the c

ourt

in th

e a

dm

inis

tratio

n o

f Justic

e. In

to th

eir h

ands a

re c

om

-m

itted th

e p

roperty

. the lib

erty

and s

om

etim

e. th

e liv

es o

f th

eir c

lients

. This

com

mitm

ent d

em

ands a

hig

h d

egre

e o

f in

tellig

ence. k

now

ledge o

f the la

w, re

spect fo

r its fu

nctio

n In

so

cie

ty, w

oa

d a

nd

faith

ful ju

dg

me

nt e

nd

, ab

ove

all e

lse

,

CA

NO

N 2

A L

aw

yer Should

Assist th

e L

egal Profession in F

ulfilling Its D

uty to

Make

Leg

al C

ou

nsel A

vaila

ble

4 A

ME

RIC

AN

BA

R

:::37

",11

71 6;g

'n'tZ

; In

en

(Holden.

dissenting). 4. "A

bar composed of law

yers of g ood moral character

Is a worthy objective but it is unnecessary to sacrifice vital

freedoms in order to obtain that g o

al. It is a

lso im

porta

nt

both to society and the bar Itself that lawyers be unintirni.

da

ted

-free

to th

ink, sp

ea

k, an

d a

ct as m

em

be

rs of a

n In

-dependent B

ar." Koni gsberg r. S

tate Bar, 353 U

.S. 252. 273,

1 L. Ed. 2c1 810, 825. 77 S

. Ct. 722, 733 (1957).

5. S

ee

AB

A C

AS

ON

29. 6. A

BA

CA

N. 28 designates certain conduct as unprofes-

ional and then states that: "A duty to the public and to the

profession devolves upon every mem

ber of the Bar harlot

knowledge of such pond s upon the pan of any practitioner

Imm

edia

tely to inform

thereof, to the end that the offender m

ay b

e d

isbarre

d... A

BA

Canon 2

9 sta

tes a

bro

ader a

d-

monition: "Law

yers should expose without fear or favor be-

fore An

proper tribunals corrupt or dishonest conduct in the profession."

7. "It is

the o

bli.tio

n o

f the o

r g anized Bar and the in-

101)0

law

yer to give unstinted cooperation and .sistance to the hi g hest court of the nate in discharging its fonction and duty w

ith reaped to discipline and in purging the profmsion

of the unworthy."

Re

po

rt of th

e S

mcia

l Co

mm

ittee

on

Dis

-cip

lina

ry P

rocedu

res, 80 A

.B.A

. RE

P. 463, 470 (1955).

8. C

f. AB

A C

anon 32. 9. "W

e decline, on the present record, to disbar Mr. S

her-m

a. or to reptirnand him-not becam

e we condone his ac-

tions, but because. as heretofore indicated, we are concerned

with w

hether he Is mentally responsible for w

hat be has done. "T

he logic of the situation w

ould scorn to dictate the con-dm

ion that, if he was m

entally responsible for We conduct

we have outlined ,

be should be disbarred; and, If he was not

mentally responsible, he should not be perm

itted to Pradim

law

. "H

owever, the flaw

In the logic Is that be m

ay have been m

entally Irresponsible f at the time of his offensive conduct)

, and, yet , have sufficiently improved in the alm

ost two

and one-half years InMrverdn g to

be a

ble

to ca

pably a

nd

competently represent his clients. ...

'We w

ould make clear that w

e are satis fi ed that a case has been m

ade against Mr. S

herman, w

arrantin g a re

fusa

l to

permit him

to further practice law In this state unless he can

establish his mental irresponsibility e

t the time of the M

ime=

charged. T

he burden of proof is upon him.

"If he establishes each mental irresponsibilitY l

the b

urden

Is then upon him to esM

blish his present capability to prac-tice la

w.'

In In

Sherm

an. 58 Wash. 2d 1, 6-7, 354 P

.24 888, 890 (1960). c

ert. d

en

ied

. 371 U.S

. 951, 9 L. Ed. 2d 499, 83 S

. C

l. 506 (1963). 1

0. "T

Ms C

ourt has the inherent power to revoke a license

to practice law in M

is State, w

here such license was issued

by this Court, end its issuance w

as procured by the fraudulent concealm

ent, or by the false and fraudulent representation by M

e applicant of a fad which w

as manifestly m

aterial to the issuance of the license... N

orth Carolina ex rel. A

ttorney G

en

era

l v. Co

rso

n 2

09

N.C

.320, 326, 183

S.E

. 392, 395 .S13

3t1)4,1

71 . d

enie

d. 298 U

.S. 662, 80 L. E

d. 1387, 56 S. C

t.

894;.Z

,.ALP

.7:;,"7

6L

.V.'4

.1rP

L3.1

P. irs. (21:

795 (1958). 1

1. S

ee AB

A C

AN

. 29. 1

2. In

AB

A O

pin

ion 95 (1933), w

hich held that a m

unicip

al

attorney could

Vol perm

it police officers to interview persons

with claim

s against the municipality w

hen the attorney kno

w

the claimants to be represented by counsel, the C

om

mitte

e 0

0

Professional E

thics said: "T

he law officer is, of course, responsible for the acts of

Cholnrrol7

'5'41 (am

nned 209 N.eY

V

. 354-1912) held that It was m

atter of disbarm

ent for an attorney to adopt a general coarse of a, proving the unethical conduct of em

ployees of his client, even though he did not actively participate therein.

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N

The attorney should not adv.