California Supreme Court Amends Rules of Professional Conduct

The California Supreme Court on Thursday issued orders on two State Bar of California petitions to amend the Rules of Professional Conduct, relating to domestic violence restraining order cases and attorney discipline for making false or misleading public statements.

Court Approves Amendments to Rule 7.3 on Client Solicitation

The court granted the State Bar’s petition to amend Rule 7.3 (Solicitation of Clients), adopting measures aimed at protecting those involved in domestic violence restraining order proceedings.

Under the approved amendments, attorneys are prohibited from soliciting clients who are named as respondents in petitions for ex parte temporary domestic violence restraining orders before they have been formally served. Such solicitations could provide advance notice of the proceedings, potentially allowing respondents to evade service and increasing safety risks for those seeking protection through the restraining orders, according to the State Bar.

In adopting the amendments, the court clarified the prohibition does not apply if the respondent is a current or former client of the attorney. The court also incorporated cross-references to Rule 1.4, which describes the obligation to keep clients informed of significant developments (Rule 1.4(a)(3)) and the provision allowing attorneys to delay client communications if disclosure could lead to imminent harm (Rule 1.4(c)).

The amendments to Rule 7.3 will take effect on June 1.

Court Denies Proposed Amendments to Rules 8.2 and 8.4; Seeks Public Comment

The court denied the State Bar’s petition to amend Rules 8.2 (Judicial Officials) and 8.4 (Misconduct). The proposed changes sought to clarify that attorneys could face discipline for making false or misleading public statements—including statements framed as opinion—that might prejudice judicial proceedings or endanger judges, court personnel, or others.

The court instead directed the State Bar to solicit public comment on alternative language to:

• Clarify the purpose and scope of Rule 8.2; and
• Specify that, under Rule 8.4, “true threats of violence or incitements of unlawful imminent action” directed at parties, judges, or judicial officers may constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The court directed the State Bar to circulate the alternative proposal for a 45-day public comment period.