Also known as: reasonable remedial actions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Steps taken by a lawyer with managerial or direct supervisory authority over another lawyer or nonlawyer employee to correct or limit the consequences of known misconduct. The duty arises when the supervisor learns of the conduct while its effects remain avoidable or reducible. Failure to act exposes the supervisor to discipline under the same rule that imposes responsibility for the underlying violation.
Maria serves as managing partner at a real estate firm where associate Leo files title affidavits that conceal known boundary disputes. Maria reviews the file before closing, recognizes the affidavits are false, and tells Leo only to be more careful next time. Because she takes no steps to withdraw the documents or notify the buyer, the closing proceeds on misleading information.
Lee supervises associate Patel in a products liability case. Patel serves discovery responses that omit crash-test videos responsive to the plaintiff's requests. Lee learns of the omission while litigation remains pending and settlement talks are imminent yet chooses not to supplement the responses to preserve bargaining leverage.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The duty arises once a supervising or managing lawyer learns of another lawyer's or employee's misconduct at a time when its consequences can still be avoided or mitigated. Knowledge alone is not enough. The supervisor must then act reasonably to correct or limit the harm.
Supporting sources
Prompt supplementation of incomplete responses and production of withheld materials typically qualifies. A deliberate decision to withhold correction for tactical advantage fails the standard because it allows the violation to continue while mitigation remains possible.
Supporting sources
No. A nonspecific instruction to be more careful on later matters does not address the immediate problem when the consequences of the current violation can still be prevented or reduced. Targeted correction or disclosure is required.
Supporting sources
No. External pressure does not relieve a supervisor of the obligation to act promptly once the misconduct is known and mitigation remains feasible. Delaying correction for weeks while the tribunal relies on false statements constitutes a failure to take reasonable remedial action.
Supporting sources