Must Connecticut government lawyers report an out-of-state lawyer serving as a regulatory chair for alleged ex parte communications about related proposed legislation?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2025. Ask about yours and see what the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Government lawyers asked whether they had to report the chair of a public regulatory authority for communications during interagency discussions of proposed legislation. The chair was admitted in another state but not Connecticut. The requesting lawyers alleged that the communications were improper because they related to a declaratory ruling proceeding pending before the authority.
Rule 8.3(a) requires reporting when a lawyer knows another lawyer violated the Rules and the violation raises a substantial question about that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. The Committee concluded that an out-of-state or nonpracticing lawyer is "another lawyer" for this purpose, even though the chair was not licensed in Connecticut and was acting as an adjudicator rather than practicing law.
Rule 3.5 did not apply to the chair's conduct. The rule governs a lawyer's obligations as an advocate communicating with or seeking to influence a tribunal. Here, the communications came from a member of the tribunal and concerned proposed legislation. The Committee treated any issue as one involving the chair's adjudicative responsibilities, not professional obligations as a lawyer under Rule 3.5.
The Committee also found no Rule 8.4 violation. The facts did not suggest deceit or misrepresentation, and participation in a public legislative process was not prejudicial to the administration of justice on the facts described. Even if Rule 8.4 had been violated, the Committee concluded that the conduct was not sufficiently serious to raise the substantial question required by Rule 8.3(a).
In practice
Under this opinion, Rule 8.3(a)'s reference to another lawyer includes a lawyer admitted elsewhere or not actively practicing. A reporting duty nevertheless requires both knowledge of a Rules violation and a violation that raises a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.
The Committee did not decide whether a substantive response by the requesting lawyers to the chair's communications would have violated Rule 3.5. It also expressly excluded other codes of conduct, statutes, and potentially applicable ethical rules from the opinion.
Common questions
Q: Does Rule 8.3 cover a lawyer who is not admitted in Connecticut?
A: Yes. The opinion states that suspended, out-of-state, and nonpracticing lawyers are treated as "another lawyer" for reporting purposes.
Q: Did Rule 3.5 prohibit the regulatory chair's communications?
A: No. The chair was a member of the tribunal, while Rule 3.5 governs a lawyer's professional obligations as an advocate communicating with or seeking to influence a tribunal.
Q: Did the communications violate Rule 8.4?
A: No on the facts presented. The Committee found no suggestion of deceit or misrepresentation and did not regard participation in efforts to craft legislation as prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Q: Was there a duty to report even if the conduct violated Rule 8.4?
A: The Committee said no on these facts because the conduct was not sufficiently serious to raise a substantial question about the chair's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
Q: Did the requesting lawyers themselves violate the Rules?
A: Nothing in the request suggested a violation because they did not substantively engage with the communications after learning of the connection to the pending proceeding.
Q: Did the opinion decide whether other law or ethics codes applied?
A: No. The Committee expressly did not consider other codes of conduct, statutes, or other potentially applicable ethical rules.
Background and rules framework
The Rule 8.3(a) analysis has two steps: knowledge that another lawyer violated a Rule, followed by a determination whether the violation raises a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. The opinion applies that framework to Rules 3.5 and 8.4.
The Committee distinguished a lawyer's role as advocate from the chair's role as an adjudicator. It noted that the chair was not subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct despite the adjudicatory role.
Citations and references
Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rules 3.5, 8.3(a), 8.4(3), and 8.4(4)
Other opinions cited:
- Connecticut Informal Opinion 2013-05, duty to report suspected misconduct
Other authorities:
- Ellen J. Bennett, Helen W. Gunnarsson & Nancy G. Kisicki, Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct (10th ed. 2023)
- Connecticut Code of Judicial Conduct, Application § I
See also
- LSBA Op. 06-RPCC-010: Reporting lawyer misconduct
- NY State Bar Op. 1091: Reporting an out-of-state lawyer
Source
- Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
- Original PDF: Informal Opinion 25-04
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2025. Ezel checks the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace