How the "Above Reproach" Standard Affects an Attorney's Practice

Introduction 

This research paper aims to determine how an attorney's requirement to be above reproach impacts his or her professional obligations, especially with regards to Model Rules that govern an attorney's expertise and communication with clients. First, we need to understand what being above reproach means. The dictionary often defines reproach as the "shame or disgrace or that which brings rebuke or censure upon a person" (American Bar Association, 2020). In other words, reproach is a feeling of disapproval or disappointment. When someone is being reproached, they disappoint others and face criticism that is justified by their acts. However, someone who is above reproach does not deserve any criticism for their actions. Being above reproach implies that one cannot be lawfully rebuked or charged permanently, meaning that they are blameless. The phrase "above reproach" can be used interchangeably with "beyond reproach. It is also vital to understand the purpose of The Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). These rules were adopted by the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates. For most jurisdictions, these rules serve as models for ethics. They are a set of commentaries and regulations on attorneys' professional and ethical responsibilities in the United States. Since attorneys are required to maintain professionalism in all circumstances, an issue arises when their professional obligations are affected by the mandate to be beyond reproach. It is much tougher for Christian attorneys since they need to incorporate principles addressed in the PRPC as well as biblical principles. By doing so, they stand the best chance to maintain themselves above reproach.  

Discussion of Model Rules of Professional Conduct 

Client-Lawyer Relationship 

Competence and Diligence . The first section of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct describes the relationship between attorneys and lawyers. Two of the rules in this section describe the behavior of ethical attorneys. Rule 1.1 describes the requirement for lawyers to be competent. The rule states that "a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation" (American Bar Association, 2020). This rule requires lawyers to attain required competence levels before providing any services to clients. Rule 1.3 guides lawyers in diligence. According to the rule, "a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client" (American Bar Association, 2020).  

At first glance, the standards outlined in these rules do not go against the Scripture, since the Bible is full of instances and passages that call upon people to showcase diligence and competence in work (London, 2015). Certain aspects of these rules are also supported by Scripture. For instance, the Bible emphasizes the importance of skill and knowledge as they are linked to a person's ability to complete tasks assigned to them (London, 2015). The Bible also supports the virtues of promptness, preparedness, and thoroughness since they determine how people complete assigned tasks. Moreover, the comment to Rule 1.3 requires attorneys to be committed, dedicated, and devoted to representing their clients. These principles are related to the biblical value of zeal for meaningful causes. 

Although these rules do not contradict the scriptures, several Christian scholars have argued that the Scripture goes beyond encouraging competence and diligence to enhance excellence (London, 2015). However, modern Christian ethicists argue against the virtue of excellence due to its relationship to work ethic (London, 2015). Several scriptures illustrate the difference between biblical concepts of diligence and competence, and the concepts in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. For example, Colossians 3:23 (The New International Version) says that "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters." Proverbs 22:29 (The New International Version) says that "Do you see someone skilled in their work? They will serve before kings; they will not serve before officials of low rank". These two scriptures illustrate how the Bible differs from the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. First, the Model rules base competence on a "reasonable" standard. On the other hand, the bible bases competence on the amount of effort applied by a person and the deviation of that person from his or her maximum capability. Second, the Model Rules do not consider a person's attitude towards work; they focus on specific external standards of practice. Conversely, biblical standards put more emphasis on a person's work rather than their external outcomes.  

Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer. Rule 1.2 outlines how lawyers should represent clients. The rule also describes the types of decisions that are within. According to the rule, clients are allowed to make decisions related to the aims of representation; hence attorneys should consult with them to determine how the objectives of representation will be achieved. The rule also affirms that when lawyers represent clients, they do not necessarily endorse their activities or views. It also states that under certain circumstances, attorneys may limit the scope of their representation. Finally, the rule cautions attorneys against engaging in fraudulent. However, the rule permits them to discuss the legal impacts of proposed courses of action with their clients.  

Regarding the allocation of decision making between lawyers and clients, the rule clarifies that attorneys are agents of their clients. By emphasizing this relationship between attorneys and clients, the rule points to scriptural values such as servanthood, trustworthiness, loyalty, and honor (Steinberg, 2016). Rule 1.2(b) particularly points to integrity. This section maintains that "a lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities" (American Bar Association, 2020). This section implicates that attorneys should be honest and possess strong moral principles.  

Communication . Rule 1.4 outlines how attorneys should communicate with their clients, including their responsibility to guide clients in making informed decisions related to the representation. This rule points to the necessity of promptness among attorneys. Specifically, sub-sections 1, 2, and 3 of the rule direct attorneys to be prompt when informing clients of particular decisions or responding to them. Similarly, lawyers should promptly keep clients informed of any changes that occur. Most clients report failure to communicate promptly, which results in disciplinary action against them.  

The rule also points to the need for honesty in communication. Rule 1.4(a)(5) states that an attorney should "consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law" (American Bar Association, 2020). This rule implicates that lawyers should be willing to openly communicate with their clients regarding the ethical limitations of their conduct. With such kind of communication, the lawyers can avoid potential conflict with the clients.  

