771 F.3d 1326
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Reines, a California-licensed attorney, received a private email from then-Chief Judge Randall Rader praising his oral advocacy.
- Reines circulated that email to at least 35 clients and prospective clients, with comments soliciting retention.
- The email described a close relationship and included phrases like “my friend” and “friend for life,” implying special access to the court.
- The dissemination occurred in the context of two Promega cases and subsequent discussions with the court about discipline under Rule 46.
- The court initiated show cause proceedings under Rule 46 and considered imposing discipline; the matter includes a separate exchange of value with then-Chief Judge Rader referred to the California bar.
- The panel ordered a public reprimand and referred the unrelated gift-related matter to California bar authorities under protective seal.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether distribution of the email violated Model Rule 8.4(e). | Reines argued no improper influence; it was a private compliment. | Dissemination implied a special relationship and attempt to influence retention. | Yes; violated 8.4(e); improper influence implied. |
| What discipline is warranted for the Rule 8.4(e) violation. | Reines notes mitigation and lack of prior discipline. | Discipline appropriate due to undermining integrity. | Public reprimand appropriate. |
| Whether First Amendment rights shielded the conduct from discipline. | Discipline would chill truthful, voluntary communications. | Regulation needed to protect professional integrity; not all speech protected. | First Amendment does not immunize misconduct; disciplinary authority upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350 (1977) (advertising cannot be blanketly suppressed; upheld commercial speech aspects)
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447 (1978) (strong state interest in regulating solicitor conduct)
- Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995) (limits on targeted direct-mail solicitation to protect public)
- In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982) (limits on attorney advertising by mail offerings)
- Dwyer v. Cappell, 762 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2014) (conduct guideline on quotations from judicial opinions; applicability to this case)
- In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (1985) (conduct unbecoming standard under Rule 46)
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Council of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (regulation of professional conduct to prevent misleading speech)