The State Bar of California
  • Log in
  • News
  • Forms
  • Contact
About Us:
  • Our Mission
  • |
  • Who We Are
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • Careers
  • |
  • Business Opportunities
  • Public
    • Need Legal Help
      • Look Up a Lawyer
      • Certified Lawyer Referral Services Directory
        • Why Use a Certified Lawyer Referral Service
      • Free Legal Help
    • Complaints & Claims
      • How to File a Complaint
        • Before You File
        • Why File a Complaint
        • Attorney Complaint
        • After You File
        • Después de presentar una queja
        • Nonattorney Complaint
        • Discipline Referral
      • Unauthorized Practice of Law Complaint
        • After You File
        • Después de presentar una queja por práctica no autorizada
      • Fee Disputes
        • FAQ
      • Client Security Fund
        • What Happens After You Apply
        • Application Instructions and Checklist
      • Complaint Review Process
      • Lawyer Referral Service Complaints
        • Certified Lawyer Referral Service Complaints
        • Uncertified Lawyer Referral Service Complaints
      • Whistleblower Complaints
      • FAQ
    • Free Legal Information
      • Before Selecting an Attorney
        • Finding the Right Lawyer
        • What a Certified Lawyer Referral Service Can Do for You
        • Your Initial Consultation
      • Working with an Attorney
        • What to Expect from Your Attorney
        • How to Work with Your Lawyer
        • What to Expect Regarding Fees and Billing
        • How to Avoid Problems
      • Resolving Problems
        • Problem with a Lawyer
        • Lawyer Fee Dispute
          • Lawyer Fee Dispute FAQ
        • Client Security Fund
      • Unauthorized Practice of Law
        • Avoiding Fraud by Immigration Consultants
        • Práctica no autorizada de la abogacía
        • Evite el fraude por parte de los consultores de inmigración
      • For Immigrants
        • Buscando ayuda con asuntos de inmigración
        • Immigration Legal Services Providers
        • Proveedores de servicios legales de inmigración
      • Legal Help After a Disaster
      • For Veterans & Service Members
      • Legal Services Fraud Alert for Homeowners
        • Alerta a Propietarios Referente al Fraude de Servicios Legales
      • Legal Services Fraud Alert for Renters
        • Alerta a Arrendatarios Referente al Fraude de Servicios Legales
      • Legal Guide Pamphlets
      • FAQ
    • Discipline
      • Attorney Discipline
      • Nonattorney Actions
      • Discipline Statistics
      • Look Up a Lawyer
    • Public Trust Liaison
      • Intermediario de Confianza Pública
    • En español
  • About Us
    • Our Mission
      • Protecting the Public
        • Regulation and Discipline Overview
        • Transparency & Accountability
        • Public Comment
          • Public Comment Guidelines
          • Public Comment Archives
            • 2023 Public Comment
            • 2022 Public Comment
            • 2021 Public Comment
            • 2020 Public Comment
            • 2019 Public Comment
            • 2018 Public Comment
            • 2017 Public Comment
              • 2017-12
            • 2016 Public Comment
            • 2015 Public Comment
            • 2014 Public Comment
            • 2013 Public Comment
            • 2012 Public Comment
            • 2011 Public Comment
            • 2010 Public Comment
        • Reports
        • Public Records
      • Promoting Justice in California
      • Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
        • DEI Leadership Seal Program
          • DEI Leadership Seal Recipients
          • DEI Leadership Seal Committed Participants
          • State Bar DEI Leadership Seal Progress
    • Who We Are
      • Board of Trustees
        • Roster
          • Brandon Stallings
          • José Cisneros
          • Raymond A. Buenaventura
          • Hailyn J. Chen
          • Sarah A. Good
          • Mary Huser
          • Melanie M. Shelby
          • Arnold Sowell Jr.
          • Mark W. Toney, PhD
          • Genaro Trejo
        • Meetings
        • Audit Committee
          • Roster
        • Executive Committee
          • Roster
        • Finance Committee
          • Roster
        • Regulation and Discipline Committee
          • Roster
        • Public Comment Guidelines
        • Remote Participation Tips
        • Supreme Court Appointments
        • Board Task Forces
      • Committees
        • Meetings
        • Committee Appointment Opportunities
          • Review Committee-Commission Judicial Nominees Evaluation
            • Roster
        • California Board of Legal Specialization
          • Privacy Law Group
        • Client Security Fund Commission
          • Roster
        • Committee of Bar Examiners
          • Committee of State Bar Accredited and Registered Schools
            • Roster
          • Law School Council
            • Roster
        • Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct
        • Council on Access and Fairness
          • Roster
        • Judicial Nominees Evaluation
          • Review Committee of the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation
          • Roster
          • FAQ
          • JNE Demographics Reports
        • Lawyer Assistance Program Oversight Committee
