CBA Record January 2017

JANUARY 2017

LEGAL

ETHICS

BY JOHN LEVIN

Illinois to Consider New ABA Model

Rule 8.4g

urrently, Illinois Rule of Profes-

sional Conduct 8.4 (Misconduct)

states that it “is professional mis-

conduct for a lawyer to:

(j) violate a federal, state or local

statute or ordinance that prohibits

discrimination based on race, sex,

religion, national origin, disability,

age, sexual orientation or socioeco-

nomic status by conduct that reflects

adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a

lawyer. Whether a discriminatory act

reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness

as a lawyer shall be determined after

consideration of all the circum-

stances, including: the seriousness of

the act; whether the lawyer knew that

the act was prohibited by statute or

ordinance; whether the act was part

of a pattern of prohibited conduct;

and whether the act was commit-

ted in connection with the lawyer’s

professional activities. No charge

of professional misconduct may be

brought pursuant to this paragraph

until a court or administrative

agency of competent jurisdiction has

found that the lawyer has engaged in

an unlawful discriminatory act, and

the finding of the court or adminis-

trative agency has become final and

enforceable and any right of judicial

review has been exhausted.”

John Levin is the retired Assis-

tant General Counsel of GATX

Corporation and a member of

the

CBARecord

Editorial Board.

John Levin’s Ethics columns,

which are published in each

CBA Record,

are now in-

dexed and available online.

For more, go to

http://johnlevin.info/

legalethics/.

This Rule was adopted at a time when

the ABA Model Rules had no specific rule

that addressed discriminatory behavior on

the part of a lawyer. Rather, as stated in

Report 109 of the ABA Standing Com-

mittee on Ethics and Professional Respon-

sibility (dated August 2016), the issue was

addressed in “Comment [3] to Model Rule

of Professional Conduct 8.4, Misconduct

which explains that certain conduct may

be considered “conduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice,” in violation of

paragraph (d) to Rule 8.4, including when

a lawyer knowingly manifests, by words or

conduct, bias or prejudice against certain

groups of persons, while in the course of

representing a client but only when those

words or conduct are also “prejudicial to

the administration of justice.”

After extensive preliminary discussions

followed by formal debate, the ABAHouse

of Delegates recently adopted an amend-

ment to Rule 8.4 that specifically states that

“it is professional misconduct to:

“(g) engage in conduct that the

lawyer knows or reasonably should

know is harassment or discrimina-

tion on the basis of race, sex, religion,

national origin, ethnicity, disability,

age, sexual orientation, gender iden-

tity, marital status or socioeconomic

status in conduct related to the

practice of law. This paragraph does

not limit the ability of a lawyer to

accept, decline, or withdraw from

a representation in accordance with

Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not

preclude legitimate advice or advo-

cacy consistent with these rules.”

Comment 3 to the Rule states: “Dis-

crimination and harassment by lawyers

in violation of paragraph (g) undermine

confidence in the legal profession and the

legal system. Such discrimination includes

harmful verbal or physical conduct that

manifests bias or prejudice towards others.

Harassment includes sexual harassment and

derogatory or demeaning verbal or physi-

cal conduct. Sexual harassment includes

unwelcome sexual advances, requests for

sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal

or physical conduct of a sexual nature. The

substantive law of antidiscrimination and

anti-harassment statutes and case law may

guide application of paragraph (g).”

It takes only a cursory reading of the

Model Rule to see how it broadens the

definition of misconduct over that in the

current Illinois Rule.

The amendment has come before the

Illinois Supreme Court for adoption. It

generated much debate within the ABA

before its final adoption. There are argu-

ments both for and against adoption

of the Rule, and reasonable people can

have differing opinions. However, the

debate within the ABA indicates that

the amendment was generated because

of a real need, and I believe it should be

adopted in due course.

ETHICS QUESTIONS?

The CBA’s Professional Responsibility Commit-

tee can help. Submit hypothetical questions to

Loretta Wells, CBA Government Affairs Direc-

tor, by fax 312/554-2054 or e-mail lwells@

chicagobar.org.