code of professional responsibility and canons of …jfk.hood.edu/collection/weisberg subject index...
TRANSCRIPT
-
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.