Comparing New NY Rules of Professional Conduct to Existing NY Code of Professional Responsibility (Part II)

By Roy Simon

[Originally published in NYPRR March 2009]

The New York Code of Professional Responsibility will be replaced on April 1, 2009 by the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. The Tables below compare the new Rules with the outgoing Code. If a new Rule is the same as an existing Code provision except for updated cross-references and new terminology (such as “confidential information” instead of “confidences and secrets”), the Rule is considered identical to the existing provision. The Table below does not include the Table comparing Terminology in the Rules with Definitions in the Code. See NYPRR February 2009 for that Table.

Article III of the Correlation Table contains new Rule 3.3(a)(3), which represents perhaps the most radical break with the existing Code. Under DR 7-102(B)(1) of the current Code of Professional Responsibility, if a lawyer learns (“receives information clearly establishing”) after the fact that a client has lied to a tribunal, then the lawyer “shall reveal the fraud” to the tribunal, “except when the information is protected as a confidence or secret” — which it nearly always will be, because disclosing that a client has committed perjury is embarrassing and detrimental to the client. Thus, the exception swallows the rule, and confidentiality trumps candor to the court in the current Code. In contrast, Rule 3.3(a) provides that if a lawyer or the lawyer’s client has offered evidence to a tribunal and the lawyer later learns (“comes to know”) that the evidence is false, the lawyer “shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” Rule 3.3(c) makes crystal clear that the disclosure duty applies “even if” the information that the lawyer discloses is protected by the confidentiality rule (Rule 1.6). This is a major change from DR 7-102(B)(1), and clears up the confusion that has reigned ever since the Court of Appeals decided People v. DePallo, 96 N.Y.2d 437 (2001).

Roy Simon is the Howard Lichtenstein Distinguished Professor of Legal Ethics at Hofstra University School of Law and is the author of Simon’s New York Code of Professional Responsibility Annotated, published annually by Thomson West.

CORRELATION TABLE FOR NEW
NY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

ARTICLE 1

NEW NY Rule: 1.1(a)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to EC 6-1.

NEW NY Rule: 1.1(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 6-101(A)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.1(c)(1)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-101(A)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR but refers to “these Rules” instead of “Disciplinary Rules.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.1(c)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-101(A)(3)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.2(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-101(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR and EC 7-7 but uses different language.

NEW NY Rule: 1.2(b)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to last sentence of EC 2-36 (formerly EC 2-27).

NEW NY Rule: 1.2(c)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: No equivalent DR or EC.

NEW NY Rule: 1.2(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(A)(7)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.2(e)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(A)(1) & (B)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: First clause of Rule 1.2(e) is virtually identical to DR 7-102(B)(1) but deletes opening clause “[w]here permissible.” Second clause is virtually identical to a clause in DR 7-102(A)(1).

NEW NY Rule: 1.2(f)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-101(B)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.2(g)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-101(A)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to last part of DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.3(a)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: No equivalent DR or EC.

NEW NY Rule: 1.3(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 6-101(A)(3)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.3(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-101(A)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.4(a)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to second sentence of EC 9-2.

NEW NY Rule: 1.4(b)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to EC 7-8.

NEW NY Rule: 1.5(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-106(A)-(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.5(a) also covers “an expense.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.5(b)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to first part of Written Letter of Engagement rule [22 NYCRR Part 1215] in New York’s court rules, but Rule 1.5(b) applies to all engagements, regardless of the expected fee, unless the lawyer “will charge a regularly represented client on the same basis or rate and perform services that are of the same general kind as previously rendered to and paid for by the client,” and Rule 1.5(b) does not require a writing.

