MEDIA ARTICLE: Formal Opinion 524: Government lawyers’ obligations when knowing of a public official’s intended or ongoing violation of law (ABA, 7-22-26)

 Formal Opinion 524: Government lawyers’ obligations when knowing of a public official’s intended or ongoing violation of law

July 22, 2026

CHICAGO, July 22, 2026 — The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released a formal opinion today addressing when the Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.13(b) and (c) may be implicated for a lawyer representing the government who knows of a government officer’s or employee’s violation of a legal obligation to the government organization or violation of law.

Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.13(b) and (c) guide lawyers employed or retained by an organization when they know of intended or ongoing violations of law or other legal obligations by representatives of the organization that, depending on the circumstances, are likely or reasonably certain to result in “substantial injury to the organization.” 

Opinion 524 says lawyers representing the government should look to those provisions when they know of an intended or ongoing violation of a legal obligation to their government organization client, or a violation of law by representatives of that client, that would be “imputed” to the organization and is likely or reasonably certain to result in “substantial injury to the organization.”

A violation of a legal obligation or law by an officer or employee of a government organization will be “imputed” to the organization if that government representative is using or misusing authority they possess by virtue of their position with the government. 

A violation of a legal obligation or law by a government officer or employee that would be imputed to their organization will cause “injury to the organization” within the meaning of Model Rules 1.13(b) and (c), given the government’s obligation to support, defend and promote the rule of law. The government lawyer should exercise reasonable judgment regarding whether that injury is “substantial.”

If a lawyer representing a governmental organization knows that its officer or employee, acting on behalf of the governmental organization client, intends to violate or is violating a legal obligation to the organization or is violating the law, that violation would be imputed to the organization. 

If the resulting injury to the organization is likely to be “substantial,” the lawyer must “proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization” under Rule 1.13(b). 

Depending on the circumstances, this will likely require the government lawyer to “refer the matter to higher authority in the organization” and, if that fails to elicit an adequate response, to the organization’s “highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined with regard to applicable law.”

If, despite the lawyer’s efforts in this situation, the higher authority fails to adequately address what is “clearly a violation of law,” the government lawyer may, under Rule 1.13(c), reveal the information to an appropriate authority outside the government organizational “but only if and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization.”

It is important to emphasize that Rule 1.13 is only one potential source of a disclosure obligation for government lawyers. Government lawyers may have other disclosure obligations under other provisions of the Model Rules. 

They also may have contractual obligations or other employment obligations established by the organization’s policies and rules, as well as legal obligations established by relevant regulations and statutes.

Government organizations have a significant interest in the fair administration of justice and in protecting and preserving the rule of law. 

The government must set an example by complying with the legal obligations, even seemingly minor ones, that apply to it. 

The credibility of government depends on its own compliance with the law, and the rule of law presupposes that no one, and no organization, is above the law. 

For these reasons and more, a violation of law that is imputed to the government organization — in other words, government lawbreaking or lawlessness — causes injury not only to any third parties who are victims of the violation, but also to the public’s trust in government and, ultimately, to the government organization itself.

The Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility periodically issues ethics opinions to guide lawyers, courts and the public in interpreting and applying the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Other recent ABA ethics opinions are available here.