Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

When must a lawyer report another lawyer’s serious rule violation under Rule 8.3?

Short answer The committee said reporting was required once the lawyer knew of a violation raising a substantial question about the other lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. It said pending court proceedings did not set the timing and reserved a separate question about others who declined to report.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
1990
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1990. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
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 a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The archived letter is dated December 26, 1989, while the official index labels it 1990-03. The committee addressed when a lawyer must report another lawyer’s misconduct while court proceedings are pending.

The committee said Rule 8.3(a) required reporting when the lawyer had knowledge of a rule violation raising a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. The timing did not depend on the status of court proceedings. The committee said not every technical or insubstantial violation needed reporting and reserved a separate question about lawyers or judges who failed to report.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.

Common questions

Q: Could the lawyer wait for pending court proceedings to end?

A: The committee said the status of those proceedings did not dictate when a Rule 8.3(a) report was made.

Q: Did every technical rule violation require a report?

A: No. The committee pointed to the Rule 8.3 comment saying not every technical or insubstantial violation needed reporting.

Background and rules framework

The letter applied Rule 8.3(a) in two steps: determine whether a rule violation occurred, then whether it raised a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. The committee reserved the separate question about nonreporting by others.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rule 8.3(a), cited for reporting a substantial violation by another lawyer.

Source

Original opinion text

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1990. Ezel checks the current North Dakota 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