PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Rule 8.4 Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

***

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, 

except that a lawyer may advise, direct, or supervise others, including clients, law 

enforcement officers, and investigators, who participate in lawful investigative 

activities;

***

Comment:

***

[2] Notwithstanding the general restriction against engaging in deceit, this 

Rule does not prohibit a lawyer from advising or supervising another who engages 

in an otherwise lawful and ethical undercover investigation, in which the 

investigator does not disclose his or her true identity and motivation, regardless 

of the nature of the matter or substantive area of law involved. This Rule does not 

change the scope of a lawyer’s obligations under Rule 4.2 and thus a lawyer must 

take reasonable measures so that the investigator does not communicate with a 

represented party in violation of Rule 4.2, does not seek to elicit privileged 

information, and otherwise acts in compliance with these Rules, court orders, and 

civil and criminal law. 

[[2]] [3] Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, 

such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax 

return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the 

distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving "moral turpitude." That concept can 

be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as 

adultery and comparable offenses that have no specific connection to fitness for the 

practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a 

lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those 

characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach 

of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A 

pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered 

separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.

[[3]] [4] For the purposes of paragraph (g), conduct in the practice of law includes 

(i) interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers, or others, while 

appearing in proceedings before a tribunal or in connection with the representation of a 

client; (ii) operating or managing a law firm or law practice; or (iii) participation in judicial 
boards, conferences, or committees; continuing legal education seminars; bench bar 

conferences; and bar association activities where legal education credits are offered. The 

term “the practice of law” does not include speeches, communications, debates, 

presentations, or publications given or published outside the contexts described in (i)-(iii). 

[[4]] [5] “Harassment” means conduct that is intended to intimidate, denigrate or 

show hostility or aversion toward a person on any of the bases listed in paragraph (g). 

“Harassment” includes sexual harassment, which includes but is not limited to sexual 

advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature that is 

unwelcome.

[[5]] [6] “Discrimination” means conduct that a lawyer knows manifests an intention: 

to treat a person as inferior based on one or more of the characteristics listed in paragraph 

(g); to disregard relevant considerations of individual characteristics or merit because of 

one or more of the listed characteristics; or to cause or attempt to cause interference with 

the fair administration of justice based on one or more of the listed characteristics.

[[6]] [7] A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a 

good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning 

a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to 

challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law.

[[7]] [8] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond 

those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill 

the professional role of lawyers. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust 

such as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent and officer, director or manager 

of a corporation or other organization.