Rule Text (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
A lawyer shall not:
(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 act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation, except that it shall not be professional
misconduct for a lawyer for a criminal law enforcement agency or
regulatory agency to advise others about or to supervise another in
an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule, and it
shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer employed in a
capacity other than as a lawyer by a criminal law enforcement
agency or regulatory agency to participate in an undercover
investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule;
(d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to
knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or
discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or
other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on
account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin,
disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic
status, employment, or physical characteristic;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a
government agency or official or to achieve results by means that
violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that
is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(g) fail to respond, in writing, to any official inquiry by bar
counsel or a disciplinary agency, as defined elsewhere in these
rules, when bar counsel or the agency is conducting an
investigation into the lawyer’s conduct. A written response shall be
made:
(1) within 15 days of the date of the initial written
investigative inquiry by bar counsel, grievance committee, or board
of governors;
(2) within 10 days of the date of any follow-up written
investigative inquiries by bar counsel, grievance committee, or
board of governors;
(3) within the time stated in any subpoena issued under
these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (without additional time
allowed for mailing);
(4) as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure or
order of the referee in matters assigned to a referee; and
(5) as provided in the Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure or order of the Supreme Court of Florida for matters
pending action by that court.
Except as stated otherwise herein or in the applicable rules, all
times for response shall be calculated as provided elsewhere in
these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and may be extended or
shortened by bar counsel or the disciplinary agency making the
official inquiry upon good cause shown.
Failure to respond to an official inquiry with no good cause
shown may be a matter of contempt and processed in accordance
with rule 3-7.11(f) of these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
(h) willfully refuse, as determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, to timely pay a child support obligation; or
(i) engage in sexual conduct with a client or a representative
of a client that exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client
or the lawyer-client relationship.
If the sexual conduct commenced after the lawyer-client
relationship was formed it shall be presumed that the sexual
conduct exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the
lawyer-client relationship. A lawyer may rebut this presumption by
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual conduct
did not exploit or adversely affect the interests of the client or the
lawyer-client relationship.
The prohibition and presumption stated in this rule do not
apply to a lawyer in the same firm as another lawyer representing
the client if the lawyer involved in the sexual conduct does not
personally provide legal services to the client and is screened from
access to the file concerning the legal representation.
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
This is the catch-all professional misconduct rule. Florida lawyers can’t violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, commit criminal acts that reflect on honesty or fitness as a lawyer, engage in conduct involving dishonesty/fraud/deceit, prejudice the administration of justice, or state or imply ability to influence government decisions through improper means. This rule is the basis for many Bar disciplinary actions where no single specific rule fits the bad conduct.
Florida Bar Ethics Opinions interpreting this rule
- Opinion 94-5 (1994)
<p>Under most circumstances, threatening a fellow lawyer with a Bar grievance complaint to gain leverage in a civil matter is itself unethical. The rule treats the disciplinary process as serious — it can't be used as a litigation chess piece. If a real ethics violation exists, the proper course is to file the complaint, not to threaten it as a bargaining tool.</p>
Read on floridabar.org → - Opinion 89-3 (1989)
<p>A lawyer cannot threaten criminal prosecution solely to gain advantage in a civil matter or to harass the other side. The lawyer can refer a real crime to authorities, and can advise a client about possible criminal exposure related to civil claims — but using a criminal-charge threat as a settlement squeeze crosses the line.</p>
Read on floridabar.org →
Comment (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
Lawyers are subject to discipline when they 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, as
when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer’s
behalf. Subdivision (a), however, does not prohibit a lawyer from
advising a client concerning action the client is legally entitled to
take, provided that the client is not used to indirectly violate the
Rules of Professional Conduct.
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, or 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.
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 4-1.2(d) 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.
Subdivision (c) recognizes instances where lawyers in criminal
law enforcement agencies or regulatory agencies advise others
about or supervise others in undercover investigations, and
provides an exception to allow the activity without the lawyer
engaging in professional misconduct. The exception acknowledges
current, acceptable practice of these agencies. Although the
exception appears in this rule, it is also applicable to rules 4-4.1
and 4-4.3. However, nothing in the rule allows the lawyer to engage
in such conduct if otherwise prohibited by law or rule.
