In one of my comments I posed asked rhetorically whether the new rule could survive a Constitutional attack. So to pursue the question with some real facts, here is a good example.
The Legal Profession blog is reporting that a recent Illinois Hearing Board report recommended sanctions on an attorney who, among other things, “used demeaning and insulting language” toward the father of a client. The father, by the way, was supposed to pay for the client’s representation which courts in Illinois have found makes him a client too. The report lists some of the statements in question as follows:
You are a piece of garbage. All black people are alike. You're slovenly, ignorant. [...]Given those statements, the attorney was charged with a violation of Illinois Rule 4.4, which states that “[i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.”
I'm sick of you, you piece of shit.
I don't know who's the biggest bitch. You or [___]. I'm going to lock you up.
Low class n#!*s. I'm going to have you all locked up. [...]
You are such a pussy. ...
You're ugly, low class, ignorant. I'll finish with you when he gets off. You're demeaning your son.
Help your son. Pay. Stop delaying case.
Personally, I don’t think that Rule 4.4 was meant to address this type of conduct; it is not meant to address the use of offensive speech directed at client. It seems to me a better rule to use in a case like this would be the section of Illinois Rule 8.4(d) that talks about engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
However, since 8.4 is also not squarely on point, it can be argued that the fact that the lawyer was charged under 4.4 rather than under another rule that may be more “on point” shows the need to adopt a new rule that would address this type of conduct.
But what if that rule is adopted? What if Illinois had adopted the new Model Rule 8.4(g)? It seems to me this would be a good case to have a court decide the issue I have been writing about all along. The conduct is deplorable and the speech is offensive; but the First Amendment protects against the state imposing sanctions on speech merely because some might find it offensive.
In the end, I think the issue comes down to deciding whether the state can support the argument that regulating offensive speech by lawyers outweighs the lawyer’s constitutional right to utter offensive statements. If the answer is yes, the facts of this case are a good example to use in support of the adopting the new rule. If the answer is no, then the facts of the case can be used as an example of the consequences of the Constitutional protection of what some might believe to be offensive speech.
UPDATE 6/10/17: The Illinois Review Board has recommended a 60 day suspension. The Legal Profession blog has an update here.