Upholding Ethical Standards in the Legal Profession
Christopher S. Gontarz, Esq.
President, Rhode Island Bar Association
“The rule of law and attorney ethics are essential to the proper and effective functioning of our legal system."
The legal landscape is strewn with a myriad of potential pitfalls for today’s practitioners. Ever-more complex deal-making, domestic and international cross-border business entanglements, representing clients in contested elections, and potent emerging technologies are some of the challenges attorneys face in seeking to effectively represent their clients. An essential but oft-forgotten aid in navigating these obstacles is an attorney’s committed fidelity to the principles and precepts of attorney ethics.
When I was sworn in as President of the Bar Association by Chief Justice Suttell, I was administered an oath that all my predecessors have taken. As part of the oath, I stated that, “I will continue to carry out the obligations imposed upon me by the Rules of Professional Conduct.” When we are sworn in as attorneys by a Justice of the Supreme Court, we similarly “solemnly swear that in the exercise of the office of attorney and counselor we will do no falsehood, nor consent to any being done.” In other words, ethics are a critical capstone component of our legal profession from the outset. We attorneys are held to high ethical standards to protect the integrity of the legal system and, more importantly, uphold the rule of law and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice.
The rule of law and attorney ethics are essential to the proper and effective functioning of our legal system. As advocates, we must represent our clients and their positions with zeal. While pursing meritorious claims and contentions for clients, not to be overlooked is the mandate of Rule 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal. As noted in the preamble of the rules, “The Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason…Some of the Rules are imperatives, cast in the terms ‘shall’ or ‘shall not’.” Rule 3.3 is not discretionary in its directive (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer. Knowingly is defined as “actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.” The comments to Rule 3.3 emphasize that the provisions of the rule collectively set forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the rule of law and confidence in the justice system.
We attorneys also have an obligation, while representing clients, to not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to others. Rule 4.1 of the Rules states, “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6”[fn 1] (Confidentiality of Information). Lawyers can inadvertently violate Rule 4.1 by knowingly repeating an assertion of fact made by the client when the lawyer knows that the assertion is false and repeats the claim. The Comments to Rule 3.3 further emphasize that its provisions collectively set forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the rule of law and confidence in the justice system. A July 2024 opinion by the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division emphasizes the responsibility of attorneys regarding Rule 4.1. The disciplinary charges stem from the allegations that the lawyer communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as a lawyer. The lawyer’s defense was that he lacked knowledge that the statements he made were false and that he had a good faith basis to believe the allegations he made. The defense was rejected, finding that he had made knowing falsehoods, and that each falsehood was made with the intent to deceive. They found that the statements were made “wildly, falsely and dishonestly without regard for its truth or accuracy.”[fn 2] After 55 years of honorable and distinguished public service and no disciplinary complaints, the lawyer was disbarred.
I am stressing the importance of ethics for attorneys because consistent adherence to the Rules of Professional Conduct begets many benefits to practitioners and clients alike. Maintaining public trust is essential to maintaining public confidence in the legal system and the rule of law. Client confidence: clients rely on attorneys to represent their best interests competently and with integrity. Professional reputation: ethical behavior contributes to an attorney’s professional reputation, which, regardless of what we see advertised, is the cornerstone of the business in the practice of law. Avoiding disciplinary actions for violations of the Rules. Protection of confidentiality is crucial for preserving the attorney-client relationship. Ethical conduct by attorneys is essential for ensuring a fair and impartial administration of justice. Finally, our personal integrity reflects our commitment to upholding the values of justice and the rule of law.
Upholding ethical principles not only benefits clients and the legal system but also reinforces our own commitment to moral and professional standards. Ethical conduct by attorneys is fundamental to ensuring an unbiased and just legal system. Finally, our personal integrity reflects our commitment to upholding the values of justice and the rule of law. In my opinion, ethics serve as the foundation of the legal profession. Fidelity to the Rules of Professional Conduct should therefore serve as an aide to our ongoing duty to improve the administration of justice.
I would like to thank Justin Correa, Esq., legal counsel to the Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel for his excellent editorial assistance.
Endnotes
1 Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.3; 4.1 and 1.6.
2 In Re: Rudolph W. Giuliani, AD3d1 (2024), Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial District, Motions Nos. 24-1332, 2063 and 21-596. Decided July 2, 2024.