Regulation of the legal profession is largely based on the concept of self-governance and independence, thus the ultimate authority over the profession is largely vested in the courts (the highest court of the jurisdiction). [MR Preamble, cmt. [10]].

Lawyers are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct and disciplinary authority of the jurisdiction where the lawyer is admitted to practice [MR 8.5(a)].

Applicants for admission to the bar, and lawyers in connection with a bar admission application or a disciplinary matter, must not knowingly make a false statement of material fact, fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension, or know- ingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for non-confidential information [MR 1]. This rule applies to non-lawyer applicants as well as lawyers [MR 1, cmt. [1]].

Yes—it applies to both lawyers and non-lawyer applicants.

Subject to the Fifth Amendment, states may require more disclosure from applicants for a law license than employers may require in a job application.
a. Bar applications often contain questions not permitted by constitutional or employment law in job applications, such as those asking about treatment for chemical dependency and mental illness, records of arrests not leading to convictions, and whether the applicant has been a party to any lawsuit.
b. Applicants sign the bar application under penalty of perjury.

Yes, states may require broader disclosure than typical employers.

Yes, and must be truthful, but may not reveal confidential client information without authorization. A lawyer who writes a letter of recommendation for a bar candidate or who is asked by bar authorities for information about a bar candidate is subject to the same Rule [MR 8.1, cmt. [3]].

However, a lawyer who knows of derogatory information about a bar candi- date cannot disclose that information if it is confidential information protected under Rule 1.6, which prevents a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the lawyer reasonably believes it is necessary [MR 1.6(b)]:

• to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
• to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;
• to prevent, mitigate, or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;
• to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;
• to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client; or
• to comply with other law or a court

Yes—they are treated like bar admission applications. The duty of candor also applies to reinstatement petitions, which are treated like admission proceedings.

Violating Rule 1 when making an application can result in disciplinary action after the bar candidate is admitted to the bar, including a suspension or revocation of the license to practice law, as well as the denial or voidance of admission [MR 8.1, cmt. [1]].

Rule 8.1 further requires correction of any prior misstatement that the bar candidate may have made, and affirmative clarification of any prior misunderstanding on the part of the admissions or disciplinary authority of which the bar candidate becomes aware [Id.].

A candidate for admission may claim the privilege against self-incrimination as a ground for lawfully refusing to disclose confidential information to the extent protected by Rule 1.6.

1. The candidate for admission must claim the privilege openly, and may not use the right of nondisclosure defensively as the reason for not complying with this
2. It is generally held that the right to invoke the privilege applies only when the attorney is threatened with criminal prosecution; the mere possibility of disci- pline by the state bar is not sufficient justification.

No—only threat of criminal prosecution suffices.

Yes—expungement does not authorize false “No” answers.

As of August 2012, the ABA has approved the ABA Model Rule for Admission by Motion, which the ABA urges jurisdictions to adopt. The Model Rule provides that an applicant, upon motion, may be admitted to the practice of law in this jurisdiction if the applicant meets the following requirements [ABA Model Rule for Admission by Motion]:

1. have been admitted to practice law in another state, territory, or the District of Columbia;
2. hold a D. or LL.B. degree from an approved law school;
3. have been primarily engaged in the active practice of law in one or ore states, territories or the District of Columbia for three of the five years immediately preceding the date upon which the application is filed;
4. establish that the applicant is currently a member in good standing in admitted jurisdictions;
5. establish that the applicant is not currently subject to discipline in any jurisdiction;
6. establish that the applicant possesses the character and fitness to practice law in this jurisdiction; and
7. designate the Clerk of the jurisdiction’s highest court for service of

Three of the five years immediately preceding the application.

Being subject to current discipline disqualifies an applicant.

The Clerk of the highest court of the jurisdiction.

Yes, from another state, territory, or D.C.

Because of their duty to ensure lawyer fitness and protect the public.

Rule 8.4 is a catchall provision permitting discipline for serious misconduct not specified elsewhere in the Rules. Rule 8.4 occasionally fills in a gap when no other Rule is applicable.

