Disciplinary Authority.
It is longstanding law that the conduct of a lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is
subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction. Extension of the disciplinary authority of
this jurisdiction to other lawyers who provide or offer to provide legal services in this
jurisdiction is for the protection of the citizens of this jurisdiction. Reciprocal enforcement of a
jurisdiction’s disciplinary findings and sanctions will further advance the purposes of this rule.
The fact that a lawyer is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction may be a factor
in determining whether personal jurisdiction may be asserted over the lawyer in civil matters.
Choice of Law.
A lawyer potentially may be subject to more than one set of rules of professional conduct that
impose different obligations. The lawyer may be licensed to practice in more than one
jurisdiction with differing rules, or may be admitted to practice before a particular court with
rules that differ from those of the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which the lawyer is licensed to
practice. Additionally, the lawyer’s conduct may involve significant contacts with more than
one jurisdiction.
Paragraph (b) seeks to resolve such potential conflicts. Its premise is that minimizing conflicts
between rules, as well as uncertainty about which rules are applicable, is in the best interests of
clients, the profession, and those who are authorized to regulate the profession. Accordingly,
paragraph (b) provides that any particular conduct of a lawyer shall be subject to only one set of
rules of professional conduct; makes the determination of which set of rules applies to particular
conduct as straightforward as possible, consistent with recognition of appropriate regulatory
interests of relevant jurisdictions; and protects from discipline those lawyers who act reasonably
in the face of uncertainty.
Paragraph (b)(1) provides, as to a lawyer’s conduct relating to a proceeding pending before a
tribunal, that the lawyer shall be subject only to the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal
sits unless the rules of the tribunal, including its choice of law rule, provide otherwise. As to all
other conduct, including conduct in anticipation of a proceeding not yet pending before a
tribunal, paragraph (b)(2) provides that a lawyer shall be subject to the rules of the jurisdiction in
which the lawyer’s conduct occurred or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in another
jurisdiction, the lawyer shall be subject to the rules of that jurisdiction. In the case of conduct in
anticipation of a proceeding that is likely to be before a tribunal, the predominant effect of such
conduct could be either where the conduct occurred, where the tribunal sits, or in another
jurisdiction.
When a lawyer’s conduct involves significant contacts with more than one jurisdiction, it may
not be clear initially whether the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur in a
jurisdiction other than the one in which the conduct actually did occur. So long as the lawyer’s
conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the
predominant effect will occur, the lawyer shall not be subject to discipline under this rule.
If two admitting jurisdictions were to proceed against a lawyer for the same conduct, they
should, applying this rule, identify the same governing ethics rules. They should take all
appropriate steps to see that they do apply the same rule to the same conduct and should avoid
proceeding against a lawyer on the basis of inconsistent rules.
The choice of law provision applies to lawyers engaged in transnational practice, unless
international law, treaties, or other agreements between regulatory authorities in the affected
jurisdictions provide otherwise.