NEW NY Rule: 1.5(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-106(D)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR, but Rule 1.5(c) adds: “The writing must clearly notify the client of any expenses for which the client will be liable regardless of whether the client is the prevailing party.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.5(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-106(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR, but Rule 1.5(d) adds: “(4) a nonrefundable retainer fee. A lawyer may enter into a retainer agreement with a client containing a reasonable minimum fee clause, if it defines in plain language and sets forth the circumstances under which such fee may be incurred and how it will be calculated.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.5(e)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-106(F)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.5(f)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-106(E)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.5(g)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-107(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.5(g)’s opening phrase replaces the phrase “is not a partner in or associate of the lawyer’s law firm” with the broader phrase “is not associated in the same law firm.” Rule 1.5(g)(2) requires disclosure to the client of “the share each lawyer will receive,” and requires that “the client’s agreement is confirmed in writing.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.5(h)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-107(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.6(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 4-101(A)-(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.6(a) adds an exception where “disclosure is impliedly authorized to advance the best interests of the client and is either reasonable under the circumstances or customary in the professional community,” and applies to information gained during “or relating to” the representation of a client, “whatever its source,” and adds that confidential information “does not ordinarily include (i) a lawyer’s legal knowledge or legal research or (ii) information that is generally known in the local community or in the trade, field or profession to which the information relates.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.6(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 4-101(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.6(b) adds exceptions when the lawyer reasonably believes necessary “(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;” and “(4) to secure legal advice about compliance with these Rules or other law by the lawyer, another lawyer associated with the lawyer’s firm or the law firm.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.6(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 4-101(D)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.7(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-101 & 5-105(A)-(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DRs but combines personal conflicts and client-to-client conflicts into a single paragraph, and combines restrictions on accepting representation and continuing representation into a single paragraph.

NEW NY Rule: 1.7(a)(1)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-105(A)-(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.7 deletes from both DR 5-105(A) and (B) the phrase “if the exercise of independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the lawyer’s representation of another client,” leaving only the reference only to “representing differing interests.” However, Rule 1.0(f) (Terminology) defines “Differing interests” to include “every interest that will adversely affect either the judgment or the loyalty of a lawyer to a client …

NEW NY Rule: 1.7(a)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-101
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.7(a)(2) replaces old phrase “if the exercise of professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be affected” with the new phrase “significant risk that the lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of a client will be adversely affected.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.7(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-101 & 5-105(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Partly similar in substance to the consent provisions in DRs 5-101 and 5-105(C), but Rule 1.7(b) adds additional criteria for consentability and specifies two forms of nonconsentable conflicts.

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-104(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR 5-104(A), but Rule 1.8(a)(1) deletes the phrase “on which the lawyer acquires the interest” and clarifies the remainder. Also, Rule 1.8(a)(2) adds that the lawyer must advise the client “in writing” to seek independent counsel and adds that the lawyer must give the client “a reasonable opportunity to seek” independent counsel, and Rule 1.8(a)(3) replaces the requirement that the lawyer disclose to the client “the lawyer’s inherent conflict of interest” with a requirement that the lawyer disclose “the lawyer’s role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 4-101(B)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.8(b) replaces the phrase “confidence or secret” with “information relating to the representation,” and prohibits the “use” of such information without referring specifically to whether a lawyer may “reveal” it.

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(c)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to EC 5-5, but Rule 1.8(c) adds a “fair and reasonable” requirement and defines “related persons” for purposes of the rule.

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-104(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(e)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-103(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(f)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-107(A) & (B)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DRs, but Rule 1.8(f) combines the substance of DR 5-107(A) and DR 5-107(B) into one provision.

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(g)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-106
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical in substance to DR, but Rule 1.8(g) applies only “absent court approval” of an aggregate settlement.

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(h)
Comparable DR in Code: 6-102
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.8(h) replaces the phrase “seek, by contract or other means” with the phrase “make an agreement,” and Rule 1.8(h) augments the requirement of advising the client or former client that independent counsel is appropriate by adding that the advice must be “in writing” and that the lawyer must give the person “a reasonable opportunity to seek” independent counsel.

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(i)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-103(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(j)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-111(B)–(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 1.8(j)(1)(ii) replaces the phrase “entering into sexual relations with a client” with the phrase “entering into sexual relations incident to any professional representation by the lawyer or the lawyer’s firm.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.8(k)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-111(D)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.9(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-108(A)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical in substance to DR, but Rule 1.9(a) omits the exception for “current or former government lawyers” (though the exception appears to remain, by inference, in Rule 1.11), and Rule 1.9(a) requires that the former client’s consent be “confirmed in writing.

