Rules of Professional Conduct

The Ethics 2000 Commission was created by the American Bar Association to review and amend the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The Ethics 2000 Commission ‘s revisions to the ABA Model Rules were completed in August 2003. The Utah Supreme Court requested its Advisory Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct to consider the Ethics 2000 revisions and recommend which amendments, if any, should be made to the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules listed below include the Ethics 2000 revisions to the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct recommended by the court’s advisory committee. The Ethics 2000 revisions to the ABA Model Rules and explanations regarding the changes can be found at
Rules of Professional Conduct – All
RPC 00.00. Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities. Amend.
RPC 01.00. Terminology. Amend.
RPC 01.01. Competence. Amend.
RPC 01.02. Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer. Amend.
RPC 01.03. Diligence. Amend.
RPC 01.04. Communication. Amend.
RPC 01.05. Fees. Amend.
RPC 01.06. Confidentiality of Information Amend.
RPC 01.07. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients. Amend.
RPC 01.08. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules. Amend.
RPC 01.09. Duties to Former Clients Amend.
RPC 01.10. Imputation of Conflicts of Interest: General Rule. Amend.
RPC 01.11. Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Employees. Amend.
RPC 01.12. Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator or Other Third-Party Neutral. Amend.
RPC 01.13. Organization as a Client. Amend.
RPC 01.14. Client with Diminished Capacity. Amend.
RPC 01.15. Safekeeping Property. Amend.
RPC 01.17. Sale of Law Practice. Amend.
RPC 01.18. Duties to Prospective Client. New.
RPC 02.01. Advisor. Amend.
RPC 02.02. Intermediary. Repealed.
RPC 02.03. Evaluation for Use by Third Persons. Amend.
RPC 02.04. Lawyer Serving as Third-Party Neutral. New.
RPC 03.01. Meritorious Claims and Contentions. Amend.
RPC 03.02. Expediting Litigation. Amend.
RPC 03.03. Candor Toward the Tribunal. Amend.
RPC 03.04. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel. Amend.
RPC 03.05. Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal. Amend.
RPC 03.06. Trial Publicity. Amend.
RPC 03.07. Lawyer as Witness. Amend.
RPC 03.08. Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. Amend.
RPC 03.09. Advocate in Nonadjudicative Proceedings. Amend.
RPC 04.01. Truthfulness in Statements to Others. Amend.
RPC 04.02. Communication with Persons Represented by Counsel. Amend.
RPC 04.03. Dealing with Unrepresented Person. Amend.
RPC 04.04. Respect for Rights of Third Persons. Amend.
RPC 05.01. Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers. Amend.
RPC 05.02. Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer. Amend.
RPC 05.03. Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants. Amend.
RPC 05.04. Professional Independence of a Lawyer. Amend.
RPC 05.05. Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law. Repeal & Reenact.
RPC 05.06. Restrictions on Right to Practice. Amend.
RPC 05.07. Responsibilities Regarding Law-Related Services. New.
RPC 06.01. Voluntary Pro Bono Legal Service. Amend.
RPC 06.02. Accepting Appointments. Amend.
RPC 06.03. Membership in Legal Services Organization. Amend.
RPC 06.04. Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests. Amend.
RPC 06.05. Nonprofit and Court-Annexed Limited Legal Services Programs. New.
RPC 07.01. Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services. Amend.
RPC 07.02. Advertising. Amend.
RPC 07.03. Direct Contact with Prospective Clients. Amend.
RPC 07.04. Communication of Fields of Practice. Amend.
RPC 07.05. Firm Names and Letterheads. Amend.
RPC 08.01. Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters. Amend.
RPC 08.02. Judicial Officials. Amend.
RPC 08.03. Reporting Professional Misconduct. Amend.
RPC 08.04. Misconduct. Amend.
RPC 08.05. Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law. Repeal & Reenact.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
3 thoughts on “Rules of Professional Conduct
  1. Scott Hadford

    I’m not the brightest bulb on the tree but I have some concerns about the change in fee agreements for hourly clients. I believe that the stringent rule of requiring written fee agreements in almost all cases relieves the lawyer and client of ambiguities. While attorneys may find themselves in tight spots when this requirement is not met ” and I really am not for making it harder on us ” the written fee agreement idea in every instance is a good practice. I do not think this requirement should be lessened in any way.

  2. Anonymous

    In Rule 1.2, no changes should be made to comment [2]. The deleted sections make it clear a lawyer does not have to perform frivilous tasks at the client’s insistence, such as making meritless motions or objections at trial. Such tactical matters should be the lawyer’s call. The deletion and replacement of language giving a lawyer control of tactical decisions opens up attorneys, particularly in pro-bono cases, to being willed by their client to waste time, effort and money on things unimportant to the ultimate case outcome.
    Rule 5.4 (a) (4) should not be adopted. The reasons for fee sharing concerns do not go away just because the entity getting part of the legal fees is a non-profit, rather than a for-profit organization.
    Thank you

  3. Paul W. Boyden

    Statewide Association of Public Attorneys
    Board of Directors
    Resolution Regarding Proposed Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct
    Whereas: This board represents the prosecutors and government civil attorneys of the State Of Utah; and
    Whereas, provision of competent and ethical legal advise to investigative agencies is of paramount importance to the preservation of individual freedom and the protection of society from criminal activity;
    Now therefore: We urge the following modification of the proposed rule.
    First of all, we express our gratitude to the members of the committee for their professional cooperation in working out the difficulties in Rule 3.8 and Rule 4.2. These rules remain among the most balanced in the nation.
    One proposed change in the wording of 4.2(a) is of great concern. The redrafting of paragraph (a) is generally a good idea since it adds the idea that communication should be restricted to that allowed by the law, rule or court order. That is undeniably good public policy. The difficulty is the use of the words “meet the requirements” on line 12 of the draft of March 25, 2005. The current rule uses the standard of “…authorized to do so by….”. The difference is potentially very significant. Government attorneys are not “required” to advise police in legally conducted undercover investigations, but they are certainly “authorized” to do so. If they are discouraged from giving such advice by the Rules of Professional Conduct, the potential for violation of individual rights by zealous but unadvised law enforcement agents is enormous.
    We realize that such an outcome is not the purpose of the committee since the Rule contains several contrary provisions. First, the very sentence containing the word “requirements” then goes on to refer to restricting the communication to that – allowed by the law, rule or court order….(line13). Second, paragraph (c) of the rule contains extensive authorization of the type of conduct in question, but makes no mention of the public attorney’s being “required” to perform the described duties. Third, Comment 7 (beginning on line124) describes paragraph (a) – the language in question – as allowing the communication “…if the communicating lawyer is authorized to do so…” (Line130). Judging from the comment, there was no change (or at least intended change) in paragraph (a).
    We suggest that the following language resolves the issue:
    On line 12 delete the words “in order to meet the requirements of” and in their place insert the words “if authorized to do so by”.
    This change would preserve both the carefully negotiated and crafted provisions of the current Rule 4.2 and the improvements suggested by the committee.
    Resolved this 6th day of June, 2005, in a regular meeting of The Board of Directors of the Statewide Association of Public Attorneys by a vote of eleven in favor and none against.
    /s/ David E. Yocom, Chairman /s/Paul W. Boyden, Executive Director