Rule 1.4 also points to the need for lawyers to be knowledgeable during communication with clients. The rule requires them to explain any matter well so that clients can make informed decisions related to their representation. This requirement implies a need for knowledge among attorneys.  

Fees. Rule 1.5 outlines several provisions that oversee lawyer's fees and how these fees are charged. The first part of this rule bans lawyers from collecting unreasonable fees or unreasonable amounts for expenses (American Bar Association, 2020). The rule makes further provisions for fee-related communication between attorneys and clients, contingency fee agreements with clients, and the splitting of fees with other lawyers. By establishing the fee reasonableness requisites and the requisites and the requirements for the determination of fee agreements, the rule points to values of trustworthiness, reasonableness, integrity, and honesty. These values are also portrayed in the Bible. According to Proverbs 11:1 (The New International Version), "The LORD detests dishonest scales, but accurate weights find favor with him." When this verse was written, no uniform systems for weights and measures were used. As a result, business owners frequently defrauded customers by using weights that were lighter than requires. This biblical passage can be compared to a scenario where an attorney falsifies billing records to overcharge his clients. Such falsifications would violate both the provisions of Rule 1.5 and the biblical principles of honesty. Biblical passages on wealth and money also surpass the requirements of the rule in the rule in two other ways. First, they point to the importance of stewardship and financial responsibility (Reinhartz, 2016). Secondly, several passages in the Bible warn people against being enticed by the love or greed for money (Barrett, 2018). They go beyond the rule by addressing both the lawyers' actions regarding fees and their attitude toward fees.   

Confidentiality of Information

Rules 1.7 to 1.9 

These rules outline the general principles applied in the determination of conflicts of interest. Rule 1.7 outlines the general structure for determining conflicts of interest concerning current clients. The rule provides a framework for solving such disputes (American Bar Association, 2020). The rule gives exceptions when lawyers may represent clients, notwithstanding the presence of such conflicts. Rule 1.8 details the standards for certain circumstances where the potential for conflicts of interest among current clients are fraught. Rule 1.9 outlines the general standards used to assess conflicts of interest between former clients and existing clients. The three rules point to the general principle that attorneys should not represent clients when the representations create conflicts of interest with other clients (Huang, 2015). This principle points to the virtue of loyalty.  

Communication with Person Represented by Counsel 

Rule 4.2 outlines how attorneys should exhibit expertise in their dealings with persons other than the clients. The rule states that "In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order" (American Bar Association, 2020). Here, the rule points to the need for honesty. When dealing with people other than the client, an attorney should be honest enough not to disclose information on the subject of the representation with other people.  

Representing Organizations 

Rule 1.13 outlines ethical responsibilities. The rule begins by stating that lawyers who are retained or employed by organizations represent those organizations and not their constituents (American Bar Association, 2020). The rule also gives the standard to be followed when constituents act in ways that harm the organization.  

Application 

Based on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, it is evident that the mandate to be above reproach would significantly affect the attorney's obligations to professionalism. The mandate to be above reproach calls on attorneys to conduct their professional duties perfectly, and in a manner such that no criticism can be made (Steinberg, 2016). The first step in being beyond blame is being competent and diligent. Competence refers to the ability to conduct and activity efficiently and successfully. Therefore, attorneys should be capable of representing their clients efficiently to avoid blame. They can only achieve this objective by ensuring that they are equipped with the requisite knowledge and training (Strebel, 2018). As per Rule 1.1, attorneys should ensure that they are well prepared, skilled, and prepared to represent their clients. By doing so, the attorneys will avoid cases where employees blame them due to incompetence. And there are several ways in which lawyers can increase their competence. The first and most obvious way is through formal training and education. Lawyers can attend law schools to hone their skills and expand their knowledge base. In addition to formal education, there are many training sessions, seminars, and workshops organized for lawyers to enhance their skills. Lastly, lawyers need to gain more experience to improve their competence. New lawyers can gain more experience through internships, part-time work, contract work, pro bono work, and working as volunteers. Though some of these methods have little or no financial returns, they can equip lawyers with valuable skills and experience. The lawyers can efficiently achieve their obligations to professionalism while avoiding blame.  

Lawyers should also be diligent to avoid blame and criticism. Diligent lawyers are persistent and careful. By being cautious, they will avoid erroneous mistakes that might spark criticism (Strebel, 2018). In their dealings with clients, workers should also understand the scope of representation and allocation of authority between them and clients. According to Rule 1.2, attorneys should first consult with clients before determining how to achieve their professional obligations. In this way, they will only provide serviced needed, hence avoiding blames that may arise due to irrelevant services or wrong services offered due to lack of clarification.  

