Ezel / Ethics Opinions / OCBAR

What change to the rule on lawyer-client sexual relations did Orange County's committee propose in 2003?

Short answer The opinion argued that former California Rule 3-120's partial ban was insufficient and urged adoption of ABA Model Rule 1.8(j)'s broader prohibition.
Bar
OCBAR
Issued
2003
Source
View official page

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2003. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2003
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 Not binding precedent.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 as an official web page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (official page)

Plain-English summary

The committee examines former California Rule 3-120, which it describes as a partial restriction on attorney-client sexual relations. It argues that the rule did not go far enough to protect the attorney-client fiduciary relationship or competent representation.

The opinion advocates adopting the broader approach of ABA Model Rule 1.8(j). Its proposal would generally bar sexual relations between lawyer and client unless a consensual relationship already existed when the representation began. This is the committee's proposed change to the then-existing California rule, not a statement that California had already adopted the ABA rule in 2003.

The committee bases its position on risks it identifies to client interests, professional judgment, and the administration of justice. Its conclusion calls the ABA rule a clearer boundary than the partial prohibition it criticizes.

In practice

This page records the committee's 2003 policy position on former Rule 3-120. Its central conclusion is a proposed broader rule, rather than an interpretation that the broader ABA prohibition already governed California lawyers.

Common questions

Q: Did the opinion say California already followed ABA Model Rule 1.8(j)?

A: No. It urged California to adopt the ABA rule because it considered former Rule 3-120 insufficient.

Q: What exception did the proposed ABA approach contain?

A: The opinion describes an exception where the consensual relationship existed before the lawyer-client relationship began.

Background and rules framework

The source discusses former California Rule 3-120 and ABA Model Rule 1.8(j). The opinion is a historical committee proposal, and its source text is the authority for the position summarized here.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Former California Rule 3-120
  • ABA Model Rule 1.8(j)

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2003. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state 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