Utah R. Prof. Cond. 8.4
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
Utah. R. Prof. Cond. 8.4
Comment
[1] Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assist or induce another to do so through the acts of another, as when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer's behalf. Paragraph (a), however, does not prohibit a lawyer from advising a client concerning action the client is legally entitled to take.
An act of professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) cannot be counted as a separate violation of Rule 8.4(a) for the purpose of determining sanctions. Conduct that violates other Rules of Professional Conduct, however, may be a violation of Rule 8.4(a) for the purpose of determining sanctions.
(2) Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving "moral turpitude." That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.
[2a] Paragraph (c) provides a safe harbor for attorneys who engage in lawful covert operations, often in criminal investigations or investigations involving suspected violations of constitutional rights or civil law. Examples covered by this rule are governmental "sting" operations; use of testers in fair-housing cases to determine whether landlords or real estate agents discriminate against protected classes of applicants; and gathering evidence of copyright violations. These are legitimate activities that benefit the common good and that courts and commentators have long recognized do not violate ethics rules. The safe harbor does not apply when a lawyer uses deception to violate others' constitutional rights or directs others to do so, and it does not change the lawyer's obligations for candor and fairness under Rules 3.3 and 3.4. Note adopted 2023.
(3) A lawyer who, in the course of representing a client, knowingly manifests by words or conduct bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, violates paragraph (d) when such actions are prejudicial to the administration of justice. Legitimate advocacy respecting the foregoing factors does not violate paragraph (d). A trial judge's finding that peremptory challenges were exercised on a discriminatory basis does not alone establish a violation of this rule.
(3a) The Standards of Professionalism and Civility approved by the Utah Supreme Court are intended to improve the administration of justice. An egregious violation or a pattern of repeated violations of the Standards of Professionalism and Civility may support a finding that the lawyer has violated paragraph (d).
(4) A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law.
(5) Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent and officer, director or manager of a corporation or other organization.
[6] This rule differs from the ABA Model Rule.