Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 8.4

History

Comment [1] Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate the Ohio 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. Division (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 adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitnes s 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. [2A] Division (c) does not prohibit a lawyer from supervising or advising about lawful covert activity in the investigation of criminal activity or violations of constitutional or civil rights when authorized by law. [3] Division (g) does not apply to a lawyer’s confidential communication to a client or preclude legitimate advocacy where race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability is relevant to the proceeding where the advocacy is made. [4] 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. [5] 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 t rust such as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent, and officer, director, or manager of a corporation or other organization. Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 8.4 is substantively comparable to DR 1-102 and 9-101(C). Rule 8.4 removes the “moral turpitude” standard of DR 1- 102(A)(3) and replaces it with Rule 8.4(b), which states that a lawyer engages in professional misconduct if the lawyer “commit[s] an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness.” Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4 is substantially similar to Model Rule 8.4 except for the additions of the anti - discrimination provisions of DR 1-102(B) and the fitness to practice provision of DR 1-102(A)(6). Comment [2A] is added to indicate that a lawyer’s involvement in lawful covert activities is not a violation of Rule 8.4(c). The last sentence of DR 1- 102(B) is inserted in place of Model Rule Comment [3].