          • Roster
        • Legal Services Trust Fund Commission
          • Roster
      • Archived Committees
        • Ad Hoc Commission on the Discipline System
        • Blue Ribbon Commission
          • Resources
          • Roster
        • California Access to Justice Commission
          • Commission Roster
        • California Attorney Practice Analysis Working Group
        • California Paraprofessional Program Working Group
        • Closing the Justice Gap Working Group
        • Committee on Special Discipline Case Audit
        • Governance in the Public Interest Task Force
        • Limited License Working Group
        • Malpractice Insurance Working Group
        • Moral Character Working Group
        • Rules Commission 2017
        • Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services
      • Staff
      • State Bar Holidays
    • News
      • Fact Sheets
      • Reports
      • Multimedia
      • California Bar Journal Archive
    • Careers
      • Make a Difference
      • Develop and Grow
      • Benefits
      • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
      • View All Job Listings
      • Salary
    • Business Opportunities
      • Previous Opportunities
  • Attorneys
    • For Attorneys
      • About Your State Bar Profile
        • Fees & Payment
          • Agency Billing
          • Annual Fees FAQs
          • Voluntary Contributions
          • Fees and Charges
        • Status Changes
        • Address Change
        • Reporting Requirements
        • Certificates of Standing
      • Fingerprinting Rule Requirements
        • For In-State Attorneys
        • For Out-of-State Attorneys
        • For Out-of-Country Attorneys
        • FAQ
        • Limited Accommodations
        • Glossary
      • Lawyer Assistance Program
        • LAP Support Services for Attorneys
          • LAP Resources for Attorneys
        • LAP Support Services for Law Students and Applicants
          • LAP Resources for Students
        • Monitored LAP
        • LAP FAQ
      • Mandatory Fee Arbitration
        • Approved Programs
        • Forms & Resources
        • Arbitration Advisories
        • Training Course
      • Opening and Managing Law Office
        • Insurance Programs
        • Limited Liability Partnerships
          • Forms
          • Rules
        • Law Corporations Program
          • Forms
          • Rules
        • Revoking Law Corporation
      • For Judges
      • FAQ
    • MCLE & CLE
      • Requirements
        • Types of MCLE Credit
        • Proportional Requirement
        • MCLE Recordkeeping
        • Attorney Exemptions
        • Attorney Exemptions FAQ
        • Approved Jurisdictions
        • Education Approval
          • Evaluate Credit
          • MCLE Credit Request
        • New Admittees
        • Inactive or Not Eligible Status
        • Out-of-State Residents
        • Good Cause Modification
      • Compliance
        • Who Must Report Compliance
        • Compliance Groups
        • Audit FAQ
      • New Attorney Training Program
      • E-Learning Portal
      • MCLE Providers
        • Single Activity Providers
        • Multiple Activity Providers
        • Provider Responsibilities
        • MCLE Activity Approval
        • Provider Search
        • ADA
      • MCLE Self-Study
        • MCLE Self-Study FAQs
      • CLE
        • CLE Self-Study
      • Rules
        • Rules Specific MCLE Credits
      • FAQ
    • Conduct & Discipline
      • Lawyer Regulation
      • Self-Reporting FAQ
      • State Bar Court
      • Client Trust Accounting & IOLTA
        • Client Trust Accounting Handbook
        • Client Trust Accounting Resources
        • Client Trust Account Protection Program
        • Client Trust Accounts and Bank Stability Concerns
        • CTAPP FAQ
        • CTAPP Training
        • Client Trust Account and IOLTA Registration
        • IOLTA Guidelines for Attorneys
        • IOLTA FAQ
        • IOLTA-Eligible Banks
        • Interest Rates
      • Rules
        • Rules of the State Bar
          • Title 1 Global Provisions
          • Title 2 Rights and Responsibilities of Licensees
          • Title 3 Programs and Services
          • Title 4 Admissions and Educational Standards
          • Title 5 Discipline
          • Title 6 Governance
          • Title 7 JNE and Miscellaneous
          • Appendixes
          • New and Amended Rules
        • Rules of Professional Conduct
          • Current Rules
            • Chapter 1. Lawyer-Client Relationship
            • Chapter 2. Counselor
            • Chapter 3. Advocate
            • Chapter 4. Transactions with Persons Other than Clients
            • Chapter 5. Law Firms and Associations
            • Chapter 6. Public Service
            • Chapter 7. Information About Legal Services
            • Chapter 8. Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession
          • Previous Rules
        • Selected Legal Authority
          • Constitution Excerpts
          • The State Bar Act
          • California Rules of Court
          • Statutes
      • Ethics
        • Hotline
        • Rule 8.3 Required Reporting
        • Opinions
          • 2009-176 to Present
          • 1998-152 to 2008-175
          • 1992-126 to 1997-151
          • 1988-96 to 1991-125
          • 1984-76 to 1987-95
          • 1979-48 to 1983-75
          • 1971-24 to 1977-47
