Home › Missouri › Rules of Professional Conduct › Rule 4-5.2

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Mo. R. Prof'l Conduct 4-5.2

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 4-5.2 Law Firms and Associations - Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer

Rules of Professional Conduct

← Previous Rule 4-5.1: Law Firms and Associations - Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers Next → Rule 4-5.3: Law Firms and Associations - Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

Rule Text

(a) A lawyer is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person.

(b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.

Amendment history: (Adopted Aug. 7, 1985, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended March 1, 2007, eff. July 1, 2007.)

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.

A junior lawyer still has to follow the rules of professional conduct, even if a boss or supervisor told them what to do. Being told to do something by another lawyer, even a partner or senior attorney, does not excuse a lawyer from breaking ethics rules. Every lawyer is personally responsible for their own conduct.

That said, the rule also protects junior lawyers in gray areas. If there is a genuine question about what the ethics rules require, and a supervising lawyer gives a reasonable answer about how to handle it, the junior lawyer can follow that guidance without getting in trouble. This only applies when the issue is truly debatable, not when the rules are clear and the supervisor is telling the lawyer to break them.

In short, this rule balances two things. It makes sure lawyers cannot hide behind "I was just following orders" when they clearly violate ethics rules. But it also recognizes that newer or lower-ranking lawyers often rely on more experienced attorneys to sort out tricky ethical questions, and they should not be punished for trusting a reasonable judgment call from a supervisor.

Committee Notes

COMMENT

[1] Although a lawyer is not relieved of responsibility for a violation by the fact that the lawyer acted at the direction of a supervisor, that fact may be relevant in determining whether a lawyer had the knowledge required to render conduct a violation of the Rules. For example, if a subordinate filed a frivolous pleading at the direction of a supervisor, the subordinate would not be guilty of a professional violation unless the subordinate knew of the document's frivolous character.

[2] When lawyers in a supervisor-subordinate relationship encounter a matter involving professional judgment as to ethical duty, the supervisor may assume responsibility for making the judgment. Otherwise a consistent course of action or position could not be taken. If the question can reasonably be answered only one way, the duty of both lawyers is clear and they are equally responsible for fulfilling it. However, if the question is reasonably arguable, someone has to decide upon the course of action. That authority ordinarily reposes in the supervisor, and a subordinate may be guided accordingly. For example, if a question arises whether the interests of two clients conflict under Rule 4-1.7, the supervisor's reasonable resolution of the question should protect the subordinate professionally if the resolution is subsequently challenged.