Rule Text (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
(a) Rules of Professional Conduct Apply. A lawyer is bound
by the Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the
lawyer acted at the direction of another person.
(b) Reliance on Supervisor’s Opinion. A subordinate lawyer
does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if that lawyer
acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer’s reasonable
resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.
Educational reference. This page summarizes a Florida Rule of Professional Conduct for educational purposes. The rule text and Comment are mirrored from the Florida Bar's official publication and are public domain. The plain-English summary and any commentary are the opinion of Phillips, Hunt & Walker and are general information only — not legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you believe a Florida lawyer has violated this rule, you can file a complaint with The Florida Bar at floridabar.org. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
What this rule means in plain English
A subordinate lawyer in a Florida law firm is bound by the ethics rules even when acting at the direction of another lawyer. The ‘I was just following orders’ defense doesn’t work in legal ethics. The rule recognizes there’s a narrow gray zone where a junior lawyer can defer to a supervisor’s reasonable resolution of an arguable ethics question — but for clear violations, the subordinate is personally responsible regardless of who told them to do it.
Florida Bar Ethics Opinions interpreting this rule
- Opinion 93-4 (1993)
<p>Common provisions in law firm-associate employment contracts can violate Rule 4-5.6, which bans agreements that restrict a lawyer's right to practice after termination. Non-compete clauses are unenforceable for lawyers in Florida — period. A firm cannot tie an associate's ability to practice law to severance, retirement, or any post-termination terms. The rule protects clients' ability to follow their chosen lawyer.</p>
Read on floridabar.org →
Comment (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
Although a lawyer is not relieved of responsibility for a
violation by the fact that the lawyer acted at the direction of a
supervisor, that fact may be relevant in determining whether a
lawyer had the knowledge required to render conduct a violation of
the rules. For example, if a subordinate filed a frivolous pleading at
the direction of a supervisor, the subordinate would not be guilty of
a professional violation unless the subordinate knew of the
document’s frivolous character.
When lawyers in a supervisor-subordinate relationship
encounter a matter involving professional judgment as to ethical
duty, the supervisor may assume responsibility for making the
judgment. Otherwise a consistent course of action or position could
not be taken. If the question can reasonably be answered only 1
way, the duty of both lawyers is clear and they are equally
responsible for fulfilling it. However, if the question is reasonably
arguable, someone has to decide upon the course of action. That
authority ordinarily reposes in the supervisor, and a subordinate
may be guided accordingly. For example, if a question arises
whether the interests of 2 clients conflict under rule 4-1.7, the
supervisor’s reasonable resolution of the question should protect
the subordinate professionally if the resolution is subsequently
challenged.
Amended July 23, 1992, effective January 1, 1993 (605 So.2d 252).