NEW NY Rule: 1.9(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-108(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical in substance to DR, but Rule 1.9(a) replaces the phrase “consent … after full disclosure” with “informed consent,” adds a specific reference to Rule 1.9(c), and requires that the former client’s con-sent be “confirmed in writing.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.9(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-108(A)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.9(c)’s lead-in language applies to not only to a lawyer who personally represented a client in a matter, but also to “a lawyer whose present or former firm” represented a client. Rule 1.9(c)(1) applies only when information is used “to the disadvantage of the former client.” Also, in addition to prohibiting the “use” of a former client’s confidential information, Rule 1.9(c)(2) adds a parallel provision providing that a lawyer shall not “reveal” a former client’s confidential information.

NEW NY Rule: 1.10(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-105(D)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR, but Rule 1.10(a) omits the reference to the rule governing former government lawyers (now Rule 1.11), which contains its own imputation provisions, and Rule 1.10(a) replaces the phrase “accept or continue employment” with the phrase “represent a client.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.10(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-108(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR, but Rule 1.10(b) lacks its own provision for client consent because client waiver of all Rule 1.10 conflicts is now governed by Rule 1.10(d).

NEW NY Rule: 1.10(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-108(A)(1) & 5-108(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DRs, but Rule 1.10(c) reinforces restrictions on a lawyer who has moved laterally to a new firm by extending those restrictions to the firm that the lateral lawyer (“the newly associated lawyer”) has joined, and Rule 1.10(c) expressly mentions a “prospective” client.

NEW NY Rule: 1.10(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-101 & 5-105(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DRs, but incorporates their provisions solely by reference rather than repeating their waiver language, which is now found in Rule 1.7(b).

NEW NY Rule: 1.10(e)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-105(E)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.10(e) simplifies the language by replacing the phrase “a policy implementing a system” with the phrase “shall implement and maintain a system,” and Rule 1.10(e) specifies four situations in which a law firm must check for conflicts. The second and third sentences of DR 5-105(E) are moved to Rules 1.10(f) and (g).

NEW NY Rule: 1.10(f)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-105(E)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to second sentence of DR, but Rule 1.10(f) applies only to a “substantial” failure to comply with Rule 1.10(e).

NEW NY Rule: 1.10(g)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-105(E)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.10(h)
Comparable DR in Code: 9-101(D)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.11(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 9-101(B)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.11(a)(1) expressly requires a former public servant to comply with Rule 1.9(c) (which protects a former client’s confidential information), permits the conflict to be cured if “the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent,” and expressly provides that this rule does not apply to matters governed by Rule 1.12(a) (which governs former judges).

NEW NY Rule: 1.11(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 9-101(B)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.11(b) specifies that a firm desiring to escape imputed disqualification must act “promptly and reasonably” to set up a screen. Rule 1.11(b)(1)–(4) then sets out four features of a satisfactory screen, and preserves the “appearance of impropriety” criterion of DR 9-101(B)(1)(b) as a fifth requirement for a screen to work.

NEW NY Rule: 1.11(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 9-101(B)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.11(c) adds a definition of “confidential government information” and incorporates the detailed screening requirements of Rule 1.11(b).

NEW NY Rule: 1.11(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 9-101(B)(3)
Simon’s Commentary: Substantially identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.11(e)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 1.11(f)
Comparable DR in Code: 8-101
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.12(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 9-101(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.12(b)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 1.12(c)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 1.12(d)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 1.12(e)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 1.13(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-109(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.13(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-109(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR except for some minor differences in punctuation.

NEW NY Rule: 1.13(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-109(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.13(d)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 1.14(a)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Loosely related to ECs 7-11 and 7-12.

NEW NY Rule: 1.14(b)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Loosely related to EC 7-12.

