Law Commons^™

Reckless Abandon: The Shadow Of Model Rule 8.4(G) And A Path Forward, Margaret Tarkington

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In August 2016, the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Board of Governors approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) 8.4(g) as a model for state adoption. The Rule makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in “harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status.” Curbing harassment and discrimination is a critically important goal. However, the actual Rule as promulgated reaches far beyond prohibiting sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination. Instead the comments to the Rule define discrimination and harassment broadly to prohibit speech …

Aba Model Rule 8.4(G), Discriminatory Speech, And The First Amendment, Bruce Green, Rebecca Roiphe

Articles & Chapters

The ABA adopted Model Rule 8.4(g), which targets certain speech and conduct that are based on “race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status.” In particular, according to the accompanying comment, Rule 8.4(g) reaches speech that is “derogatory and demeaning” or that “manifests bias or prejudice towards others” and is “harmful” (including, presumably, emotionally harmful). This rule targets a significant amount of speech that would be constitutionally protected if it were uttered by a nonlawyer. This article argues that there is no justification for treating lawyers differently from others in many …

Medium-Specific Regulation Of Attorney Advertising: A Critique, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Tera Jckowski Peterson

Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court added a "licensing" scheme for attorney advertising on television or radio to its existing panoply of attorney advertising regulations. The new rule imposes a prior restraint on all radio and television ads by Florida attorneys: every ad must run the gauntlet of the Bar's censors prior to airing, and the ad may not air unless its content meets with the approval of the censors. Not content with its foray into regulating the broadcast medium, the Florida Supreme Court is now poised to add a rule that will regulate attorney speech on the Internet much …

Lost In The Compromise: Free Speech, Criminal Justice, And Attorney Pretrial Publicity, Margaret Tarkington

Margaret C Tarkington

Publicity by the prosecution and defense in the criminal proceedings against George Zimmerman again raised the question of the appropriate scope of First Amendment protection for attorney pretrial publicity. The Supreme Court, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and many scholars have viewed restrictions on attorney pretrial publicity as a compromise between the constitutional guarantees of free speech and a fair trial. Nevertheless, scholars advocate widely divergent levels of free speech protection for attorney pretrial publicity—ranging from core free speech protection to extremely limited protection. Traditional First Amendment doctrines fail to elucidate the proper scope of free speech rights for …

Medium-Specific Regulation Of Attorney Advertising: A Critique, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Tera Jckowski Peterson

UF Law Faculty Publications

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court added a "licensing" scheme for attorney advertising on television or radio to its existing panoply of attorney advertising regulations. The new rule imposes a prior restraint on all radio and television ads by Florida attorneys: every ad must run the gauntlet of the Bar's censors prior to airing, and the ad may not air unless its content meets with the approval of the censors. Not content with its foray into regulating the broadcast medium, the Florida Supreme Court is now poised to add a rule that will regulate attorney speech on the Internet much …

Rhetoric, Evidence, And Bar Agency Restrictions On Speech By Attorneys, Lloyd B. Snyder

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

There are two problems with permitting litigation about attorney speech to proceed without requiring bar disciplinary agencies to present empirical data or other evidence to support claims that restrictions on attorney speech are necessary. First, the history of bar association restrictions on attorney speech should make us skeptical that the bar rules are based on lofty ideals about protection of the public. The restrictions began as rules promulgated by elite corporate lawyers whose effect was to limit the activities of their less affluent brethren who were representing criminal defendants and other impoverished clients. The purpose of the rules was to …