Ind. Prof. Cond. Rule 8.4

Effective January 1, 2005

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce

another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or

fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to

achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules

of judicial conduct or other law; or

(g) engage in conduct, in a professional capacity, manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or

prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age,

socioeconomic status, or similar factors. Legitimate advocacy respecting the foregoing factors

does not violate this subsection. A trial judge's finding that preemptory challenges were exercised on a discriminatory basis does not alone establish a violation of this Rule.

Comment

[1] Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate the Rules of

Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through the

acts of another, as when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer's behalf.

Paragraph (a), however, does not prohibit a lawyer from advising a client concerning

action the client is legally entitled to take.

[2] Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as

offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return.

However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction

was drawn in terms of offenses involving “moral turpitude.” That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adul-

tery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice

of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer

should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of

trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately,

can indicate indifference to legal obligation.

[3] A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith

belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith

challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of

legal regulation of the practice of law.

[4] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of

other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as

trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent and officer, director or manager of a corporation or other organization.