Which professional-conduct rules govern a Missouri lawyer admitted pro hac vice in a case pending before another state's court?

Plain-English summary

A Missouri-licensed lawyer obtained limited pro hac vice admission for litigation pending in a neighboring state's court and asked whether Missouri's rules or the neighboring state's rules governed.

Rule 4-8.5(a) makes the lawyer subject to Missouri's disciplinary authority regardless of where the conduct occurs and permits the neighboring jurisdiction to exercise disciplinary authority as well. Disciplinary authority and the rules selected for particular conduct are therefore separate questions.

For conduct connected to a matter before a tribunal, Rule 4-8.5(b)(1) selects the rules of the jurisdiction where the tribunal sits unless that tribunal's rules say otherwise. For other conduct, paragraph (b)(2) selects the rules where the conduct occurred or, if different, where its predominant effect occurred. The rule also protects conduct conforming to the rules of a jurisdiction where the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect will occur.

Because the described conduct concerned a case in the neighboring state's court, the opinion directs the lawyer to follow that jurisdiction's rules.

In practice

Under this opinion, pro hac vice admission does not remove Missouri disciplinary authority. For the pending out-of-state case, however, Rule 4-8.5's tribunal rule points to the neighboring jurisdiction's professional-conduct rules unless the tribunal provides otherwise.

Common questions

Q: Does Missouri retain disciplinary authority over conduct outside Missouri?

A: Yes. Rule 4-8.5(a) applies Missouri disciplinary authority regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs.

Q: Can the neighboring jurisdiction also discipline the lawyer?

A: Yes. The opinion states that the pro hac vice lawyer may be subject to its disciplinary authority.

Q: Which rules govern conduct connected to the pending case?

A: The rules of the jurisdiction where the tribunal sits, unless the tribunal's own rules provide otherwise.

Q: What governs conduct outside a tribunal matter?

A: The rules where the conduct occurred or, if the predominant effect is elsewhere, the rules of that other jurisdiction.

Background and rules framework

Rule 4-8.5(a) addresses disciplinary authority. Rule 4-8.5(b)(1) chooses rules for tribunal-related conduct, and Rule 4-8.5(b)(2) addresses other conduct and predominant effect. The opinion applies paragraph (b)(1) because the lawyer's work concerned litigation pending in another state's court.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Missouri Rule 4-8.5(a) (disciplinary authority)
• Missouri Rule 4-8.5(b)(1) and (2) (choice of law)

See also

• New York State Op. 1275: Disciplinary Authority and Choice of Law
• Vermont Ethics Op. 13-02: Cross-Border Federal Practice
• Nebraska Ethics Op. 11-06: Out-of-State Lawyer in Nebraska Arbitration

Source

• Landing page: Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-13

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Question: Lawyer represents Client in a litigation matter pending before a state court in a neighboring jurisdiction. Lawyer is licensed to practice in Missouri and has obtained a limited admission pro hac vice for the matter in neighboring jurisdiction. Lawyer asks whether to follow the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct or the rules of the neighboring jurisdiction.

Answer: Lawyer is subject to the disciplinary authority of Missouri regardless of where the conduct occurs and may be subject to the disciplinary authority of the neighboring jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4–8.5(a). Rule 4–8.5 states as follows:

(b) In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows:

(1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise; and

(2) for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction.

A lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur.

In this matter, Lawyer should follow the rules of the neighboring jurisdiction, as that is where the tribunal is located, and that is where the matter is pending before a state court in the neighboring jurisdiction.