Subdivision (d) of this rule proscribes conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice. Such proscription
includes the prohibition against discriminatory conduct committed
by a lawyer while performing duties in connection with the practice
of law. The proscription extends to any characteristic or status that
is not relevant to the proof of any legal or factual issue in dispute.
Such conduct, when directed towards litigants, jurors, witnesses,
court personnel, or other lawyers, whether based on race, ethnicity,
gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual
orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, physical
characteristic, or any other basis, subverts the administration of
justice and undermines the public’s confidence in our system of
justice, as well as notions of equality. This subdivision does not
prohibit a lawyer from representing a client as may be permitted by
applicable law, such as, by way of example, representing a client
accused of committing discriminatory conduct.
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, or agent and
officer, director, or manager of a corporation or other organization.
A lawyer’s obligation to respond to an inquiry by a disciplinary
agency is stated in subdivision (g) of this rule and subdivision (h)(2)
of rule 3-7.6. While response is mandatory, the lawyer may deny
the charges or assert any available privilege or immunity or
interpose any disability that prevents disclosure of a certain matter.
A response containing a proper invocation thereof is sufficient
under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. This obligation is
necessary to ensure the proper and efficient operation of the
disciplinary system.
Subdivision (h) of this rule was added to make consistent the
treatment of attorneys who fail to pay child support with the
treatment of other professionals who fail to pay child support, in
accordance with the provisions of section 61.13015, Florida
Statutes. That section provides for the suspension or denial of a
professional license due to delinquent child support payments after
all other available remedies for the collection of child support have
been exhausted. Likewise, subdivision (h) of this rule should not be
used as the primary means for collecting child support, but should
be used only after all other available remedies for the collection of
child support have been exhausted. Before a grievance may be filed
or a grievance procedure initiated under this subdivision, the court
that entered the child support order must first make a finding of
willful refusal to pay. The child support obligation at issue under
this rule includes both domestic (Florida) and out-of-state (URESA)
child support obligations, as well as arrearages.
Subdivision (i) proscribes exploitation of the client or the
lawyer-client relationship by means of commencement of sexual
conduct. The lawyer-client relationship is grounded on mutual
trust. A sexual relationship that exploits that trust compromises
the lawyer-client relationship. Attorneys have a duty to exercise
independent professional judgment on behalf of clients. Engaging
in sexual relationships with clients has the capacity to impair the
exercise of that judgment.
Sexual conduct between a lawyer and client violates this rule,
regardless of when the sexual conduct began when compared to the
commencement of the lawyer-client relationship, if the sexual
conduct exploits the lawyer-client relationship, negatively affects
the client’s interest, creates a conflict of interest between the lawyer
and client, or negatively affects the exercise of the lawyer’s
independent professional judgment in representing the client.
Subdivision (i) creates a presumption that sexual conduct
between a lawyer and client exploits or adversely affects the
interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship if the sexual
conduct is entered into after the lawyer-client relationship begins.
A lawyer charged with a violation of this rule may rebut this
presumption by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual
conduct did not exploit the lawyer-client relationship, negatively
affect the client’s interest, create a conflict of interest between the
lawyer and client, or negatively affect the exercise of the lawyer’s
independent professional judgment in representing the client.
For purposes of this rule, a “representative of a client” is an
agent of the client who supervises, directs, or regularly consults
with the organization’s lawyer concerning a client matter or has
authority to obligate the organization with respect to the matter, or
whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be
imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability.
Amended July 23, 1992, effective Jan. 1, 1993 (605 So.2d 252); amended
July 1, 1993 (621 So.2d 1032); amended July 1, 1993, effective. Jan. 1,
1994 (624 So.2d 720); amended Feb. 9, 1995 (649 So.2d 868); amended
July 20, 1995 (658 So.2d 930); amended Sept. 24, 1998, effective Oct. 1,
1998 (718 So.2d 1179); Feb. 8, 2001 (795 So.2d 1); May 20, 2004 (SC03-
705), 875 So.2d 448); amended October 6, 2005, effective January 1, 2006
(916 So.2d 655); amended March 23, 2006, effective May 22, 2006 (933
So.2d 417); amended November 19, 2009, effective February 1, 2010 (24
So.3d 63).