Lawyers holding public office and those holding positions of private trust, such as executor, administrator, guardian, or trustee, assume legal re- sponsibilities beyond those of other citizens, such that abuse of public office or fiduciary responsibilities may suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of a lawyer [MR 8.4, cmt. [5]].

When a lawyer violates, attempts to violate, assists, or induces another to violate the Rules.

1. Under Rule 8.4, it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
a. violate or attempt to violate the Rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another [MR 8.4(a)];
(1) Any violation of the Rules, or any attempt to do so, is a violation of Rule 8.4(a), so a charge under Rule 8.4(a) should accompany almost any other charge in a disciplinary complaint.
(2) A lawyer does not violate Rule 8.4, however, if that lawyer refuses to comply with a legal obligation, including one of the Rules, in the good- faith belief that no valid obligation exists, even if the lawyer is proven wrong in a challenge to the law or Rule [MR 8.4, cmt. [4]].
(3) Similarly, Rule 8.4(a) does not prohibit a lawyer from advising a client concerning action the client is legally entitled to take; that is to say, the client does not thereby become the lawyer’s agent in a violation of the Rules [MR 8.4, cmt. [1]].
b. commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustwor- thiness, or fitness as a lawyer [MR 8.4(b)];
(1) Criminal acts or dishonest conduct need not be related to the practice of law to constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.
c. engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation [MR 8.4(c)];
(1) Fraud means conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive [MR 1.0(d)].
(2) This does not include merely negligent misrepresentation or negligent failure to apprise another of relevant information [MR 1.0(d); cmt. [5]].
(3) It is not necessary for anyone to have suffered damages or relied on the misrepresentation or failure to inform [Id.].
d. engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice [MR 8.4(d)];
e. state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules or other law [MR 8.4(e)]; or
f. knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of the applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law [MR 8.4(f)].

No—lawyers acting in good faith belief that no valid obligation exists do not violate 8.4(a).

Yes—advising lawful client action is not a rule violation.

Crimes reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness, or lawyer fitness—even if unrelated to law practice.

Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

No—damages or reliance are not required.

Submitting false firm expense claims or concealing income on taxes.

Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, like sexist remarks or bribery.

Stating or implying an improper ability to influence a government or achieve illegal results.

Knowingly assist a judge in violating judicial conduct rules or law.

The more specific Rule governs, even though 8.4 also applies.

Lawyers must respond truthfully and cooperate with disciplinary inquiries.

Yes—dishonesty or refusal to cooperate is independently sanctionable.

Yes, for criminal exposure; but bar discipline alone doesn’t justify refusal.

Yes—discipline may be imposed solely for non-cooperation.

In every jurisdiction where admitted, regardless of where conduct occurs.

They’re subject to that jurisdiction’s Rules for that conduct.

Yes—both home and host jurisdictions may impose discipline.

The jurisdiction where the tribunal sits, unless its rules state otherwise.

Courts, arbitrators, or adjudicative agencies rendering binding legal judgments.

The jurisdiction where conduct occurred, unless its predominant effect is elsewhere.

If their conduct conforms to rules of a jurisdiction where they reasonably believe the predominant effect will occur.

Yes, if it reasonably defines jurisdiction and the client gives informed consent.

The predominant-effect test determines which jurisdiction’s rules apply.

It is a “catchall” rule for disciplining serious misconduct not specifically addressed elsewhere.

Lawyers in public office or positions of private trust (executor, guardian, trustee).

When a lawyer violates, attempts to violate, assists, or induces another to violate the Rules.

No—lawyers acting in good faith belief that no valid obligation exists do not violate 8.4(a).

Yes—advising lawful client action is not a rule violation.

Crimes reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness, or lawyer fitness—even if unrelated to law practice.

Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

No—damages or reliance are not required.

Submitting false firm expense claims or concealing income on taxes.

Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, like sexist remarks or bribery.

Stating or implying an improper ability to influence a government or achieve illegal results.

Knowingly assist a judge in violating judicial conduct rules or law.

The more specific Rule governs, even though 8.4 also applies.

Lawyers must respond truthfully and cooperate with disciplinary inquiries.

