Rule Text (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
(a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. A lawyer who
knows 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 must inform the appropriate professional authority.
(b) Reporting Misconduct of Judges. A lawyer who knows
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 must inform the appropriate authority.
(c) Confidences Preserved. This rule does not require
disclosure of information:
(1) otherwise protected by rule 4-1.6;
(2) gained by a lawyer while serving as a mediator or
mediation participant if the information is privileged or confidential
under applicable law; or
(3) gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in an
approved lawyers assistance program unless the lawyer’s
participation in an approved lawyers assistance program is part of a
disciplinary sanction, in which case a report about the lawyer who
is participating as part of a disciplinary sanction must be made to
the appropriate disciplinary agency.
(d) Limited Exception for Florida Bar Established Law
Practice Management Program. A lawyer employed by or acting
on behalf of the law practice management advice and education
program established and supervised by the board of governors is
exempt from the obligation to disclose knowledge of the conduct of
another member of The Florida Bar that raises a substantial
question as to the other lawyer’s fitness to practice, if the lawyer
employed by or acting on behalf of the program acquired the
knowledge while engaged in the course of the lawyer’s regular job
duties as an employee of the program.
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
If a Florida lawyer knows that another lawyer has committed an ethics violation that raises a substantial question about the other lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice, the lawyer must report it to The Florida Bar. The reporting duty has exceptions (information protected by confidentiality, information from a substance abuse assistance program). The rule is part of the profession’s self-regulation — and one of the most underused obligations on the books.
Florida Bar Ethics Opinions interpreting this rule
- Opinion 76-47 (1976)
<p>A lawyer who learns of another lawyer's ethics violation only through confidential information from a client cannot — and need not — report that violation to the Bar. The duty of confidentiality outranks the duty to report misconduct in this scenario. The confidentiality rule has been refined since 1976; today's Rule 4-1.6 still protects client confidences from compelled disclosure for grievance reporting.</p>
Read on floridabar.org →
Comment (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of
the profession initiate 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 4-1.6. 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 term
“substantial” refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and
not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware.
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.
Generally, Florida statutes provide that information gained
through a “mediation communication” is privileged and confidential,
including information which discloses professional misconduct
occurring outside the mediation. However, professional misconduct
occurring during the mediation is not privileged or confidential
under Florida statutes.
Information about a lawyer’s or judge’s misconduct or fitness
may be received by a lawyer in the course of that lawyer’s
participation in an approved lawyers or judges assistance program.
In that circumstance, providing for an exception to the reporting
requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b) of this rule encourages
lawyers and judges to seek treatment through such a program.
Conversely, without such an exception, lawyers and judges may
hesitate to seek assistance from these programs, which may then
result in additional harm to their professional careers and
additional injury to the welfare of clients and the public. These
rules do not otherwise address the confidentiality of information
received by a lawyer or judge participating in an approved lawyers
assistance program; such an obligation, however, may be imposed
by the rules of the program or other law.
Amended July 23, 1992, effective Jan. 1, 1993 (605 So.2d 252); amended
and effective Feb. 8, 2001 (795 So.2d 1); amended March 23, 2006, effective
May 22, 2006 (933 So.2d 417); amended April 12, 2012, effective July 1,
2012 (101 So.3d 807); amended November 9, 2017, effective February 1,
2018 (234 So.3d 632); amended January 4, 2019, effective March 5, 2019
(267 So.3d 891).