Also known as: substantial questions · substantial question of law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A level of seriousness required for a violation of professional conduct rules that calls into question a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice or a judge's fitness for office. The standard focuses on the gravity of the possible offense rather than the quantity of evidence available to the reporting lawyer.
Sabrina Shah reviews billing files while representing a client law firm in a fee dispute. She finds multiple emails in which the managing partner directed staff to forge client signatures on engagement letters over several years. Shah must decide whether the partner's conduct requires a report to disciplinary authorities.
Stephen Shaw attends a judicial campaign fundraiser and hears the presiding judge offer to clear his firm's pending motions in exchange for raising one hundred thousand dollars from corporate clients. Shaw must determine whether the judge's proposal triggers an obligation to report the conduct.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
An apparently isolated violation may still raise a substantial question if it reveals a pattern that only disciplinary authorities can uncover. The rule focuses on the seriousness of the offense rather than whether multiple incidents have already been observed.
Supporting sources
A lawyer must possess actual knowledge that the violation occurred, which can be inferred from direct statements, documents, or personal observation. Mere suspicion or unverified rumor does not meet the threshold.
Supporting sources
The reporting obligation does not require disclosure of information protected by Rule 1.6. When the lawyer learns of the misconduct solely through representation of the client, confidentiality prevents the report unless the client consents.
Supporting sources
No. The duty turns on whether the violation raises a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness, not on whether it constitutes a crime or has caused client harm.
Supporting sources
Yes. The obligation arises whenever any lawyer knows of qualifying misconduct, regardless of whether the lawyer serves as counsel of record in the underlying proceeding.
Supporting sources