MRPC Rule 8.5

(a) Disciplinary Authority. A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the

disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless where the lawyer’s conduct occurs. A

lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction is also subject to the disciplinary authority of this

jurisdiction if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in this jurisdiction.

A lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another

jurisdiction for the same conduct.

(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the rules of

professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows:

(1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the

jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise;

and

(2) for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the conduct occurred, or, if

the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that

jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct; a lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if

the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer

reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur.

Disciplinary Authority.

It is longstanding law that the conduct of a lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is

subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction. Extension of the disciplinary authority of

this jurisdiction to other lawyers who provide or offer to provide legal services in this

jurisdiction is for the protection of the citizens of this jurisdiction. Reciprocal enforcement of a

jurisdiction’s disciplinary findings and sanctions will further advance the purposes of this rule.

The fact that a lawyer is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction may be a factor

in determining whether personal jurisdiction may be asserted over the lawyer in civil matters.

Choice of Law.

A lawyer potentially may be subject to more than one set of rules of professional conduct that

impose different obligations. The lawyer may be licensed to practice in more than one

jurisdiction with differing rules, or may be admitted to practice before a particular court with

rules that differ from those of the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which the lawyer is licensed to

practice. Additionally, the lawyer’s conduct may involve significant contacts with more than

one jurisdiction.

Paragraph (b) seeks to resolve such potential conflicts. Its premise is that minimizing conflicts

between rules, as well as uncertainty about which rules are applicable, is in the best interests of

clients, the profession, and those who are authorized to regulate the profession. Accordingly,

paragraph (b) provides that any particular conduct of a lawyer shall be subject to only one set of

rules of professional conduct; makes the determination of which set of rules applies to particular

conduct as straightforward as possible, consistent with recognition of appropriate regulatory

interests of relevant jurisdictions; and protects from discipline those lawyers who act reasonably

in the face of uncertainty.

Paragraph (b)(1) provides, as to a lawyer’s conduct relating to a proceeding pending before a

tribunal, that the lawyer shall be subject only to the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal

sits unless the rules of the tribunal, including its choice of law rule, provide otherwise. As to all

other conduct, including conduct in anticipation of a proceeding not yet pending before a

tribunal, paragraph (b)(2) provides that a lawyer shall be subject to the rules of the jurisdiction in

which the lawyer’s conduct occurred or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in another

jurisdiction, the lawyer shall be subject to the rules of that jurisdiction. In the case of conduct in

anticipation of a proceeding that is likely to be before a tribunal, the predominant effect of such

conduct could be either where the conduct occurred, where the tribunal sits, or in another

jurisdiction.

When a lawyer’s conduct involves significant contacts with more than one jurisdiction, it may

not be clear initially whether the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur in a

jurisdiction other than the one in which the conduct actually did occur. So long as the lawyer’s

conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the

predominant effect will occur, the lawyer shall not be subject to discipline under this rule.

If two admitting jurisdictions were to proceed against a lawyer for the same conduct, they

should, applying this rule, identify the same governing ethics rules. They should take all

appropriate steps to see that they do apply the same rule to the same conduct and should avoid

proceeding against a lawyer on the basis of inconsistent rules.

The choice of law provision applies to lawyers engaged in transnational practice, unless

international law, treaties, or other agreements between regulatory authorities in the affected

jurisdictions provide otherwise.

Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 93 Updated with MSC order(s)