          • 1965-1 to 1970-23
        • Rules Spotlight Videos
        • Ethics Schools
          • Class Schedule
          • Ethics School FAQ
        • Ethics & Technology Resources
          • Ethics Opinions Related to Technology
          • Ethics Articles on Technology
          • Online Participatory MCLE Programs
          • Online Communication
          • Electronic Files
          • Law Firm Websites
          • Social Media
          • Internet/Email Scams
          • Miscellaneous
        • Senior Lawyers Resources
          • Rules
          • Opinions
          • Publications
            • Wellness Guide
          • Articles
          • MCLE
          • Links
          • Closing a Law Practice
          • Contact Us
          • Attorney Surrogacy
        • ADA Claims Information
        • Judicial Ethics
        • Attorney Civility and Professionalism
        • Publications
          • Ethics News
          • Ethics News Archive
          • Hotliner Articles
            • Archives
          • Pub 250
          • Compendium on Professional Responsibility Index
        • Committees
          • COPRAC
            • Education
              • Ethics Symposium
            • Opinion Requests
            • Rules
            • Roster
          • Rules Revision
            • Rules Commission 2014
              • Action Summaries
              • Meetings
              • Roster
    • Ethics
    • Legal Specialization
      • About Certified Specialization
      • Becoming a Certified Specialist
        • Exam Information
          • Exam Preparation Information
          • Laptop Computers
          • Testing Accommodations
          • Refund of Fees Policy
      • Current Certified Specialists
      • Legal Specialty Areas
      • Specialist Search
      • MCLE Requirements for Certified Specialists
      • Education Providers
      • Governance
        • Board of Legal Specialization
          • Roster
        • Privacy Law Group
      • FAQ
      • Rules & Standards
        • Advertising
    • Volunteer
      • Special Master
        • FAQ
        • Rules
        • List
  • Admissions
    • Requirements
      • Education
        • Pre-Legal Education
          • College Equivalency Education
        • Legal Education
          • Fixed Facility
          • Correspondence or Distance Learning
          • Law Office or Judge's Chamber
          • Foreign Education
            • Foreign Law Degree
      • Social Security Exemption
      • Attorney Applicants
      • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Examinations
      • Dates and Deadlines
      • California Bar Examination
        • Feb 2024 California Bar Exam
        • Testing Centers
        • Laptops for Bar Exam
        • Bar Exam Emails
          • Safelisting Tips for Email
        • Instructions for Essay Questions and Performance Test
        • California Bar Examination Scope
        • Exam Results
          • Bar Exam Pass List
        • Past Exams
        • Grading
        • Scaling
        • Refund of Fees Policy
        • Virtual Oath Packet
        • Attorney's Oath
      • First-Year Law Students' Examination
        • October 2023 First-Year Exam
        • October 2023 First-Year Exam FAQs
        • Admittance Bulletin
        • Exam Results
        • First-Year Exam Grading and Scope
      • Exam Administration
        • Becoming a Grader
        • Becoming a Proctor
      • Exam Statistics
      • Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination
      • Requesting Testing Accommodations
      • Lawyer Assistance Program Support Services for Law Students and Applicants
    • Moral Character
      • Moral Character Statement
      • Governing Law
      • Process
      • Factors and Conduct
      • Further Investigation and Informal Conferences
      • Guidelines
    • Special Admissions
      • Multijurisdictional Practice (MJP) Program
        • MJP Program Requirements and Process
        • MJP Program Types
      • Pro Hac Vice
      • Out-of-State Attorney Arbitration Counsel (OSAAC)
      • Foreign Legal Consultants (FLC)
        • FAQ
        • Foreign Legal Consultants List
      • Practical Training of Law Students
      • Provisionally Licensed Lawyers
        • Search
    • Law School Regulation
      • Law Schools
      • Committee of Bar Examiners Meetings
        • Minutes
        • Minutes Archive
        • Roster
  • Access to Justice
    • Initiatives
      • California Justice Gap Study
        • Justice Gap Study Survey Data
        • California Law Student Survey Data
      • Publications
      • Leadership Banks
    • Pro Bono
      • Pro Bono Directory
        • Central Coast and Eastern Sierra
        • Central Valley Area
        • Los Angeles Area
        • Sacramento and Northern California
        • San Diego and Imperial Valley
        • San Francisco Area
        • Statewide
      • Pro Bono Practice Program
      • Volunteer After a Disaster
      • Volunteer Opportunities to Assist Veterans and Service Members
      • FAQ
    • Grants
      • Legal Aid Funding
      • Justice Gap Fund
      • 2023 Grant Recipients
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Lawyer Referral Services
    • Financial Institutions
      • IOLTA-Eligible Financial Institutions
  • 2017 Public Comment
Seal of The State Bar of California The State Bar of California

Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Share with Email

The State Bar seeks comments on three alternatives for draft rules regarding when attorneys may issue subpoenas to other attorneys.

Deadline: Aug. 28, 2017

Note: Publication for public comment is not, and shall not, be construed as a recommendation or approval by the Board of Trustees of the materials published

Subject

Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California

Background

By statute, the Board of Trustees (“Board”) has the authority to adopt amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California that are binding upon all members of the State Bar once those rules are approved by the California Supreme Court. (Business and Professions Code sections 6076 and 6077.) On May 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of California (“Supreme Court”) issued an order on a State Bar request to approve proposed amendments to rules 5-110 and 5-220 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. These proposals address the special responsibilities of a prosecutor in a criminal matter.The Supreme Court granted approval in part and denied in part. The approved aspects of revised rules 5-110 and 5-220 were made operative on May 1, 2017. These proposed rules were submitted to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis separate from the State Bar’s proposed comprehensive revisions to the entire rules that were submitted to the Court on March 30, 2017. Supreme Court action on the State Bar’s comprehensive rule revisions is pending.

Discussion/Proposal

As submitted to the Supreme Court, rule 5-110 included proposed paragraph (E) which provides that a prosecutor shall not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes: (1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege or work product protection; (2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and (3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information. The proposed rule provision tracked the language of ABA Model Rule 3.8(e), which is applicable only to prosecutors. In its May 1, 2017 order, the Supreme Court directed the State Bar to reconsider whether “this is an ethical obligation that should be imposed on all attorneys, not only prosecutors.” The Supreme Court also directed the State Bar to consider whether the substitution of the terms “reasonably necessary” for “essential” under paragraph (E)(2), and “reasonable” for “feasible” under paragraph (E)(3) would be appropriate. The Board assigned this matter to the State Bar’s Commission for the Revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct (“Commission”) for study and development of revised rule proposals. The Commission met on July 5, 2017 to carry out this assignment. Following study, the Commission developed three alternative rule revisions: Alternative 1 (a revision to proposed rule 3.4 stating a subpoena restriction imposed on all lawyers), Alternative 2 (a revision to proposed rule 3.8 that would apply only to prosecutors), and Alternative 3 (a revision to proposed rule 3.8 that would also apply only to prosecutors but would have a narrower scope than Alternative 2).

The Commission drafted Alternative 1 to obtain public comment on a proposed subpoena rule revision that would apply to all lawyers and would include as an option the language substitutions in the Supreme Court’s order. This proposal would modify proposed rule 3.4 (entitled “Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel”).Rule 3.4 was adopted by the Board and submitted to the Supreme Court on March 30, 2017 as part of the State Bar’s proposed comprehensive revisions to the rules. Because Alternative 1 is intended to be a rule generally applicable to all lawyers, it would not be appropriate to place this ethical obligation in proposed rule 3.8 (the counterpart to current rule 5-110 in the Bar’s comprehensive revisions).

