‼️
Prof Responsibility • Duty to Public
PR#084
Legal Definition
A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty or fitness as a lawyer in other respects must inform the appropriate professional authority. A similar rule applies to knowledge that a judge has violated the rules of judicial conduct. This rule does not require disclosure of privileged or confidential information.
Plain English Explanation
The "Snitch Rule" places an ethical duty on lawyers to report serious misconduct by other lawyers. Specifically, if a lawyer knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the rules of professional conduct that raises a "substantial question" about that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, they must inform the appropriate professional authority.
The key elements of this rule are:
(1) Knowledge: The reporting lawyer must actually know about the misconduct, not just suspect it.
(2) Substantial question: The misconduct must be serious enough to call into question the other lawyer's fundamental fitness to practice law. Minor infractions don't trigger the reporting duty.
(3) Honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness: The misconduct must relate to these core qualities expected of lawyers.
(4) Mandatory reporting: If the above criteria are met, reporting is required, not optional.
(5) Appropriate authority: The misconduct should be reported to the relevant disciplinary body, not just gossiped about.
Note: this rule does not require lawyers to disclose privileged or confidential client information. Client confidentiality remains paramount.
The key elements of this rule are:
(1) Knowledge: The reporting lawyer must actually know about the misconduct, not just suspect it.
(2) Substantial question: The misconduct must be serious enough to call into question the other lawyer's fundamental fitness to practice law. Minor infractions don't trigger the reporting duty.
(3) Honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness: The misconduct must relate to these core qualities expected of lawyers.
(4) Mandatory reporting: If the above criteria are met, reporting is required, not optional.
(5) Appropriate authority: The misconduct should be reported to the relevant disciplinary body, not just gossiped about.
Note: this rule does not require lawyers to disclose privileged or confidential client information. Client confidentiality remains paramount.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob, a criminal defense attorney, learns that his client Sam has been lying on the stand during his trial for armed robbery. Sam confesses to Bob that he did in fact commit the robbery, despite testifying to the contrary. Bob knows this false testimony raises a substantial question about Sam's honesty.
Result: The "Snitch Rule" does not apply in this situation. While Bob has knowledge of dishonest conduct, the rule only requires reporting misconduct by other lawyers, not clients. Bob's duty of confidentiality to Sam prevents him from disclosing this information. Instead, Bob must follow the rules regarding client perjury, which may require him to take remedial measures with the court without violating attorney-client privilege.
Hypo 2: Bob overhears his colleague Sam, another criminal defense attorney, bragging at a bar about how he helped his client fabricate an alibi for a murder trial. Bob knows this is a serious violation of legal ethics that goes to the heart of Sam's fitness as a lawyer.
Result: In this case, the "Snitch Rule" would require Bob to report Sam's misconduct to the appropriate disciplinary authority. Bob has actual knowledge of conduct that raises a substantial question about Sam's honesty and fitness as a lawyer. The information was not obtained through a confidential attorney-client relationship, so Bob has an ethical duty to report it.
Hypo 3: Bob is representing Sam in a complex securities fraud case. During trial preparation, Bob discovers that Sam, who is also an attorney, has been systematically destroying and altering key documents that would implicate his guilt. This conduct clearly violates rules of professional conduct and criminal law.
Result: The "Snitch Rule" presents a dilemma for Bob in this scenario. On one hand, he has knowledge of serious misconduct by another lawyer that raises substantial questions about Sam's honesty and fitness to practice law. However, this information was obtained within the context of Bob's representation of Sam. The duty of confidentiality likely prevents Bob from reporting Sam's misconduct. Bob would need to counsel Sam to cease the illegal activity and consider withdrawing from representation, but would likely be prohibited from reporting Sam under the "Snitch Rule".
Hypo 4: Bob attends a continuing legal education seminar where the presenter, Sam, appears to be intoxicated. Sam slurs his words, loses his train of thought repeatedly, and eventually stumbles off the stage. Bob is concerned about Sam's behavior but unsure if it requires reporting.
Result: This situation likely does not trigger the "Snitch Rule." While Sam's behavior is concerning and unprofessional, a single instance of apparent intoxication may not rise to the level of raising a "substantial question" about Sam's fitness as a lawyer. The rule is intended for serious misconduct, not isolated lapses in judgment. However, if Bob has knowledge that this is part of a pattern of substance abuse affecting Sam's practice, it could potentially require reporting. The key is whether the conduct substantially impacts Sam's fitness to practice law.
Result: The "Snitch Rule" does not apply in this situation. While Bob has knowledge of dishonest conduct, the rule only requires reporting misconduct by other lawyers, not clients. Bob's duty of confidentiality to Sam prevents him from disclosing this information. Instead, Bob must follow the rules regarding client perjury, which may require him to take remedial measures with the court without violating attorney-client privilege.
Hypo 2: Bob overhears his colleague Sam, another criminal defense attorney, bragging at a bar about how he helped his client fabricate an alibi for a murder trial. Bob knows this is a serious violation of legal ethics that goes to the heart of Sam's fitness as a lawyer.
Result: In this case, the "Snitch Rule" would require Bob to report Sam's misconduct to the appropriate disciplinary authority. Bob has actual knowledge of conduct that raises a substantial question about Sam's honesty and fitness as a lawyer. The information was not obtained through a confidential attorney-client relationship, so Bob has an ethical duty to report it.
Hypo 3: Bob is representing Sam in a complex securities fraud case. During trial preparation, Bob discovers that Sam, who is also an attorney, has been systematically destroying and altering key documents that would implicate his guilt. This conduct clearly violates rules of professional conduct and criminal law.
Result: The "Snitch Rule" presents a dilemma for Bob in this scenario. On one hand, he has knowledge of serious misconduct by another lawyer that raises substantial questions about Sam's honesty and fitness to practice law. However, this information was obtained within the context of Bob's representation of Sam. The duty of confidentiality likely prevents Bob from reporting Sam's misconduct. Bob would need to counsel Sam to cease the illegal activity and consider withdrawing from representation, but would likely be prohibited from reporting Sam under the "Snitch Rule".
Hypo 4: Bob attends a continuing legal education seminar where the presenter, Sam, appears to be intoxicated. Sam slurs his words, loses his train of thought repeatedly, and eventually stumbles off the stage. Bob is concerned about Sam's behavior but unsure if it requires reporting.
Result: This situation likely does not trigger the "Snitch Rule." While Sam's behavior is concerning and unprofessional, a single instance of apparent intoxication may not rise to the level of raising a "substantial question" about Sam's fitness as a lawyer. The rule is intended for serious misconduct, not isolated lapses in judgment. However, if Bob has knowledge that this is part of a pattern of substance abuse affecting Sam's practice, it could potentially require reporting. The key is whether the conduct substantially impacts Sam's fitness to practice law.
Visual Aids
