Is NY's New Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(g) Heading to the Courts?
On June 10, 2022, New York's four Appellate Division departments issued a joint order adopting a variation of ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) broadly prohibiting discrimination and harassment in the practice of law. Although the model rule was initially praised for its intent, it became controversial because of complaints that it infringed First Amendment rights and was both vague and overbroad. Given the mixed results in Pennsylvania and Colorado so far, it's likely the rule will end up in courts.
July 15, 2022 at 10:00 AM
12 minute read
On June 10, 2022, New York's four Appellate Division departments issued a joint order immediately adopting a variation of ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) broadly prohibiting discrimination and harassment in the practice of law. Joint Order of the Departments of the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, dated June 10, 2022. New York's new rule substantially departs from the state's prior, and much more limited, Rule 8.4(g), which was focused primarily on unlawful discrimination in the workplace. The new Rule 8.4(g) states in relevant part:
Rule 8.4. A lawyer or law firm shall not:
(g) engage in conduct in the practice of law that the lawyer or law firm knows or reasonably should know constitutes:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Law Student Sues NY Attorney Grievance Officials, Seeking Materials Over Sexual Assault Claims
4 minute read
2nd Circuit Revives Connecticut Lawyers' Challenge to Anti-Discrimination Ethics Rule
Attorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Arnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
- 2Advising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
- 3Big Law’s Year—as Told in Commentaries
- 4Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 5Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