Alternative 2 is a proposal for a revised paragraph (e) of proposed rule 3.8 governing subpoenas of any lawyer of an accused, including an accused’s lawyer in any past or present civil matter. Alternative 2 also includes as options the language substitutions in the Supreme Court’s order. Unlike Alternative 1, Alternative 2 retains the limited scope of the Board’s original proposed rule as an ethical obligation imposed only on a prosecutor in a criminal matter. Because this rule would apply only to a subpoena issued by a prosecutor in a criminal matter or a grand jury proceeding, it is appropriate to place this duty in the rule governing the special responsibilities of a prosecutor. However, the Commission is not recommending expedited action by the Board or the Court to implement this change in current rule 5-110. If this Alternative 2 ultimately is adopted by the Board and approved by the Supreme Court, then this change would modify proposed rule 3.8 that was adopted by the Board and submitted to the Supreme Court on March 30, 2017 as part of the State Bar’s proposed comprehensive revisions to the rules.

Alternative 3 is a proposal for a revised paragraph (e) of Proposed Rule 3.8 narrowed to apply only to subpoenas of current or former counsel in a criminal matter.Like Alternative 2, this alternative proposal would retain the limited scope of the Board’s original proposed rule as an ethical obligation imposed only on a prosecutor in a criminal matter, including a grand jury proceeding, and would include as options the language substitutions in the Supreme Court’s order. Also like Alternative 2, this change would modify proposed Rule 3.8 that was adopted by the Board and submitted to the Supreme Court on March 30, 2017 as part of the State Bar’s proposed comprehensive revisions to the rules. The difference with Alternative 2 is that Alternative 3 narrows the scope of regulated subpoenas to only those subpoenas that are issued to a criminal defense counsel. In Alternative 2, the scope is significantly broader because it does not matter whether the subpoena is issued to an attorney who is representing or previously represented a client in a criminal or civil matter. In both instances, a prosecutor’s compliance with the rule is required.In contrast, under Alternative 3 the rule would not apply in situations where a subpoena is issued to an accused’s lawyer in any past or present civil matter.Accordingly, Alternative 3 is a proposal for a rule that is narrower than the rule previously adopted by the Board and narrower than the ABA Model Rule counterpart.

To facilitate the Commission’s fully informed consideration of the three alternative drafts, public comment also is requested on the threshold policy question of whether there should be any rule at all on the subject of subpoenas of other lawyers. At the Commission’s July 5, 2017 meeting it was observed that while many jurisdictions have adopted a version of the ABA’s subpoena rule, Model Rule 3.8(e), some of the jurisdictions that have rejected the rule include: District of Columbia; Florida; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Texas; and Virginia. (See ABA table showing the state variations for Model Rule 3.8(e).)

At its meeting on July 13, 2017, the Board of Trustees considered the three alternative rule revision proposals prepared by the Commission and authorized a 45-day public comment period on the proposals.

Any Known Fiscal/Personnel Impact

None

Attachments

  1. Clean text of alternative drafts 1, 2 and 3

Alternative 1 - Proposed New Paragraph (f) to Proposed Rule 3.4, Subpoena Rule Imposing Duties on All Lawyers, Not Only Prosecutors

Alternative 2 - Proposed Revised Paragraph (e) of Proposed Rule 3.8, Subpoena Rule Imposing Duties Only on Prosecutors

Alternative 3 - Proposed Revised Paragraph (e) of Proposed Rule 3.8, Subpoena Rule Imposing Duties Only on Prosecutors Narrowed to Apply Only to Subpoenas of Current or Former Counsel in a Criminal Matter   

  1. Commission’s Memoranda to the State Bar’s Board of Trustees considered at the Board’s July 13, 2017 meeting – 702 JULY 2017 (including the full text of the Supreme Court’s May 1, 2017 order

Source

Commission for the Revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.

Deadline

Aug. 28, 2017


Direct Comments To

Comments should be submitted using the online Public Comment Form. The online form allows you to input your comments directly and can also be used to upload your comment letter and/or other attachments.

However, if you cannot use the online form, comments may be submitted by mail to the address indicated below.

Mimi Lee

Office of Professional Competence, Planning and Development
State Bar of California
180 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639
Phone: 415-538-2162
Fax: 415-538-2171
Email: mimi.lee@calbar.ca.gov

Bar Seal
Protecting the public & enhancing the administration of justice.
  • Public
  • About Us
  • Attorneys
  • Admissions
  • Access to Justice
  • News
  • Forms
  • Careers
  • Staff Log in
  • San Francisco (Main Office)
    180 Howard St.
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    415-538-2000
  • Los Angeles
    845 S. Figueroa St.
    Los Angeles, CA 90017
    213-765-1000
Copyright © 2023 The State Bar of California
  • FAQ
  • User Policies
  • Contact
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on LinkedIn