Also known as: Model Rule 8.3 · MRPC 8.3 · ABA Rule 8.3
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of professional conduct that requires a lawyer who knows another lawyer or judge has committed a violation raising a substantial question as to honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to inform the appropriate authority. The duty applies even when the information comes from a client who requests silence or when a private restitution agreement exists, provided the information is not protected by confidentiality rules.
Renee Rogers learns from her client that another attorney misappropriated settlement funds belonging to the client. The client asks Renee not to report the misconduct and instead accepts a private restitution agreement. Renee must still report the known serious misconduct to disciplinary authorities because the client's preference and the restitution agreement do not override the reporting obligation.
Riley Rivera receives a detailed but unconfirmed account from a court clerk alleging that a judge directed alteration of filing timestamps to favor one party. Without personal observation or corroboration, Riley lacks the actual knowledge needed to trigger a reporting duty even though the alleged conduct would raise fitness concerns if proven.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Knowledge means actual knowledge that can be inferred from the circumstances rather than mere suspicion or unverified hearsay. A credible insider account with specific details can satisfy the standard while an uncorroborated statement from a disgruntled source with motive to retaliate does not.
Supporting sources
Yes. Rule 8.3(b) imposes a parallel duty when a lawyer knows a judge has committed a violation of judicial conduct rules that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office.
Supporting sources
The exception applies when disclosure would reveal information protected by Rule 1.6. Information obtained solely during representation of the lawyer or judge whose conduct is at issue or during an approved assistance program is shielded from the reporting duty.
Supporting sources
No. The reporting obligation supports self-regulation of the profession generally and applies whenever the lawyer possesses actual knowledge of serious misconduct regardless of any adversarial relationship in a particular matter.
Supporting sources