IN RE: OKLAHOMA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AMENDMENT TO RULE 8.3

IN RE: OKLAHOMA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AMENDMENT TO RULE 8.3
2003 OK 60
Case Number: SCBD-3490
Decided: 06/02/2003

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

In Re: Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct [ Amendment to Rule 8.3 -- Reporting Professional Misconduct]

ORDER

Upon Application by the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association, the Court approves the proposed amendment to Rule 8.3 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct as attached hereto.

DONE BY ORDER OF SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 2 DAY OF JUNE 2003.

/S/CHIEF JUSTICE, JOSEPH M. WATT

ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.

Exhibit "A"

Proposed Changes to Rule 8.3

Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct
Chapter 1, App. 3-A
Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession

Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a) A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

(b) A lawyer having knowledge that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

(c) This ruse does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 16.

(d) The provisions of Rule 8.3(a) shall not apply to lawyers who obtain such knowledge while acting as Ethics Counsel or as a member, investigator, agent, employee, or as a designee of the Oklahoma Bar Association Lawyers Helping Lawyers Committee or the Oklahoma Bar Association Management Assistance Program, in the course of assisting another lawyer. Any such knowledge received by a lawyer acting in such capacity shall enjoy the same confidence as information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law.

Historical Data

Adopted effective July 1, 1988. Amended by S.C.B.D. No. 3490 May 22,1998. (superseded document available.)

Comments

Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate a disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.

A report about misconduct is not required where it would involve violation of Rule 1.6. However, a lawyer should encourage a client to consent to disclosure where prosecution would not substantially prejudice the client's interests.

If a lawyer were obliged to report every violation of the Rules, the failure to report any violation would itself be a professional offense. Such a requirement existed in many jurisdictions but proved to be unenforceable. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of judgment is! therefore, required in complying with the provisions of this Rule. The tern, "substantial refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware. A report should be made to the bar disciplinary agency unless some other agency, such as a peer review agency, is more appropriate in the circumstances. Similar considerations apply to the reporting of judicial misconduct.

The duty to report professional misconduct does not apply to a lawyer retained to represent a lawyer whose professional conduct Is in question. Such a situation is governed by the rules applicable to the client-lawyer relationship.

Code Comparison

DR 1-103(A) provides that "A lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge of a violation of a [Disciplinary Rule] shall report such knowledge to.. authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation."

Oklahoma Modification