What determines the applicable rules when the predominant effect of a lawyer's conduct is in a different jurisdiction?

What determines the applicable rules when the predominant effect of a lawyer's conduct is in a different jurisdiction?

• A. The rules of the jurisdiction with the predominant effect.
• B. The rules of the tribunal's jurisdiction.
• C. The rules of the lawyer's home jurisdiction only.
• D. The rules of the client's jurisdiction.

Answer: (A)

When a lawyer’s conduct touches more than one jurisdiction, the rules that apply are those of the place where the conduct has its predominant effect. This is the standard used to resolve cross-border disciplinary questions, focusing on where the impact of the conduct is greatest. The governing rule comes from the Model Rules, which say that the appropriate disciplinary rules are those of the jurisdiction whose interests are most affected by the conduct. So this approach is best because it directly ties responsibility and standards to the jurisdiction whose actions were most consequential for clients or others harmed. If the primary impact is in that jurisdiction, its rules govern the discipline. The other options would look to the tribunal’s location, the lawyer’s home state, or the client’s location, none of which adequately reflect where the predominant harm or effect occurred.

When a lawyer’s conduct touches more than one jurisdiction, the rules that apply are those of the place where the conduct has its predominant effect. This is the standard used to resolve cross-border disciplinary questions, focusing on where the impact of the conduct is greatest. The governing rule comes from the Model Rules, which say that the appropriate disciplinary rules are those of the jurisdiction whose interests are most affected by the conduct.

So this approach is best because it directly ties responsibility and standards to the jurisdiction whose actions were most consequential for clients or others harmed. If the primary impact is in that jurisdiction, its rules govern the discipline. The other options would look to the tribunal’s location, the lawyer’s home state, or the client’s location, none of which adequately reflect where the predominant harm or effect occurred.