Catching Unfitness
Catching Unfitness
JON J. LEE*
ABSTRACT
How can the legal profession effectively regulate the multitude of ways in
which an attorney may commit misconduct, given our evolving understanding of
what it means to be “fit” to practice law? As the ABA’s adoption of an ethical
provision to proscribe harassment and discriminatory acts (Model Rule 8.4(g))
has shown, it is nearly impossible to craft a specific rule that is simultaneously
effective at capturing the relevant misconduct and immune from attack that it
goes too far.
If disciplinary authorities had a general catchall rule, they could regulate the
ever-changing ways in which misconduct is manifested. In fact, the ABA once
promulgated just such a rule, the fitness-to-practice provision, but it was elimi-
nated due to concerns about vagueness, overbreadth, and duplication.
This Article is the first to present an empirical study of how disciplinary
authorities regulate general lawyer misconduct, with a focus on the fitness-to-
practice provision. Through the use of a variety of analytical methods, the study
identifies how the seven states that have retained the fitness-to-practice provi-
sion use it to regulate misconduct. When properly administered, the fitness-to-
practice provision can effectively regulate otherwise elusive lawyer misconduct
that is not fully captured by other rules or that falls within the gaps between the
rules—including abusive conduct, discrimination, harassment, sexual miscon-
duct, and breaches of trust.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
I. REGULATING MISCONDUCT: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT. . . . . 362
A. FROM THE CANONS TO THE MODEL CODE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
* Professor of Practice, University of Minnesota Law School. © 2021, Jon J. Lee. The author wishes to
thank Martha Chamallas, Susan S. Fortney, Renee Knake Jefferson, Garry W. Jenkins, Samuel J. Levine, and
Jaime Santos for their thoughtful reviews and comments. Scott Dewey, Haille Laws, Lauren Russ, and Nathan
Webster provided excellent research assistance, with funding provided by the Vance K. Opperman Research
Scholar Fund.
355
B. THE MODEL RULES AND DISAPPEARANCE OF THE
FITNESS-TO-PRACTICE PROVISION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
II. THE STRUGGLE TO REGULATE DISCRIMINATION AND
HARASSMENT: MODEL RULE 8.4(G) AND ITS AFTERMATH . . . 368
A. EARLY ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE DISCRIMINATION AND
HARASSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
B. THE ADOPTION OF RULE 8.4(g): A TRIUMPH?. . . . . . . . . . . 370
C. THE OPPOSITION AGAINST STATE ADOPTION OF
RULE 8.4(g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
1. OVERBREADTH AND VAGUENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
2. CONTENT AND VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
3. EXPANSION OF REQUISITE MENTAL STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
D. LESSONS LEARNED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
III. EFFECTUATING THE PURPOSES OF LAWYER DISCIPLINE:
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
A. PURPOSES OF LAWYER DISCIPLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
1. PROTECTING THE PUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
2. PROMOTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE . . . . . . . . . . . 380
3. MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY AND HIGH STANDARDS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROFESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
4. INSTILLING AND PRESERVING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE
PROFESSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
B. EVALUATING DISCIPLINARY RULES: GUIDING
PRINCIPLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
1. PRINCIPLE #1: WHETHER THE RULE FURTHERS REGULATORY
OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
2. PRINCIPLE #2: WHETHER THE RULE PROMOTES RELEVANT
CONSTITUENT INTERESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
3. PRINCIPLE #3: WHETHER THE RULE FILLS A REGULATORY GAP 384
4. PRINCIPLE #4: WHETHER THE RULE SERVES A DISTINCT
FUNCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
5. PRINCIPLE #5: WHETHER THE RULE CAN BE APPLIED
CONSISTENTLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
356 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS [Vol. 34:355
6. PRINCIPLE #6: WHETHER THE RULE IS EFFECTIVELY TAILORED 386
IV. EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE FITNESS-TO-PRACTICE PROVISION . 386
A. STUDY SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
B. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
C. OVERALL RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FTP PROVISION AND
SANCTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
E. TAXONOMY FOR FTP-PROVISION VIOLATIONS . . . . . . . . 402
1. ABUSIVE CONDUCT, INCLUDING DISCRIMINATION AND
HARASSMENT (4.3% OF ALL FTP VIOLATIONS, 27.6% OF
SINGLE FTP VIOLATIONS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
2. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT (2.1% OF ALL FTP VIOLATIONS, 6.9%
OF SINGLE FTP VIOLATIONS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
3. BREACH OF TRUST (6.1% OF ALL FTP VIOLATIONS, 13.8% OF
SINGLE FTP VIOLATIONS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
4. UNTRUTHFULNESS (17.7% OF ALL FTP VIOLATIONS, 13.8% OF
SINGLE FTP VIOLATIONS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
5. INEPT LAWYERING (35.0% OF ALL FTP VIOLATIONS, 10.3% OF
SINGLE FTP VIOLATIONS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
6. FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETIES (33.6% OF ALL FTP VIOLATIONS,
6.9% OF SINGLE FTP VIOLATIONS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
7. BAR MISSTEPS (17.7% OF ALL FTP VIOLATIONS, 0.0% OF
SINGLE FTP VIOLATIONS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
8. ORDINARY CRIMES (10.0% OF ALL FTP VIOLATIONS, 27.6% OF
SINGLE FTP VIOLATIONS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
9. OTHER MISFEASANCE (2.3% OF ALL FTP VIOLATIONS, 6.9% OF
SINGLE FTP VIOLATIONS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
F. RESULTS BY CATEGORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
V. RECONSIDERING THE FITNESS-TO-PRACTICE PROVISION . . . . . 415
A. FTP PROVISION AS TOOL TO REGULATE ELUSIVE
MISCONDUCT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
B. BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPLEMENTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
2021] CATCHING UNFITNESS 357
To continue reading
Request your trial