Rule 8.5 - Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law(a)Disciplinary Authority. A lawyer admitted to practice in Ohio is subject to the disciplinary authority of Ohio, regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs. A lawyer not admitted in Ohio is also subject to the disciplinary authority of Ohio if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in Ohio. A lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both Ohio and another jurisdiction for the same conduct.(b)Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of Ohio, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows:(1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise;(2) for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer's conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct. A lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyer's conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer's conduct will occur. Comment
Disciplinary Authority
[1] It is longstanding law that the conduct of a lawyer admitted to practice in Ohio is subject to the disciplinary authority of Ohio. Extension of the disciplinary authority of Ohio to other lawyers who provide or offer to provide legal services in Ohio is for the protection of the citizens of Ohio. Reciprocal enforcement of a jurisdiction's disciplinary findings and sanctions will further advance the purposes of this rule. See Rule V, Section 20 of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio. A lawyer who is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction under Rule 8.5(a) appoints an official to be designated by this Court to receive service of process in this jurisdiction. The fact that the lawyer is subject to the disciplinary authority of Ohio may be a factor in determining whether personal jurisdiction may be asserted over the lawyer for civil matters.[1A] A lawyer admitted in another state, but not Ohio, may seek permission from a tribunal to appear pro hac vice. Effective January 1, 2011, out-of-state lawyers must register with the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Attorney Services prior to being granted permission to appear pro hac vice by a tribunal. See Gov. Bar R. XII. Once pro hac vice status is extended, the tribunal retains the authority to revoke the status as part of its inherent power to regulate the practice before the tribunal and protect the integrity of its proceedings. Revocation of pro hac vice status and disciplinary proceedings are separate methods of addressing lawyer misconduct, and a lawyer may be subject to disciplinary proceedings for the same conduct that led to revocation of pro hac vice status.Choice of Law
[2] A lawyer may be potentially subject to more than one set of rules of professional conduct that impose different obligations. The lawyer may be licensed to practice in more than one jurisdiction with differing rules, or may be admitted to practice before a particular court with rules that differ from those of the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which the lawyer is licensed to practice. Additionally, the lawyer's conduct may involve significant contacts with more than one jurisdiction.[3] Division (b) seeks to resolve such potential conflicts. Its premise is that minimizing conflicts between rules, as well as uncertainty about which rules are applicable, is in the best interest of both clients and the profession (as well as the bodies having authority to regulate the profession). Accordingly, it takes the approach of (i) providing that any particular conduct of a lawyer shall be subject to only one set of rules of professional conduct, (ii) making the determination of which set of rules applies to particular conduct as straightforward as possible, consistent with recognition of appropriate regulatory interests of relevant jurisdictions, and (iii) providing protection from discipline for lawyers who act reasonably in the face of uncertainty.[4] Division (b)(1) provides that as to a lawyer's conduct relating to a proceeding pending before a tribunal, the lawyer shall be subject only to the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits unless the rules of the tribunal, including its choice of law rule, provide otherwise. As to all other conduct, including conduct in anticipation of a proceeding not yet pending before a tribunal, division (b)(2) provides that a lawyer shall be subject to the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer's conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in another jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct. In the case of conduct in anticipation of a proceeding that is likely to be before a tribunal, the predominant effect of such conduct could be where the conduct occurred, where the tribunal sits or in another jurisdiction.[5] When a lawyer's conduct involves significant contacts with more than one jurisdiction, it may not be clear whether the predominant effect of the lawyer's conduct will occur in a jurisdiction other than the one in which the conduct occurred. So long as the lawyer's conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect will occur, the lawyer shall not be subject to discipline under this rule. With respect to conflicts of interest and determining a lawyer's reasonable belief pursuant to division (b)(2), a written agreement between the lawyer and client that reasonably specifies a particular jurisdiction as within the scope of that division may be considered if the agreement was obtained with the client's informed consent, confirmed in the agreement.[6] If two admitting jurisdictions were to proceed against a lawyer for the same conduct, they should, applying this rule, identify the same governing ethics rules. They should take all appropriate steps to see that they do apply the same rule to the same conduct, and in all events should avoid proceeding against a lawyer on the basis of two inconsistent rules.[7] The choice of law provision applies to lawyers engaged in transnational practice, unless international law, treaties, or other agreements between competent regulatory authorities in the affected jurisdictions provide otherwise.Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
The Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility has no provision analogous to Rule 8.5.
Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 8.5 is substantively identical to Model Rule 8.5. Comment [1A] is modified, effective January 1, 2011, to reflect Ohio law regarding extension of pro hac vice status to out-of-state lawyers.
Ohio. R. Prof'l. Cond. 8.5