NEW NY Rule: 1.14(c)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 1.15
Comparable DR in Code: 9-102
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-109
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR, except that Rule 1.16(a) replaces the phrase “it is obvious” with the phrase “[the lawyer] reasonably should know.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but the lead-in language in Rule 1.16(b) covers court permission only by cross-reference to Rule 1.16(d), and Rule 1.16(b) substitutes the word “representation” for the old word “employment” throughout the rule.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(b)(1)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(B)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, except that Rule 1.16(b)(1) replaces the phrase “it is obvious” with the phrase “[the lawyer] reasonably should know.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(b)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(B)(3)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.16(b)(2) replaces the old phrase “renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively” with the phrase “materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(b)(3)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(B)(4)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 1.16(b)(3) omits the phrase “by his or her client.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(b)(4)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(B)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, except that Rule 1.16(b)(4) replaces the phrase “it is obvious” with the phrase “[the lawyer] reasonably should know.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 1.16 moves the “material adverse effect” factor to a separate subparagraph of the rule.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(1)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to “material adverse effect” clause of DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(1)(b)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(3)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(1)(g)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(4)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(e)
Simon’s Commentary: Conceptually similar to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(5)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(1)(f)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(6)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(1)(a)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(7)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(1)(d)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR but adds “fails to cooperate in the representation” as an alternative ground for withdrawal.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(8)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(3)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(9)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(4)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(10)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(5)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(11)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-109(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Incorporates substance of DR by referring to Rule 1.13(c), but goes further by referring also to “other law.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(12)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(6)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but substitutes “matter” for “proceeding.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(c)(13)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(C)(1)(c)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(A)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: First sentence of Rule 1.16(d) is identical to DR, but Rule 1.16(d) adds: “When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.16(e)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-110(A)(2) & (3)
Simon’s Commentary: Substantially similar to DRs but combines them into a single subparagraph and omits references to specific rule numbers.

NEW NY Rule: 1.17
Comparable DR in Code: 2-111
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 1.17 replaces the old terminology “confidences and secrets” with the phrase “confidential information.”

NEW NY Rule: 1.18(a)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 1.18(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 4-101(B) & 5-108(A)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DRs but makes clear that confidentiality obligations apply “[e]ven when no client-lawyer relationship ensues” after a lawyer has discussions with a prospective client about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship. Codifies the first sentence of EC 4-1, which says that a lawyer is required to preserve the confidences and secrets of one who has employed “or sought to employ” the lawyer.

NEW NY Rule: 1.18(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-105(D) & 5-108(A)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Conceptually similar to DRs but combines disqualification and imputation into a single subparagraph and applies the concepts to prospective clients, but Rule 1.18(c) disqualifies a lawyer from opposing a former prospective client in a substantially related matter only “if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter,” and even then refers to exceptions created by Rule 1.18(d).

NEW NY Rule: 1.18(d)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

ARTICLE 2

NEW NY Rule: 2.1
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Conceptually similar to ECs 5-1 and 7-8.

NEW NY Rule: 2.2
Comparable DR in Code: [Reserved]
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 2.3
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 2.4
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Related to the subject matter of EC 5-20, but Rule 2.4 concerns a lawyer serving as a neutral between “per-sons who are not clients” whereas EC 5-20 concerns mediation in matters which involve “present or former clients.”

ARTICLE 3

NEW NY Rule: 3.1(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-109 & 7-102(A)(1)-(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DRs but Rule 3.1(a) uses the term “frivolous” (whose definition is based on 22 NYCRR Part 130), and Rule 3.1(a) adds express permission for the lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or for any respondent facing incarceration, to “so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.1(b)(1)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(A)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.1(b)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(A)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Last clause of Rule 3.1(b)(2) borrows the phrase “merely to harass or maliciously injure another” from DR, but Rule 3.1(b)(2) also applies where “the conduct has no reasonable purpose other than to delay or prolong the resolution of litigation.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.1(b)(3)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(A)(5)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar to DR, but Rule 3.1(b)(3) applies only to “material” factual statements and does not mention “a false statement of law” (though Rule 3.3(a)(1) does).

NEW NY Rule: 3.2
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(a)(1)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(A)(5)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 3.3(a)(1) applies only to a false statement “to a tribunal” and adds that a lawyer shall not knowingly “fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(a)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-106(B)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 3.3(a)(2) is phrased in the negative (“shall not knowingly … fail to disclose”) rather than the positive (“shall disclose”).

