A documented public-source research archive of media coverage, court proceedings, government records, institutional oversight, judicial accountability, public spending, child safety, civil rights, law enforcement, and surveillance issues.
CHICAGO, July 22, 2026— The American Bar AssociationStanding
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.
