Can a lawyer be disciplined under the bar rules for violating the Maine Medical-Legal Cooperation Code, and did adopting Rule 3 make that Code unenforceable?

Plain-English summary

The Commission was asked whether a violation of the Code of Cooperation of the Maine State Bar Association and the Maine Medical Association (first published in 1967) could be a matter for disciplinary action under Rule 3, and whether the Supreme Judicial Court's adoption of Rule 3 had made the Medical-Legal Code unenforceable.

The Commission read the inquiry as asking whether a violation of the Medical-Legal Code automatically constitutes a violation of Rule 3, and answered that question in the negative. It explained that disciplinary action may be initiated whenever a lawyer is alleged to be guilty of "conduct unworthy of an attorney" (4 M.R.S.A. section 851), and that violations of Rule 3's ethical standards are per se violations of the statute (Rule 3.1(a)). But because a lawyer can also be guilty of unethical conduct not specifically proscribed by Rule 3 (citing Board of Overseers v. Rodway), the Commission found it conceivable that a Medical-Legal Code violation might constitute conduct unworthy of an attorney even when the misconduct is not covered by Rule 3. That result would follow not because the Medical-Legal Cooperation Committee so ruled, but because the Grievance Commission had independently reached the same conclusion on its own review of the facts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984, before Maine's replacement of the former Maine Bar Rules with the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct (effective August 1, 2009). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does breaking the Medical-Legal Cooperation Code automatically violate the bar rules?

A: The opinion concluded no. A violation of the Medical-Legal Code does not automatically constitute a violation of Rule 3.

Q: Can a lawyer still be disciplined over conduct the bar rules do not specifically address?

A: The opinion concluded yes. Discipline may rest on "conduct unworthy of an attorney" under 4 M.R.S.A. section 851 even where Rule 3 does not specifically proscribe the conduct, citing Board of Overseers v. Rodway.

Q: Who decides whether a Code violation is disciplinable?

A: The opinion concluded the Grievance Commission decides independently, based on its own review of the facts, not the Medical-Legal Cooperation Committee.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Maine Bar Rule 3.1(a) (violations of Rule 3 are per se violations of the disciplinary statute) against the disciplinary authority in 4 M.R.S.A. section 851 ("conduct unworthy of an attorney"). The general principle that a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct beyond the specific rule text aligns with ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct). The opinion relies on Board of Overseers v. Rodway for the proposition that unethical conduct need not be expressly proscribed to be sanctionable.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct)
• Maine Bar Rule 3.1(a)

Statutes:

• 4 M.R.S.A. section 851 (discipline for conduct unworthy of an attorney)

Cases:

• Board of Overseers v. Rodway, 461 A.2d 1062 (Me. 1983), conduct may be unworthy of an attorney even if not specifically proscribed by Rule 3

See also

• OH BPC Op. 90-018: Amending a Discipline Complaint
• OH BPC Op. 93-006: Grievance Members Defending Lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://mebaroverseers.org/attorney_services/opinion.html?id=90982

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Issued by the Professional Ethics Commission

Date Issued: May 10, 1984

Question

The Commission has been asked to render an opinion as to whether a violation of the Code of Cooperation of the Maine State Bar Association and Maine Medical Association (first published in 1967) can be a matter for disciplinary action under Rule 3. We are also asked whether the adoption of Rule 3 by the Supreme Judicial Court has made the Medical-Legal Code unenforceable.

Opinion

It is not entirely clear to the Commission whether the inquiry was directed at matters which are considered to violate the Medical-Legal Code regardless of whether they would also violate Rule 3. If the question is whether a violation of the former would automatically constitute a violation of Rule 3, the answer must be in the negative.

Disciplinary action may be initiated whenever it is alleged that a lawyer has been guilty of "conduct unworthy of an attorney." See 4 M.R.S.A. section 851. Violations of the standards of ethical conduct established by Rule 3 are per se violations of the statute. See Rule 3.1(a). Since a lawyer may also be guilty of unethical conduct which is not specifically proscribed by Rule 3, however, see, e.g., Board of Overseers v. Rodway, 461 A.2d 1062 (Me. 1983), it is conceivable that a violation of the Medical-Legal Code might constitute conduct unworthy of an attorney even though the misconduct was not dealt with by Rule 3. This would be so, not because the Medical-Legal Cooperation Committee had so ruled, but because the Grievance Commission had independently reached the same conclusion based on its own review of the facts.