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(a)(3) (1st sentence)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(A)(4)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but the first sentence of Rule 3.3(a)(3) replaces the phrase “use perjured testimony or false evidence” with the phrase “offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(a)(3) (2nd sentence)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 3.3(a)(3) adds: “If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” Also, whereas DR 7-102(B)(1) applied to a client’s fraud on a “person or tribunal,” Rule 3.3(a)(3) applies only to a fraud on a tribunal.

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(a)(3) (3rd sentence)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to last sentence of EC 7-26.

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-108(G)
Simon’s Commentary: Rule 3.3(b) is much broader than the DR because Rule 3.3(b) applies to all “criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding” whereas DR applies only to “improper conduct” by or toward jurors or their families — but DR always requires a lawyer to “reveal [such conduct] promptly to the court” whereas Rule 3.3(b) requires the lawyer to “take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR with respect to non-clients, but radically reduces protection for clients who have perpetrated a fraud on a tribunal (e.g., perjury or false documentary evidence). Whereas DR 7-102(B)(1) required a lawyer to reveal a client’s fraud on a tribunal to the tribunal “except when the information is protected as a confidence or secret,” Rule 3.3(c) requires disclosure to the tribunal (if less drastic “remedial measures” have failed or are not feasible) “even if compliance requires disclosure” of confidential information.

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(d)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(e)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-106(B)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(f)(1)–(3)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-106(C)(5)–(7)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 3.3(f)(2) omits the phrase “which is degrading to a tribunal” that qualified “undignified or discourteous conduct” in DR 7-106(C)(6).

NEW NY Rule: 3.3(f)(4)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 3.4(a)(1)–(2)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-109(A)-(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.4(a)(3)–(6)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(3), (5), (6) & (7)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR, but the opening language of Rule 3.4 (“A lawyer shall not”) omits the phrase “In the representation of a client” that began DR 7-102(A).

NEW NY Rule: 3.4(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-109(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical in substance to DR, but Rule 3.4(b) adds a prohibition on offering “an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law.” Also, Rule 3.4(b)(1) and (2) both end with the phrase “and reasonable related expenses,” thus making unnecessary the separate subparagraph allowing payment of “[e]xpenses reasonably incurred by a witness in attending or testifying” that had appeared in DR 7-109(C)(1).

NEW NY Rule: 3.4(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-106(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.4(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-106(C)(1)-(4)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, except that Rule 3.4(d)(1) omits the phrase “to the case” after the word “relevant.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.4(e)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-105
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.5(a)(1)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-110(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 3.5(a)(1) begins with the admonition that a lawyer shall not “seek or cause another person to influence a judge, official or employee of a tribunal by means prohibited by law,” and qualifies the phrase “give or lend anything of value” with the words “when the recipient is prohibited from accepting the gift or loan.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.5(a)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-110(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.5(a)(3)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Parallel to various prohibitions on conduct relating to jurors, but Rule 3.5(a)(3) has no direct counterpart in DR 7-108.

NEW NY Rule: 3.5(a)(4)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-108(A), (B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 3.5(a)(4) omits the phrase “Before the trial of a case” that began DR 7-108(A). Also, Rule 3.5(a)(4) incorporates the prohibitions in DR 7-108(B) regarding communications “during the trial,” and 3.5(a)(4) eliminates the distinction between lawyers “connected” with a case and “not connected” with a case that had appeared in DR 7-108(B)(1) (a distinction that now appears in Rule 3.5(a)(6)) and (2). Finally, 3.5(a)(4) ends with the phrase “unless authorized to do so by law or court order,” which did not appear in the DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.5(a)(5)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-108(D)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but every subparagraph differs from the DR and no language is carried over from the DR except in Rule 3.5(a)(5)(iv), which prohibits any communication with a discharged juror that attempts “to influence the juror’s actions in future jury service.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.5(a)(6)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-108(E)
Simon’s Commentary: Substantially similar to DR, but Rule 3.5(a)(6) reorders the wording.