The mandate to be above reproach would also affect the communication between clients and attorneys. As per rule 1.4, attorneys should communicate promptly with clients (American Bar Association, 2020). This is a significant step toward being above reproach. To avoid doubt and criticism, attorneys should ensure that they pass all necessary information to the clients. And besides just giving information, they should ensure that their communication is prompt and precise. This statement implies that lawyers should inform clients of every progress of their representation and any changes to avoid disciplinary actions (Schaefer, 2018). Effective communications should also not just be a procedural conveyance of information. Instead, attorneys should pass information to their clients while having due knowledge of the subject matter. By doing so, they will ensure that the clients understand the information. Honesty is also an integral aspect of effective communication. Honesty demands the conveyance of all information to the client – lawyers should not conceal any information from the client. Furthermore, they should ensure that the information if factual and free from bias. The last step in achieving effective communication is the use of appropriate communication tools. Attorneys must understand the communication tools at their disposal, and what communication tools to use depending on the circumstance for maximum effectiveness.  

Rule 1.5 points to money as a vital aspect of any dealing between clients and lawyers. The sole reason for lawyers engaging in practice is to earn an income. However, wrong monetary motives may attract immense criticism from the public, resulting in the damage of a lawyer's reputation. (Schaefer, 2018) To be above reproach, attorneys have the ethical and moral obligation to charge their clients reasonably. It is unlawful and immoral for lawyers to charge excess fees or amounts for expenses. Such acts would cause doubt and criticism from the public. Lawyers should be trustworthy and honest – people. They should charge correct fees and share the proceeds fairly with other lawyers in partnership. Therefore, they should be obligated to be truthful im matters concerning finances.  

Also, lawyers should be obligated to preserving the confidentiality of clients' information. Based on Rule 1.6, they are only allowed to reveal information relating to the representation of customers with their consent. Even with the exceptions with which they can reveal such information, they should put ethics into consideration (Berger, 2015). When a lawyer reveals confidential information, his/her professional reputation might be damaged. The lawyer might be criticized by the public, creating doubt, and attracting criticism. Therefore, lawyers have a professional obligation to protect the confidentiality of their clients. Finally, lawyers need to learn how to solve conflicts of interest. In doing so, they will build their professional reputation and fulfill their professional obligation to maintain peace in the workplace.  

Conclusion 

Following the analysis outlined above, it is evident that the mandate to being above reproach affects an attorney's obligations of professionalism. The mandate challenges the employees to be competent, knowledgeable, and possess requisite skills in conflict resolution. Besides, the mandate also challenges employees to possess proper communication skills and protect their clients' confidentiality.  

The Bible also requires employees to be above reproach. The Bible speaks of being blameless or above reproach as a distinctive mark of people aspiring to be deacons or elders. In 1st Timothy 3:2 (The New International Version), Paul wrote that "Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…" Other versions state that the overseer must be above reproach, which emphasizes that the quality of being above reproach is required before taking up a church leadership role. According to Colossians 1:22 (The New International Version), all Christians should strive to present themselves "holy and blameless and above reproach before him." However, being above reproach does not mean without sin. It is practically impossible for Christians to live entirely sinless lives. Christians will only live entirely sinless lives after achieving a glorified state in heaven (MacArthur, 2017). Above reproach means that overseers should live lives free from sinful behaviors or habits that would prevent them from setting high Christian standards and a model for the church to follow (MacArthur, 2017). Similarly, the overseers must not damage the outside reputation of the church. Being above reproach means that nobody can honestly bring accusations or charges against them. It should be the objective of every Christian. Therefore, Christian lawyers are not exempted from striving to be above reproach. They can attain this objective by avoiding all sinful dealings at work, adhering to ethical obligations, and serving the clients' best interests.  

References 

American Bar Association. (2020).  Text of the model rules of professional conduct . Retrieved July 4, 2020, from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/ 

Barrett, C. (2018).  Everyday Ethics for Practicing Planners . Routledge. 

Berger, T. A. (2015). The ethical limits of discrediting the truthful witness: How modern ethics rules fail to prevent truthful witnesses from being discredited through unethical means.  Marq. L. Rev. ,  99 , 283. 

Huang, P. H. (2015). How Improving Decision-Making and Mindfulness Can Improve Legal Ethics and Professionalism.  JL Bus. & Ethics ,  21 , 35. 

London, H. B. (2015). Ethics and ministry-living above reproach. 

MacArthur, J. F. (2017). The Character of a Pastor.  Pastoral Ministry: How to Shepherd Biblically , 67-80. 

Reinhartz, A. (2016). Reproach and Revelation: Ethics in John 11: 1-44.  Torah Ethics and Early Christian Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans) , 92-106. 

Schaefer, P. (2018). Behavioral Legal Ethics Lessons for Corporate Counsel.  Case W. Res. L. Rev. ,  69 , 975. 

Steinberg, M. I. (2016). Lawyering and Ethics for the Business Attorney. 

Strebel, E. (2018). Ex-Milwaukee attorney says he needs license back to pay restitution to clients, former employer.  Wisconsin Law Journal .