Conn. R. Prof'l Conduct 8.3

History

(P.B. 1978-1997, Rule 8.3.) (Amended June 26, 2006, to take effect Jan. 1, 2007; amended June 30, 2008, to take effect Aug. 1, 2008.) COMMENTARY: Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate a disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense. A report about misconduct is not required where it would involve violation of Rule 1.6. However, a lawyer should encour- age a client to consent to disclosure where prosecution would not substantially prejudice the client’s interests. If a lawyer were obliged to report every violation of the Rules, the failure to report any violation would itself be a professional offense. Such a requirement existed in many jurisdictions but proved to be unenforceable. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in complying with the provi- sions of this Rule. The term ‘‘substantial’’ refers to the seri- ousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware. A report should be made to the bar disciplinary agency unless some other agency, such as a peer review agency, is more appropriate in the circumstances. Similar considerations apply to the reporting of judicial misconduct. The duty to report professional misconduct does not apply to a lawyer retained to represent a lawyer whose professional conduct is in question. Such a situation is governed by the Rules applicable to the client-lawyer relationship. Information about a lawyer’s or judge’s misconduct or fit- ness may be received by a lawyer in the course of that lawyer’s participation in an approved lawyers or judges assistance pro- gram. In that circumstance, providing for an exception to the reporting requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of this Rule encourages lawyers and judges to seek treatment through such a program. Conversely, without such an exception, law- yers and judges may hesitate to seek assistance from these programs, which may then result in additional harm to their professional careers and additional injury to the welfare of clients and the public.