NEW NY Rule: 3.5(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-106(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.5(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-106(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 3.6(c)(1) replaces the phrase “the general nature of the claim or defense” with the phrase “the claim, offense or defense and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.5(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-106(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to last sentence of DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.5(e)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-106(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Substantially similar to “associated in a law firm or government agency” clause in first sentence of DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.7(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-102(A), (C)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DRs, but Rule 3.7(a) eliminates the distinction between accepting employment [see DR 5-102(A)] and continuing employment [see DR 5-102(C)] in favor of a unified rule impliedly covering both. Rule 3.7(a) also replaces the phrase “the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the lawyer ought to be called as a witness” with the phrase “the lawyer is likely to be a witness.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.7(a)(1)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-102(A)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.7(a)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-102(A)(3)
Simon’s Commentary: Substantially similar to DR, but Rule 3.7(a)(2) deletes the qualifying phrase “because of the distinctive value of lawyer as counsel in the particular case.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.7(a)(3)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-102(A)(4)
Simon’s Commentary: Substantially similar to DR, but Rule 3.7(a)(3) replaces the phrase “legal services rendered in the case by the lawyer or the lawyer’s firm to the client” with the phrase “legal services rendered in the matter.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.7(a)(4)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-102(A)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.7(a)(5)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 3.7(b)(1)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-102(B), (D)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DRs, but Rule 3.7(b)(1) eliminates the distinction between accepting employment [see DR 5-102(B)] and continuing employment [see DR 5-102(D)] in favor of a unified rule impliedly covering both. Rule 3.7(b)(1) also eliminates the ban on accepting employment “in contemplated or pending litigation if the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the lawyer or another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm may be called as a witness” [see DR 5-102(B)]. Instead, Rule 3.7(b)(1) says nothing about accepting employment but simply provides that a lawyer shall not “act as an advocate before a tribunal” if another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is “likely” to be called as a witness. Also, Rule 3.7(b) replaces the phrase “the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the lawyer ought to be called as a witness” [see DR 5-102(B)] and the phrase “the lawyer learns or it is obvious that the lawyer or a lawyer in his or her firm may be called as a witness” [see DR 5-102(D)] with the single phrase “the lawyer is likely to be a witness.” Finally, Rule 3.7(b)(1) replaces the criterion that the lawyer’s testimony “would or might” be prejudicial to the client [see DR 5-102(B)], or “is or may” be prejudicial to the client [see DR 5-102(D)], with the criterion that the testimony “may” be prejudicial to the client.

NEW NY Rule: 3.7(b)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 3.8(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-103(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 3.8(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-103(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 3.8(b) replaces the word “evidence” with the phrase “evidence or information,” replaces the word “punishment” with “sentence,” and adds an exception when the prosecutor or other government lawyer is “relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of a tribunal.”

NEW NY Rule: 3.9
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to first sentence of EC 8-4.

ARTICLE 4

NEW NY Rule: 4.1
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(A)(5)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 4.1 adds the phrase “to a third person.”

NEW NY Rule: 4.2(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(A)(1)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but replaces the phrase “the lawyer representing such other party” with “the other lawyer,” and replaces the phrase “authorized by law to do so” with the phrase “authorized to do so by law.”

NEW NY Rule: 4.2(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-102(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but adds “otherwise” before “prohibited by law” and replaces the phrase “if that party is legally competent” with the phrase” unless the represented person is not legally competent.”

NEW NY Rule: 4.3 (1st 2 sentences)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 4.3 (last sentences)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-104(A)(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Substantially similar to DR, but Rule 4.3 adds a scienter standard (“if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know”), adds “are or” before “have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict,” and replaces the word “party” with “person.”

NEW NY Rule: 4.4
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 4.5(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 7-111(A) & (B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in form to DR. but Rule 4.5(a) uses the phrase “specific incident” instead of “incident.” Also, Rule 4.5(a) deletes the phrase “seeking to represent the injured individual or legal representative thereof in potential litigation or in a proceeding arising out of the incident” (which would apply only to plaintiffs’ lawyers) and substitutes the phrase, “a lawyer or law firm representing actual or potential defendants or entities that may defend and/or indemnify said defendants,” which is taken from DR 7-111(B).

