Lawyers Advising on State Cannabis Won't Break Bar Rule
Still, the revamped rule of professional conduct warns attorneys not to aid a client in breaking the law.
September 28, 2018 at 06:46 PM
4 minute read
Assortment of cannabis products sold in California. Credit: Jason Doiy/ ALM
California's Supreme Court has approved a new rule of professional conduct clarifying that attorneys may advise cannabis clients on complying with state laws, even those that conflict with a federal ban on marijuana.
Still, the revamped Rule 1.2.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct warns attorneys not to aid a client in breaking the law, and it does not specifically mention marijuana. It does, however, in a section known as Paragraph (b), allow attorneys to “discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct.”
A comment to the rule, Comment 6, which was crafted over several months of discussion among the Supreme Court, the State Bar of California and lawyers, now says:
“Paragraph (b) permits a lawyer to advise a client regarding the validity, scope, and meaning of California laws that might conflict with federal or tribal law. In the event of such a conflict, a lawyer may assist a client in drafting or administering, or interpreting or complying with California laws, including statutes, regulations, orders, and other state or local provisions, even if the client's actions might violate the conflicting federal or tribal law. If California law conflicts with federal or tribal law, the lawyer must inform the client about related federal or tribal law and policy and under certain circumstances may also be required to provide legal advice to the client regarding the conflict.”
The state bar submitted the new rule language to the court in August after justices asked bar officials to clarify the meaning in Comment 6. The rule change, along with dozens of others approved by the court earlier this year, go into effect on Nov. 1.
The revisions are the first comprehensive amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct in 29 years.
The state-federal conflict guidance received a mixed reception from cannabis lawyers when it was circulated for public comment this summer.
Joshua Mandell, an Akerman partner in Los Angeles, praised the clarification that an attorney can counsel a client on compliance with California law “without fear that in giving such an advice that attorney is engaged in unethical conduct.”
“This simple but important clarification will remove a barrier to entry and provide the comfort many attorneys currently lack but seek before agreeing to undertake the representation of clients in California's regulated cannabis industry,” Mandell wrote to the bar on July 3.
Other lawyers said the rule and comment language remained too vague. Nine attorneys, including leading members of the National Cannabis Bar Association, unsuccessfully pleaded with bar officials to add a specific safe harbor provision.
“The inclusion of one sentence could make clear to counselors across the state that they will not be targeted solely on the basis of their client list and will serve the state's newly legal cannabis industry well,” the lawyers wrote to the bar in July.
The new rule is posted in full below:
Read more:
Sonoma Residents Sue Marijuana Farm Over Alleged 'Skunk-like Stench'
New Cannabis Industry Suit Alleges Fraudulent Business Practices
Why Patent Lawyers Are Watching This Colorado Cannabis Case
Ninth Circuit Cannabis Ruling Gives Biz Owner New Chance to Fight Charges
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
© 2025 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 Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
6 minute read
Meta’s New Content Guidelines May Result in Increased Defamation Lawsuits Among Users
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
