Friday, April 24, 2026
Page 1
S.C. Tells State Bar to Redraft Proposed Rules Changes
Justices Want More Specificity in Suggested Comment to Rule Relating to False or Misleading Public Statements That Could Endanger Judges, Court Personnel, Others; Amendments to Solicitation Rules Are Approved
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court yesterday rejected two amendments the State Bar proposed to the Rules of Professional Conduct, telling the proponent to fine-tune them.
The justices acted out of apparent concern over First Amendment implications in bouncing proposed comments to Rules 8.2 and 8.4. They did approve changes to Rule 7.3 dealing with solicitation of clients.
Rule 8.4 bars, in §(c), “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation.” It also prohibits, in ¶ (d) “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
Proposed Language
Under the proposed amendment, this language would be added to the comments (with citations to authority omitted):
“Unprotected activities, including speech, that may be the basis for discipline. under paragraph (c) or (d) include: (1) a statement made with the specific intent of producing imminent lawless action against a judge or judicial officer and likely to do so; (2) a true threat of violence, that is, a statement that a reasonable observer would understand to be a ‘serious expression’ conveying that the speaker means to ‘commit an act of unlawful violence’ against a judge or judicial officer made with intent, knowledge, or reckless disregard that others could regard the statement as threatening violence…’: and (3) a false statement of fact, or a statement asserted as opinion that ‘implies actual facts that are capable of objective verification’ that are false, regarding a judge or judicial officer made with knowledge or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the facts….Courts use an objective standard to determine ‘what a reasonable attorney, considered in light of all their professional functions, would do in the same or similar circumstances.’ ”
The high told the State Bar to redraft the proposed language, specifying that “true threats of violence or incitements of unlawful imminent action” are those directed at parties, judges, or other judicial officers that might constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
False Statements
Rule 4.2 bars false statements by candidates for election of appointment to judgeships. The amendment proposed by the State Bar would have added this comment to the rule:
“A statement that is asserted as opinion may be the basis for discipline if the ‘statement implies actual facts that are capable of objective verification.’ ”
The Supreme Court directed the State Bar to clarify the purpose and scope of the rule.
It instructed that the redrafted proposals be circulated for 45 days for public comment.
Solicitation of Clients
The justices did approve an amendment to Rule 7.3 adding this language:
“(f) Even when not otherwise prohibited by this rule, a lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a respondent in a domestic violence restraining order proceeding in connection with such proceeding, until after the respondent has been legally served with notice of the proceeding and proof of service appears on the court docket.”
Also added is this comment:
“Paragraph (f) addresses solicitation in domestic violence restraining order proceedings where solicitation of respondents prior to legal service may increase the risk of petitioner facing abuse, violence or even death. This limitation serves the State Bar’s mission to protect the public, as recognized in Business and Professions Code section 6001.1.”
Amendments to Rule 7.3 will take effect on June 1.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company