Regarding disciplinary authority for conduct pending before a tribunal, which rules apply?

Regarding disciplinary authority for conduct pending before a tribunal, which rules apply?

• A. Pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits; for other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction.
• B. All conduct is governed by the lawyer's home jurisdiction.
• C. All conduct is governed by the tribunal's home jurisdiction.
• D. The most lenient jurisdiction's rules apply.

Answer: (A)

The main concept is that disciplinary authority is determined by where the conduct and proceedings occur and how those events affect different jurisdictions. For conduct that is still pending before a tribunal, the rules that apply are those of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits. This keeps the ongoing proceeding governed by the forum’s own standards and procedures. For other misconduct by the lawyer, apply the rules of the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect is in another jurisdiction, apply the rules of that jurisdiction. This approach ties accountability to where the conduct happened or where its impact was greatest. The other possible views misstate this balance: one says all conduct is governed by the lawyer’s home jurisdiction, ignoring where the conduct occurred or the tribunal’s location; another says all conduct is governed by the tribunal’s home jurisdiction regardless of where the conduct took place or its effects; and another suggests using the most lenient jurisdiction’s rules, which would undermine consistent professional-ethics standards.

The main concept is that disciplinary authority is determined by where the conduct and proceedings occur and how those events affect different jurisdictions. For conduct that is still pending before a tribunal, the rules that apply are those of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits. This keeps the ongoing proceeding governed by the forum’s own standards and procedures. For other misconduct by the lawyer, apply the rules of the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect is in another jurisdiction, apply the rules of that jurisdiction. This approach ties accountability to where the conduct happened or where its impact was greatest.

The other possible views misstate this balance: one says all conduct is governed by the lawyer’s home jurisdiction, ignoring where the conduct occurred or the tribunal’s location; another says all conduct is governed by the tribunal’s home jurisdiction regardless of where the conduct took place or its effects; and another suggests using the most lenient jurisdiction’s rules, which would undermine consistent professional-ethics standards.