Which statement best describes the ability of this jurisdiction to discipline for conduct occurring outside its borders?

Which statement best describes the ability of this jurisdiction to discipline for conduct occurring outside its borders?

• A. A lawyer's conduct may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another for the same conduct.
• B. Discipline is limited to conduct occurring within this jurisdiction.
• C. Discipline is limited to conduct that is illegal under federal law.
• D. Disciplinary authority depends on the client's location.

Answer: (A)

Disciplinary authority can extend beyond borders: a lawyer’s misconduct can trigger discipline in more than one jurisdiction, because the rules governing the practice of law apply where the lawyer is admitted and where the conduct has a relationship to the practice. This means two different jurisdictions may both have grounds to discipline the same act, leading to potential discipline by both. Why this is the best fit: it captures the reality that professional conduct rules are not confined to one state just because the conduct happened outside that state. If the lawyer is admitted in more than one place or if the misconduct relates to practicing law in a way that affects another jurisdiction, that other jurisdiction can reach the lawyer as well. The other options don’t fit: discipline is not limited to acts inside this jurisdiction, nor is it tied to federal law; and while client location can influence the practical reach, the controlling factors are admission to practice and connection of the conduct to the practice in the jurisdiction.

Disciplinary authority can extend beyond borders: a lawyer’s misconduct can trigger discipline in more than one jurisdiction, because the rules governing the practice of law apply where the lawyer is admitted and where the conduct has a relationship to the practice. This means two different jurisdictions may both have grounds to discipline the same act, leading to potential discipline by both.

Why this is the best fit: it captures the reality that professional conduct rules are not confined to one state just because the conduct happened outside that state. If the lawyer is admitted in more than one place or if the misconduct relates to practicing law in a way that affects another jurisdiction, that other jurisdiction can reach the lawyer as well.

The other options don’t fit: discipline is not limited to acts inside this jurisdiction, nor is it tied to federal law; and while client location can influence the practical reach, the controlling factors are admission to practice and connection of the conduct to the practice in the jurisdiction.