NEW NY Rule: 4.5(b)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

ARTICLE 5

NEW NY Rule: 5.1(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-104(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 5.1(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-104(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 5.1(b) divides the DR into two parts. Rule 5.1(b)(1) applies only to a lawyer with “management responsibility in a law firm” and obligates such a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that “other lawyers” in the firm conform to the Rules, whereas the DR imposes this obligation only as to “the other lawyer.” Rule 5.1(b)(2) is substantially the same as the DR but governs only a lawyer with “direct supervisory authority over another lawyer.”

NEW NY Rule: 5.1(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-104(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 5.1(c) makes no reference to supervision of nonlawyers, a subject now covered in Rule 5.3.

NEW NY Rule: 5.1(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-104(D)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 5.1(d) makes no reference to responsibility for the conduct of nonlawyers, a subject now covered in Rule 5.3. Also, while Rule 5.1(d)(1) is identical to DR 1-104(D)(1), Rule 5.1(d)(2) divides DR 1-104(D)(2) into two parts (one for a lawyer who “knows” and another for a lawyer who “should have known”), and adds the phrase “a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial responsibility in a law firm in which the other lawyer practices or” before the phrase “is a lawyer who has supervisory authority over the other lawyer.”

NEW NY Rule: 5.2(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-104(E)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 5.2(a) replaces the phrase “shall comply with” these Disciplinary Rules with the phrase “is bound by” these Rules.

NEW NY Rule: 5.2(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-104(F)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 5.3
Comparable DR in Code: 1-104(C)-(D)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DRs, but Rule 5.3 covers only nonlawyers, and Rule 5.3(b) makes changes to DR 1-104(D) parallel to the changes in Rule 5.1(d) (see above).

NEW NY Rule: 5.4(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 3-102
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 5.4(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 3-103
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 5.4(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-107(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 5.4(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 5-107(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but the opening language replaces the phrase “a limited liability company, a limited liability partnership or professional corporation” with the phrase “an entity.” Also, after the phrase “is a member, corporate director or officer thereof,” Rule 5.4(d)(2) adds the phrase “or occupies a position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation.”

NEW NY Rule: 5.5(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 3-101(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 5.5(a) replaces the phrase “where to do so would be in violation of the regulations of the profession” with the phrase “in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.”

NEW NY Rule: 5.5(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 3-101(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 5.6(a)(1)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-108(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but the opening language to Rule 5.6(a) replaces the phrase “shall not be a party to or participate in” with the phrase “participate in offering or making.” Also, Rule 5.6(a)(1) replaces the phrase “a partnership or employment agreement” with the phrase “a partnership, shareholder, operating, employment, or other similar type of agreement,” and deletes the phrase “created by the agreement” after the word “relationship,” and replaces the phrase “as a condition to payment of retirement benefits” with the phrase “except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement.”

NEW NY Rule: 5.6(a)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-108(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but the opening language to Rule 5.6(a) replaces the phrase “shall not be a party to or participate in” with the phrase “participate in offering or making.” Also, Rule 5.6(a)(2) replaces the phrase “controversy or suit” with the word “controversy.”

NEW NY Rule: 5.6(b)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 5.7
Comparable DR in Code: 1-106
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 5.8
Comparable DR in Code: 1-107
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR, but Rule 5.8 deletes the language in DR 1-107(D).

ARTICLE 6

NEW NY Rule: 6.1
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to EC 2-34 (formerly EC 2-25)

NEW NY Rule: 6.2
Comparable DR in Code: [Reserved]
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 6.3
Comparable DR in Code: 5-110
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 6.4
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: Conceptually similar to the last two sentences of EC 8-4.

NEW NY Rule: 6.5
Comparable DR in Code: 5-101-a
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

ARTICLE 7

NEW NY Rule: 7.1
Comparable DR in Code: 2-101
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR, except that Rule 7.1 adds subparagraph (q) (regarding employment resulting from “activities designed to educate the public to recognize legal problems” and subparagraph (r) (regarding public speeches or writings on “legal topics”).

