In re O'Connor , 553 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 1990), the lawyer was disbarred for, among other reasons, dishonestly reassuring his client that he would “walk” the client's son out of prison, when in fact the son was not yet eligible for early work-release. if there is an offer of settlement that is conditioned on the waiver of attorneys' fees, the lawyer must relay that offer to the client. Evans v. Jeff D. , 475 U.S. 717, 728 (1986); Stanley v. Board of Professional Responsibility , 640 S.W.2d 210 (Tenn. 1982) (lawyer misled client into believing that criminal prosecution was still possible and that client needed more legal services when in fact possibility of criminal proceedings had faded). In one case, the court cited the lawyer's advisory duties under Rule 2.1 as one of society's weapons in the war on drunk driving in that lawyers may encourage problem drinkers to seek treatment. Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety , 473 N.W.2d 834 (Minn. 1991) (citing salutary effect of lawyer's non-legal counseling role to uphold state law allowing suspected drunk drivers to consult lawyer before taking blood-alcohol test). Note, Legal Counseling in the Administrative State: How to Let the Client Decide , 103 Yale L. J. 2503 (1994) (chronicling how lawyer correctly advised Zoe Baird that no penalties had been imposed in Connecticut for employing undocumented domestic workers but how Baird's violation of this unenforced provision resulted in her name being withdrawn as candidate for U.S. Attorney General). For instance, a client would not be well-served by a prenuptial contract that is so inequitable that it is unenforceable or so morally unprincipled that it will create domestic discord. In re Marriage of Foran , 834 P.2d 1089 (Wash. App. 1992);
If Professor were given a lawful demand for information (Rule 8.1)
If Professor found out that applicant had engaged in fraud or deceit on her application (Rule 8.3)
B. Professor would be immune from civil suit based on the contents of the letter he wrote.
Is this in the text of the model rules?
Where might you find the answer to this question if you were researching?
We’ll come back to this one.
C. The Board of Bar Examiners may not consider any negative letter from Professor because they must base their decisions on character and fitness on an official Character and Fitness report, not unsolicited letters .
Common sense tells us there is no such hamstringing of the court’s inherent authority.
In an attorney disciplinary proceeding, due process requires, at a minimum, "notice and an opportunity to be heard," Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against 99-37 v. Stuart, 249 F.3d 821, 825 (8th Cir.2001), and that the district court follow its "procedural rules governing attorney discipline," In re Bird, 353 F.3d 636, 638 (8th Cir.2003).
D. Professor would be subject to discipline because he was dishonest in writing the letter.
The facts given always control the answer
Professor made no affirmative statement that he would write an unfavorable letter. Rude perhaps but not dishonest in any affirmative sense.
A. No, since Attorney Alpha is not a judge, he would not be bound by the code of judicial ethics.
First, the statement is wrong – See Rule 8.2(b)
Second, the statement is really irrelevant even if true. Attorney is still bound by the rules of professional conduct (remember Rule 8.4 – the general misconduct described there need not be occur in one’s capacity as an attorney in order to be subject to discipline)
B. No, because the public has the right to know the truth about whom they are voting for in a judicial election.
Again, true, but irrelevant.
Key language of rule: “knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity”
There is no indication that Alpha knew or should have known the statement was true.
C. Yes, because Attorney Alpha’s statement is disrespectful and as a judicial candidate, he may not make such statements.
Rule doesn’t require respect (though other rules might) only limits statements regarding “qualifications or integrity of a judge”
What is the rationale behind this rule?
D. Yes, if Attorney Alpha knew that Attorney Beta had never been arrested for possession of pornographic material.
In re Himmel, 533 N.E.2d 79 (1988)(lawyer suspended one year for failure to report his unprivileged knowledge of conversion of settlement funds by client's prior lawyer). (the only case reporting a violation of this rule)
Delay in order to secure more evidence ordinarily would not be justified. See Comment 3 to Rule 8.3, which does not require the reporting lawyer to be sure of the quantum of evidence.
Formal Opinion 94-383 – “A lawyer who becomes aware of professional misconduct that raises a substantial question as to a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects should report that misconduct promptly, to the extent required by Rule 8.3(a), n3 and not use it as a bargaining chip in the civil case.”
A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct should take appropriate action. A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.
But that’s not an excuse for attorneys to fail to report
Preamble:  Violation of a Rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against a lawyer nor should it create any presumption in such a case that a legal duty has been breached…. Nevertheless, since the Rules do establish standards of conduct by lawyers, a lawyer's violation of a Rule may be evidence of breach of the applicable standard of conduct.
Missouri applies collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) to preclude criminal malpractice where there has been a finding of guilt or guilty plea. State ex rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf, 691 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)
Kansas also adopts the exoneration rule. Canaan v. Bartee, 72 P.3d 911 (Kan. 2003)
D. Dennis’s admonition may be used in subsequent disciplinary proceedings in Missouri or in other states
See Mo. Ct. Rule 5.31 Records of Investigations and Formal Proceedings.
Sources of Authority in Regulation Oath of Admission Rules of Conduct Civil and Criminal Liability Rules of Court / Contempt Power Administrative Regulation