Rule 8.4 Misconduct

Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses

involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some

kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of

offenses involving “moral turpitude.” That concept can be construed to include offenses

concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that

have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally

answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for

offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving

violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are

in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when

considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.

A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good-faith belief that

no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(c) concerning a good-faith challenge to

the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of

the practice of law. See also Rule 3.4(c).

Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens.

A lawyer’s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of

attorney. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as trustee, executor,

administrator, guardian, agent, and such as officer, director, or manager of a corporation or other

organization.