Yes—dishonesty or refusal to cooperate is independently sanctionable.

Yes, for criminal exposure; but bar discipline alone doesn’t justify refusal.

Yes—discipline may be imposed solely for non-cooperation.

In every jurisdiction where admitted, regardless of where conduct occurs.

They’re subject to that jurisdiction’s Rules for that conduct.

Yes—both home and host jurisdictions may impose discipline.

The jurisdiction where the tribunal sits, unless its rules state otherwise.

Courts, arbitrators, or adjudicative agencies rendering binding legal judgments.

The jurisdiction where conduct occurred, unless its predominant effect is elsewhere.

If their conduct conforms to rules of a jurisdiction where they reasonably believe the predominant effect will occur.

Yes, if it reasonably defines jurisdiction and the client gives informed consent.

The predominant-effect test determines which jurisdiction’s rules apply.

Practicing law or helping another do so in violation of a jurisdiction’s regulations.

Establish an office or represent to the public that they are admitted there.

When the services meet one of the exceptions in MR 5.5(c).

Working in association with a local admitted lawyer who actively participates.

Only if authorized by law or order (e.g., pro hac vice) or reasonably expects authorization.

Yes, if reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in an admitted jurisdiction and not requiring pro hac vice.

Services must arise out of or relate to the lawyer’s admitted jurisdiction practice.

No, unless associated with an Ohio lawyer or admitted pro hac vice.

In-house or foreign lawyers providing services only to their employer or affiliates.

They must rely on advice from a lawyer licensed in the relevant U.S. jurisdiction.

Members in good standing of a recognized, regulated foreign legal profession.

Temporary practice (up to 365 days) while actively seeking admission, if conditions are met.

Active license elsewhere, 3 of last 5 years active practice, and seeking admission diligently.

Sharing legal fees with non-lawyers, except limited exceptions.

Payments to a deceased lawyer’s estate over a reasonable period.

Yes, as part of a compensation or retirement plan.

Yes, if the nonprofit employed, retained, or recommended the lawyer.

No—violates MR 5.4(a); can’t share legal fees with non-lawyers.

No—prohibited if any business activity involves practicing law.

No—MR 5.4(c) prohibits third parties from directing professional judgment.

No, except a fiduciary representative may hold a deceased lawyer’s interest temporarily.

No—MR 5.4(d) prohibits it.

Non-legal services reasonably related to legal practice (e.g., accounting, lobbying, tax prep).

When not distinct from legal services or when clients aren’t clearly informed they’re non-legal.

Practicing law or helping another do so in violation of a jurisdiction’s regulations.

Establish an office or represent to the public that they are admitted there.

When the services meet one of the exceptions in MR 5.5(c).

Working in association with a local admitted lawyer who actively participates.

Only if authorized by law or order (e.g., pro hac vice) or reasonably expects authorization.

Yes, if reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in an admitted jurisdiction and not requiring pro hac vice.

Services must arise out of or relate to the lawyer’s admitted jurisdiction practice.

No, unless associated with an Ohio lawyer or admitted pro hac vice.

In-house or foreign lawyers providing services only to their employer or affiliates.

They must rely on advice from a lawyer licensed in the relevant U.S. jurisdiction.

Members in good standing of a recognized, regulated foreign legal profession.

Temporary practice (up to 365 days) while actively seeking admission, if conditions are met.

Active license elsewhere, 3 of last 5 years active practice, and seeking admission diligently.

Sharing legal fees with non-lawyers, except limited exceptions.

Payments to a deceased lawyer’s estate over a reasonable period.

Yes, as part of a compensation or retirement plan.

Yes, if the nonprofit employed, retained, or recommended the lawyer.

No—violates MR 5.4(a); can’t share legal fees with non-lawyers.

No—prohibited if any business activity involves practicing law.

No—MR 5.4(c) prohibits third parties from directing professional judgment.

No, except a fiduciary representative may hold a deceased lawyer’s interest temporarily.

No—MR 5.4(d) prohibits it.

Non-legal services reasonably related to legal practice (e.g., accounting, lobbying, tax prep).

