Talk:American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 20 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NL2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-regulating and self-policing?

Does anyone find this to be n-npov/or? How about just plain wrong?? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should have a citation, but bar organizations are self-regulating. This is a factual statement. In most instances, the bar regulations can't even be changed by legislatures--they are constitutional in the sense that they are adjuncts of the jurisdiction's supreme court. If there is some controversy on this point I'm unaware of it. LH (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a legitimate citation for it; I think it's an unverifiable editorialization. I can only comment on my home state, but herein, the ABA MRPC are not the law; the law is made by the legislature (the "State Bar Act" consists of numerous provisions of the Business and Professions Code); that act enables the State Bar; the State bar then makes and enforces further regulations, consistent with those provisions. The regulators who are elected to the state bar are elected by other attorneys, but are ultimately regulated by the authority of the state, in which every citizen is "represented" (as represented as they are in any other decision made by a political branch of government). Attorney's are also subject, in this state, and many others, to regulation by the courts.

In sum, Attorneys don't just get to make up their own rules; they are subject to the authority of the state; that authority just happens to be partly delegated to a specialized subdvision. Thus, the practice of law is really no different from any other regulated trade, like, say, the electronic communications industry. Would you consider the Communications industry "self-regulating?" I wouldn't. Therefore, in my opinion, the claim is misleading. I cannot comment on whether or not this is representative of other states in the U.S, but this is a big state, and I doubt it is that exceptional.

So, apart from the obvious concerns about what I don't know, I think the claim is dubious. If a legitimate source cannot soon be found, this comment should be deleted. If I am wrong, it will be verifiable... although I think explanation would still be called for to avoid giving misleading information. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about California. In fact, California is atypical in that its professional regulation is heavily governed through statute. It is one of three states that do not follow the rule system setup by the ABA Model Code as well (the others being New York and Maine).

It's not surprising then that California's constitutional structure is a little different. However the majority of other states, exclusive control over the Bar rests with the Court (typically the State's highest court). A very good historic overview (despite its age the principle has not changed much) is found in the 32 Buffalo Law Review 525 (1983), (Alpert, "The Inherent Power of the Courts to Regulate the Practice of Law").

I don't have the resources to find 50 state examples right now, but here is an exmpale from Washington State:

"Where a court rule and a statute conflict, we will attempt to read the two enactments in such a way that they can be harmonized.' Id. at 909. However, when the court rule concerns a matter related to the court's inherent power and we are unable to harmonize the court rule and the statute, 'the court rule will prevail.' Wash. State Bar Ass'n v. State, 125 Wn.2d 901, 909 (1995). See also (Washington State Council v. Hahn, 73740-1 (Nov. 13, 2003)) (I don't have the reporter citation).LH (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's funny. Usually, when a court rule and a statute conflict, courts will either give the rule a strained reading to "save it" from conflict, but may eliminate its weight (as in Walker v. Armco Steel, 446 U.S. 740 (1980); the court can also say when a regulating body exceeds its rulemaking authority, that its rule is void. The court would be less likely to do so if it was in fact the rulemaker, but courts do occaisionally give their own rules a second look. In any case, the modern trends if for courts to let legislatures have the last word except in constitutional adjudication. See (most generally), Guido Calbrese, A Common Law for the Age of Statutes, Chapters 1-2. This might be an exception if in most states, regulation is clearly legislatively or constitutionally committed to the court.

It's true that CA does things a "bit differently" sometimes, but when it comes to legal developments, I find it frequently to be either "ahead of the curve" or "not that different," with a slight populist bias that some other states reject. In any case, I must take care not to take my "Calfifornia values" and apply them across the board. Still, to be admitted in CA, you have to know both CA's rules regulating attorneys, and the ABA rules. Consequently, I can weigh in that they differ fairly little in substance. (CA will let you do a few things with your client that the ABA would not, given effective written consent; CA does not permit "screening" to protect a firm from disqualification, except in very rare cases, while the ABA more generally does).

Still, if, as you say, the "courts have the final say," does that really mean the profession is self-regulating? It's true that the judges are (generally), law-school educated, licensed, and experienced attorneys (with few exceptions). But given that they have been appointed and/or elected to public office, with all of the rights and responsibilities thereof, their acts as professional regulators are distinguishable from the plebecites of a professional association/lobby, like the ABA. Those judges are accountable to the people (through re-election, or recall) and the legislature (through impeachment) -- ALL of the people, not just their own jente. That just doesn't look like true self-regulating to me.

So, to conclude, I am not going to edit the article based on OR, and in disregard of what could be a COI. I think LH makes some excellent points. I think I may have a point or two also, so I don't want to delete my comment. I want tolet it be registered here, on the talk page, so that people can be aware that there might be an issue with the article's content. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Title is way, way too long

No one calls it the "American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct." It's always the "Model Rules of Professional Conduct" or MPRC. Similar to how the Restatements are never prefixed with ALI---it is commonly known and understood that they are a product of ALI. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Crazy talk added on 13 August 2015

The lengthy, nonsensical, and inaccurate digression about the California rules added on 13 August 2015 has to go---it violates all Wikipedia core policies, especially WP:UNDUE. Any objections before I take out the trash? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Going once, going twice...

Any objections before I clean up this mess? The 2015 ranting noted above is particularly nonsensical at this point, since the state supreme court under Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye did eventually adopt a heavily revised version of the Model Rules. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)