NEW NY Rule: 7.2(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-103(D)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 7.2(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-103(F)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 7.3(a)–(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-103(A)–(C)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 7.3(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-103(E)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 7.3(e)–(i)
Comparable DR in Code: 2-103(G)–(K)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 7.4
Comparable DR in Code: 2-105
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 7.5
Comparable DR in Code: 2-102
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

ARTICLE 8

NEW NY Rule: 8.1
Comparable DR in Code: 1-101

Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 8.1 combines the subjects of DR 1-101(A) and (B) into a single paragraph. Also, the introductory language of Rule 8.1 clarifies the DR by applying the rule to an application for admission “previously filed in this state or in any other jurisdiction.” Rule 8.1 replaces the phrase “further the application for admission to the bar of another person that the lawyer knows to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute” with the much simpler phrase “in connection with the application of another person for admission to the bar.”

NEW NY Rule: 8.2(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 8-102
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 8.2(a) replaces the single word “qualifications” with the phrase “qualifications, conduct or integrity,” and Rule 8.2(a) combines DR 8-102(A) (concerning candidates) and DR 8-102(B) (concerning sitting judges) into a single subparagraph.

NEW NY Rule: 8.2(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 8-103
Simon’s Commentary: Almost identical to DR, but Rule 8.2(b) replaces the phrase “section 100.5 of the Chief Administrator’s Rules Governing Judicial Conduct [22 NYCRR] and Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct” with the phrase “the applicable provisions of Part 100 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts.”

NEW NY Rule: 8.3(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-103(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 8.3(a) replaces the phrase “lawyer possessing knowledge” with the phrase “lawyer who knows,” and Rule 8.3 moves the DR’s exceptions for confidential information and lawyer assistance programs to Rule 8.3(c).

NEW NY Rule: 8.3(b)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-103(B)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DR, but Rule 8.3(b) replaces the phrase “shall reveal fully such knowledge or evidence upon proper request” with the phrase “shall not fail to respond to a lawful demand for information.” Also, Rule 8.3 moves the DR’s exception for confidential information to a separate Rule 8.3(c), and adds an exception for information gained through participation in a lawyer assistance program.

NEW NY Rule: 8.3(c)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-103(A)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to the two enumerated exceptions in the DR, but Rule 8.3(c) replaces the phrase “lawyer assistance or similar program or committee” with the phrase “lawyer assistance program.”

NEW NY Rule: 8.4(a)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-102(A)(1)-(2)
Simon’s Commentary: Similar in substance to DRs, but Rule 8.4(a) adds that a lawyer shall not “attempt to violate” the Rules, and adds that a lawyer shall not “knowingly assist or induce another to do so.” Also, Rule 8.4(a) replaces the phrase “[c]ircumvent a Disciplinary Rule through the actions of another” with the phrase “or do so through the acts of another.”

NEW NY Rule: 8.4(b)–(d)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-102(A)(3)-(5)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 8.4(e)(2)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 8.4(f)
Comparable DR in Code: None
Simon’s Commentary: —

NEW NY Rule: 8.4(g)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-102(A)(6)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 8.4(h)
Comparable DR in Code: 1-102(A)(7)
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

NEW NY Rule: 8.5
Comparable DR in Code: 1-105
Simon’s Commentary: Identical to DR.

DISCLAIMER: This article provides general coverage of its subject area and is presented to the reader for informational purposes only with the understanding that the laws governing legal ethics and professional responsibility are always changing. The information in this article is not a substitute for legal advice and may not be suitable in a particular situation. Consult your attorney for legal advice. New York Legal Ethics Reporter provides this article with the understanding that neither New York Legal Ethics Reporter LLC, nor Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, nor Hofstra University, nor their representatives, nor any of the authors are engaged herein in rendering legal advice. New York Legal Ethics Reporter LLC, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, Hofstra University, their representatives, and the authors shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission.

Roy Simon

About the Author: admin

« Comparing New NY Rules of Professional Conduct to Existing NY Code of Professional Responsibility (Part I) From Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics: Amended Opinion 07-216 (Dec. 4, 2008) »