When not distinct from legal services or when clients aren’t clearly informed they’re non-legal.

By principles of substantive law, based on facts and circumstances.

After the client requests and the lawyer agrees to provide legal services.

No—lawyers may represent clients regardless of personal beliefs.

If it violates law or the Rules, or if physical/mental condition impairs ability.

Whether it can be done competently, promptly, and without conflicts.

The client—settlement in civil, plea/trial decisions in criminal cases.

The lawyer, after consulting with the client.

Attempt to resolve it; if fundamental, withdraw or be discharged.

Yes, if limitation is reasonable and the client gives informed consent.

Yes, scope may reasonably be limited by agreement.

When insufficient time prevents reliable legal advice.

A principal-agent contractual relationship.

The client, as the principal.

Consult with the client and act as impliedly authorized to carry out representation.

Maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship as far as reasonably possible.

With the same attention, respect, and communication as any client.

Act as de facto guardian or seek appointment if in client’s best interest.

When client cannot act in own interests due to diminished capacity.

Consult others or seek appointment of guardian/conservator/ad litem.

Yes, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client.

Yes, before sharing information or acting protectively.

Yes—procedural rules require guardian or next friend if none exists.

It may harm client’s interests, e.g., lead to involuntary commitment.

A lawyer may not counsel or assist a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct.

Discussing legal consequences and helping clients make good-faith efforts to understand the law.

No—unless the lawyer assisted in the criminal or fraudulent act.

Explain that perjury is a crime and refuse to assist or allow false testimony.

Stop assisting and avoid furthering the illegal conduct.

Withdraw from representation and stop assisting.

Only if permitted under Rule 1.6 (confidentiality exceptions).

Give notice of withdrawal and disaffirm prior statements made in good faith.

Yes, in extreme cases to avoid being deemed complicit in the crime or fraud.

Consult with the client about the limits imposed by law and ethics rules.

When the matter is completed.

Mandatory withdrawal and optional withdrawal.

Yes, even with good cause, if ordered by a court.

Give notice, allow time for new counsel, return papers and unearned fees.

Only if permitted by law as a security interest.

Yes, the duty of confidentiality continues indefinitely.

State that professional considerations or conflicts require termination.

When representation violates law/Rules, lawyer impaired, or client discharges lawyer.

Withdraw to avoid violating law and Rules.

No—lawyer should first explain and dissuade the client.

Yes—if it materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent.

Yes, with or without cause, subject to payment for services rendered.

Yes, but the court may deny replacement; client must be warned.

When it won’t materially harm the client and certain grounds exist.

Lawyer may withdraw (optional), unless lawyer’s help furthers the act (mandatory).

Yes—optional withdrawal under MR 1.16(b)(3).

Yes, if the client insists on repugnant or fundamentally disagreeable action.

Yes, after reasonable warning to the client.

Yes, if it imposes an unreasonable burden or difficulty on the lawyer.

Yes, with court permission, if client has time to find new counsel.

Seller must stop practicing, sell entire practice/area, and notify clients in writing.

Proposed sale, right to new counsel or file, and presumed consent after 90 days.

No—fees cannot increase due to the sale.

The testimonial privilege, a rule of evidence.

In judicial or similar proceedings where a lawyer could be compelled to testify.

Lawyers cannot disclose client communications made in professional confidence.

Only in adjudicative contexts, covering confidential communications for legal advice or services.

It must be intended to remain private, not made in presence of third parties.

Yes, if not intended to be disclosed.

Yes—they are covered if necessary for legal services.

Spoken, written, or gestures that convey information to the attorney.

No, unless the witness is a representative of the client.

No—they don’t become privileged merely by being given to counsel.

No—only communications for legal advice or services.

It no longer protects the communication.

The client.

The lawyer, presumed authorized to do so.

Guardian, conservator, or personal representative.

Indefinitely, even after the relationship ends or client’s death.

No—the privilege doesn’t apply to future crimes or frauds.

Yes—communications about past acts for defense are privileged.

No—the testator’s instructions aren’t intended to remain confidential after death.