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