It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;(b) commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law;(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law;(d) state or imply an ability to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official;(e) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or(f) enter into an agreement with a client or former client limiting or purporting to limit the right of the client or former client to file or pursue any complaint before a lawyer regulatory or disciplinary authority.Comment
[1]ABA Model Rule Comment not adopted.[2] Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offense carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving "moral turpitude." That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.[3]ABA Model Rule Comment not adopted.[4] A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(c) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law. See also Rule 3.1, Rule 3.4(d).[5] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of attorney. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent and officer, director or manager of a corporation or other organization.Virginia Code Comparison
With regard to paragraphs (a) through (c), DR 1-102(A) provided that a lawyer shall not:
(1)" Violate a Disciplinary Rule or knowingly aid another to do so.(2) Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another.(3) Commit a crime or other deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on a lawyer's fitness to practice law." Paragraph (d) is substantially the same as DR 9-101(C).
There was no direct counterpart to paragraph (e) in the Disciplinary Rules of the Virginia Code. EC 7-31 stated in part that "[a] lawyer ... is never justified in making a gift or a loan to a [judicial officer] under circumstances which might give the appearance that the gift or loan is made to influence official action." EC 9-1 stated that a lawyer "should promote public confidence in our [legal] system and in the legal profession."
The amendments effective 3/25/2003, in paragraph (b), substituted "fitness to practice law" for "fitness as a lawyer"; in paragraph (c), deleted "professional" after present words "engage in" and added "which reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law"; added the last sentence to Comment [5]; amended by order dated January 4, 2024, effective 3/4/2024.Committee Commentary
Much of this Rule parallels provisions of the Disciplinary Rules of the Virginia Code. Paragraph (e), however, sets forth a prohibition not in the Virginia Code, and the Committee believed it is an appropriate addition.