Minnesota Law Review

Permissive Rules of Professional Conduct

In the wake of Enron’s collapse and other corporate scandals, the Securities and Exchange Commission considered adopting a regulation requiring lawyers in certain circumstances to publicly report corporate misconduct. The American Bar Association countered by expanding model disciplinary rules that allow, but do not require, lawyers to disclose client confidences to avert harm to third parties. The ABA argued that the SEC should defer to the normative judgment underlying its permissive approach to disclosure. The SEC evidently agreed, declining thus far to promulgate its proposed mandatory disclosure rule. This Article calls into question whether such deference was, and is ever, warranted.

The Article examines the body of legal ethics rules providing that lawyers “may” engage in particular conduct. It explores the relationship between these permissive rules and other law governing lawyers. In particular, the Article considers what the permissive rules mean in context, their possible rationales, and the extent to which other lawmakers should take the rules into account in regulating lawyer behavior. Upon close examination, it appears that there is a myriad of ways to explain the content of permissive ethics code provisions. This revelation casts doubt on the proposition that the SEC and other lawmakers should automatically refrain from imposing mandatory legal obligations in deference to the normative judgments said to underlie the codes. The professional rules arguably restrict lawyer discretion more than initially appears and, even when the codes do embrace discretion, that characteristic does not necessarily reflect a conclusion that external law should honor that discretion in all contexts. The Article concludes by exploring what these insights mean for ethics code drafters, courts, legislatures, and other lawmakers.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]