Civility rules: debunking the major myths surrounding mandatory civility for lawyers and five mandatory civility rules that will work

• Pages: 167-205
• Date: 01 April 2024
• Published date: 01 April 2024
• Author: David A. Grenardo
• Subject Matter: Derecho Civil

ARTICLE

Civility Rules: Debunking the Major Myths

Surrounding Mandatory Civility for Lawyers and

Five Mandatory Civility Rules that will Work

†

DAVID A. GRENARDO*

ABSTRACT

Civility remains a problem in the legal profession. Teaching law students about

civility is critical, but it is not enough. Continuing legal education (CLE) programs

on civility make for a fun hour, but they similarly fall short. Adding phrases about

civility to the oaths lawyers take certainly does not hurt, but those oaths typically

lack accountability. Calls for civility and calls to return to civility have become

routine in the legal profession, yet they ring hollow because they do not lead to

signif‌icant change. We are naı

¨

ve to hope that some lawyers will make substantial

changes to their behavior in a profession riddled with systemic incivility just

because others in the legal profession kindly ask them to do so. Instead, systemic

change requires signif‌icantly altering the system—starting with mandating civility.

† I thank the American Inns of Court and its panel of reviewers, Professor Robert M. Wilcox, Professor

Lonnie T. Brown, Jr., Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom, and Professor W. Bradley Wendel, for selecting this

Article as the winner of the American Inns of Court’s 2023 Warren E. Burger Prize.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

* Professor of Law & Associate Director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions,

University of St. Thomas School of Law; Rice University, B.A., Duke University School of Law, J.D. I would

like to thank Professor Patrick Longan, the William Augustus Bootle Chair in Professionalism and Ethics and

the Director of the Mercer Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism at Mercer University School of Law,

Professor Benjamin Madison, Director of the Center for Ethical Formation & Legal Education Reform at

Regent University School of Law, and Jerry Organ, the Bakken Professor of Law and Co-Director of the

Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, for

providing invaluable insight and comments on an earlier draft. This Article would not have been possible with-

out the work of my current and former research assistants, Lena Atchan, Ajang Ekinde, Stella Haberman, Alex

Kautza, Gabrielle Murphy, and Merryn L. Wier, University of St. Thomas School of Law J.D. Candidates, and

Khadija Aboueisha, Rockland Gleason, Mikayla Longoria, M. Alejandra Salas, David R. Sames, and Lourdes

Vela, St. Mary’s University School of Law, J.D. The views expressed in this article are mine alone, and any

mistakes, errors, or omissions are solely attributable to me. © 2024, David A. Grenardo.

167

I. UNDERSTANDING THE BASICS OF CIVILITY IN THE LEGAL

PROFESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

A. DEFINITION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF

CIVILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

B. ADVANTAGES OF CIVILITY AND DISADVANTAGES OF

INCIVILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

C. RESPONSES TO INCIVILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

II. UNDERSTANDING THE BASICS OF MANDATORY CIVILITY . . . . 177

A. WHAT MANDATORY CIVILITY IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT . . 177

B. HOW STATES WITH MANDATORY CIVILITY ENFORCE

IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

1. ARIZONA .......................................... 178

2. FLORIDA ........................................... 179

3. MICHIGAN ......................................... 180

4. SOUTH CAROLINA ................................... 181

C. ADVANTAGES OF MANDATORY CIVILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

1. ACCOUNTABILITY................................ .... 181

2. ABILITY TO CATCH HEALTH AND WELLNESS ISSUES . . . . . . . . . 182

3. COVERS MORE LAWYERS .............................. 182

4. PRESERVES JUDICIAL RESOURCES .............. ......... 183

5. REDUCES COSTS FOR CLIENTS .......................... 183

6. DECREASES STRESS ON ATTORNEYS AND ALLOWS LAWYERS TO

FOCUS ON THE MERITS OF CASES........................ 183

7. IMPROVES PERCEPTIONS ABOUT LAWYERS AND THE LEGAL

SYSTEM ........................................... 184

III. ADDRESSING THE MAJOR MYTHS OF MANDATORY CIVILITY . 184

A. MYTH NUMBER ONE: ONE ACT OF INCIVILITY COULD

LEAD TO SANCTIONS AND A TARNISHED CAREER . . . . . . 184

B. MYTH NUMBER TWO: COMPLAINTS WILL INCREASE

DRAMATICALLY IF INCIVILITY BECOMES A SEPARATE

OFFENSE, AND THE EXTRA COMPLAINTS WILL

NECESSITATE MORE STATE BAR STAFF TO INVESTIGATE

INCIVILITY COMPLAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

168 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS [Vol. 37:167

C. MYTH NUMBER THREE: CIVILITY RULES INHIBIT

ZEALOUS ADVOCACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

D. MYTH NUMBER FOUR: CIVILITY RULES ARE TOO VAGUE

AND DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

E. MYTH NUMBER FIVE: CIVILITY RULES ATTACK

RACIAL MINORITIES AND WOMEN WHILE FAVORING

THE ELITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

IV. FIVE MANDATORY CIVILITY RULES THAT WILL WORK . . . . . 191

V. COUNTERARGUMENTS TO MANDATORY CIVILITY AND

RESPONSES THERETO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

A. INCIVILITY IS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL AS A LAWYER. . . . . . 194

B. JUDGES, NOT MANDATORY CIVILITY RULES, ARE THE

ANSWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

C. JUDGMENT CALLS WILL BE NECESSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

D. THE ETHICS RULES COVER UNCIVIL CONDUCT . . . . . . . . 195

E. CONCERN REGARDING ABUSE OF CIVILITY RULES . . . . . 196

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

APPENDIX A: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ON MANDATORY CIVILITY

PROPOSED BY PROFESSOR OF LAW DAVID A. GRENARDO, MARCH

2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ON MANDATORY CIVILITY

PROPOSED BY PROFESSOR OF LAW DAVID A. GRENARDO, MARCH

2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

APPENDIX C: AMERICAN INNS OF COURT NATIONAL

CONVERSATION ON CIVILITY 2021, MANDATING CIVILITY –

YES OR NO? ASSESSMENT REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

2024] CIVILITY RULES 169