Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA March 15, 2012

Can a New York lawyer run or post on a blog that criticizes another lawyer's professional conduct?

Short answer: Yes. The Rules do not prohibit a lawyer from hosting or participating in a blog that publishes factually accurate criticism of another lawyer's professional conduct, provided the criticism is accurate enough to avoid Rule 8.4(c).

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2012. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2012
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether it is permissible to host or participate in an internet blog set up as a forum for lawyers to recount their experiences with an adversary whose past professional conduct they consider unethical, harassing, or abusive (paragraph 1).

The committee noted that Rule 8.2 expressly addresses false statements about judges, but there is no comparable provision specifically governing public criticism of one lawyer by another. So any ethical restraint would have to come from the general provisions of Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) or Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) (paragraph 2). Assuming the criticism is accurate enough and in context not to violate Rule 8.4(c), the committee found no Rule 8.4(d) limitation on factually sustainable public criticism of another lawyer (paragraph 3).

The committee added two observations. First, the aspirational "Standards of Civility" for the Unified Court System urge lawyers to avoid vulgar language and gratuitous disparagement; though not enforceable by discipline, they describe a norm of temperate, dignified criticism, and the committee urged the inquirer to avoid petty criticisms and to write only to improve the legal system (paragraph 4, citing N.Y. City 1996-1). Second, Rule 8.3(a) requires a lawyer who knows another lawyer committed a violation that raises a substantial question about that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to report it to a tribunal or authority empowered to act; to the extent the published information is both significant and truthful, Rule 8.3(a) may require such reporting (paragraph 5).

In practice

The opinion holds that, under the current Rules, nothing prohibits a lawyer from hosting or contributing to a blog that publishes factually accurate criticism of another lawyer's professional conduct. The committee makes accuracy the operative limit (criticism must be true enough to avoid Rule 8.4(c)), notes that the Standards of Civility set an aspirational, non-disciplinary norm of temperate expression, and observes that where the criticized conduct is a significant and truthful Rule violation, the separate Rule 8.3(a) reporting duty may be triggered.

Common questions

Q: Can I run a blog criticizing another lawyer's conduct?

A: Yes, if the criticism is factually accurate. The committee held the Rules do not prohibit hosting or participating in such a blog, with accuracy being the limit that keeps it clear of Rule 8.4(c) (paragraphs 3, 6).

Q: Are there limits on how I can phrase the criticism?

A: The enforceable limit is accuracy under Rule 8.4(c) and the prejudicial-conduct bar of Rule 8.4(d). The committee separately pointed to the aspirational Standards of Civility, which discourage vulgarity and gratuitous disparagement but are not enforced by discipline (paragraphs 2, 4).

Q: If I have proof another lawyer acted unethically, do I have to report it?

A: Possibly. Rule 8.3(a) requires reporting when a lawyer knows of a violation raising a substantial question about another lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. The committee said that where the information is significant and truthful, Rule 8.3(a) may require reporting to an authority empowered to act (paragraph 5).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New York Rule 8.2 (statements about judges), Rule 8.3(a) (reporting professional misconduct), and Rule 8.4(c) and (d) (dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4. Because no rule specifically governs lawyer-on-lawyer public criticism, the analysis runs through the general misconduct provisions, with accuracy as the controlling constraint.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 8.2 / NY Rule 8.2: false statements about judges (no lawyer-criticism analogue)
  • MR 8.3 / NY Rule 8.3(a): duty to report another lawyer's misconduct
  • MR 8.4 / NY Rule 8.4(c), (d): dishonesty; conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

Other authority cited:

  • Standards of Civility, 22 NYCRR Part 1200, App. A (aspirational)
  • N.Y. City 1996-1: well-founded published criticism of a judge's trial conduct permitted

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2012 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.