Mandating Civility: Beyond the Oath

There has been a noted decline in civility in our profession and society. Citizens struggle to have healthy discussions with those who do not agree with them. Civility is not about agreement, but how we conduct ourselves when we disagree.
To serve as an example for society, the legal profession must model that ‘best’ behavior if discourse is to improve. To that end, in 2014 the California Supreme Court at the recommendation of the State Bar of California Board of Trustees, took a step towards improving civility among California attorneys. It adopted Rule 9.7 of the California Rules of Court adding new language to the attorney oath of admission. The new rule required anyone admitted after 2014 to swear or affirm:

“As an Officer of the Court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.”

Did the enactment of this new rule and oath effectuate real change in how attorneys interacted with each other and the courts? In 2021, the California Lawyers Association (CLA) and the California Judges Association (CJA) believed incivility had actually increased in the ensuing years. They formed a joint taskforce to address the issue. In September 2021 they issued their initial report appropriately named “Beyond the Oath”: Recommendations for Improving Civility” and suggested the time had come for “remedial action.”

The Report outlined four key proposals:

1. MCLE Training on Civility – This proposal would require one hour of MCLE training devoted to civility focusing on the link between incivility and bias. The taskforce noted their goal was to educate attorneys about the “economic and human costs of incivility,” to provide them with “reasons and tools” to change their own behavior and to deal with the “stress and dissatisfaction” which uncivil behavior causes. The new one-hour requirement would not add to the number of MCLE hours under the current rules.

2. Judge’s Training – This proposal would require new training programs for judges designed to equip them with tools to have a greater impact on promoting civility among attorneys and to teach them to model the same behavior when interacting with attorneys and litigants. The report attached a sample training program for judges and listed the various rules at their disposal to deal with attorneys (e.g. state bar rules, local county rules and guidelines, guidelines from professional associations, federal court rules and guidelines, and referrals of attorneys to the state bar discipline system).

3. Amend the California Rules of Professional Conduct – The proposed new rule or comment to existing rules would state that repeated incivility would constitute professional misconduct and subject the attorney to state bar discipline. Rule 8.4 which deals with misconduct contains paragraph (d) which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” It is contemplated that the rule will be changed to reflect “repeated incivility.”

4. Require all attorneys to take a civility oath annually – Since a large number of California attorneys were admitted to practice before 2014, before the Rule 9.7 oath change, this proposal would require all attorneys who renew and pay annual bar dues to swear or affirm they will conduct themselves civilly.

Finally the Task force commented that incivility disproportionately impacts “young lawyers, women lawyers, lawyers of color and lawyers from other marginalized groups and threatens the profession as a whole and the justice system itself.”

On March 24, 2022, at the State Bar of California Board of Trustees meeting, it considered these four proposals and voted to implement an “action plan” which included 1) directing state bar staff to review the one-hour MCLE training requirement including recommending changes to state bar rules which govern MCLE compliance; 2) referring the amendment of the Rules of Professional Conduct to the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) to draft a new rule or comment to existing Rule 8.4; and 3) directing state bar staff to prepare a public comment solicitation on requiring all attorneys to take the oath annually.

Although these proposals, if implemented will benefit both attorneys and judges, the ultimate beneficiary of acting civil is our fellow citizens who will see that they can place their trust in the legal profession. The joint taskforce report described the severity of the civility issue noting that “bullying, intimidation and nastiness has too often replaced discussion, negotiation and skillful, hard-fought advocacy which interferes with the justice system’s ability to function fairly and reliably.” They also commented that even the perception of incivility is dangerous to democracy and the rule of law because the public will not trust the legal system if it does not believe its gatekeepers, attorneys and judges are “honest and ethical.”

As former United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger noted, “the necessity for civility is relevant to lawyers because you are the living exemplars—and thus teachers every day, in every case, and in every court and your worst conduct will be emulated perhaps more readily than your best.”

Going beyond the oath and implementing these proposals will show the public that civility is the hallmark and foundation of our learned profession. source

read more:

The Attorney’s Sworn Oath

“Civility” Oath Rule Adopted by Supreme Court

Lawyers’ Obligation of Candor to Opposing Parties and Third Parties

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Rights

Other Topics

California Supreme Court Rules: Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines Subject to Open Records Requests

City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Employer$ Beware: La $upreme Court Open$ Line for Direct Negligence Claim$ from Employee Action$​

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling Makes it easier to Sue PROSECUTORS & POLICE​

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Rule 1.1 – Competence (DA REPRESENTS THE STATE)

Rule 1.2 – Assisting in a Crime

Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims & Contentions

Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Council

Model Rule 3.8 pt.2 – Special Duties of Prosecutors

Learn More: ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Model Rule 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others

Model Rule 4.4 – Respect for the Rights of Others

Model Rule 5.2 Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer

Model Rule 8.1 Bar Admission & Disciplinary Matters

Model Rule 8.2 – Judicial & Legal Officials

Model Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct

Model Rule 8.4 pt.1 – Lawyer Misconduct

ABA Formal Op. 493 pt.1 – Rule 8.4(g): Purpose, Scope & Application

Model Rule 8.4 pt.2 – Discrimination & Harassment

Attorney Ethics Rules – FOX 17 Know the Law

​

CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 6067 Oath

CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
  6067.  Oath.  Every person on his admission shall take an oath
  to support the Constitution of the United States and the
  Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to
  discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his
  knowledge and ability.  A certificate of the oath shall be
  indorsed upon his license.
  (Added by Stats. 1939, c 34. p. 354, Sec. 1.)

NOTE:  There are no attorneys licensed in California.  When asked, 
none can produce a certificate.  At best, an attorney can only
produce his Bar membership card (privately issued by the
Bar Association) and a letter of acknowledgement from the state
supreme court.

The California Bar Association was incorporated in 1903.  
According to the incorporation papers, the corporation would
exist for 50 years.  In 1953 the corporation ceased to exist.
The Bar Association now does not officially exist in California.
It operates as a chapter of the national organization, probably
as a common law association.  The California Secretary of State
does not have any record of the Association since 1953.  Any
corporation is required to register with the Secretary of
State, even municipal and non-profit corporations.  The
Association has not done so since 1953. source

Cal. R. 9.7 – Rule 9.7 – Oath required when admitted to practice law

In addition to the language required by Business and Professions Code section 6067, the oath to be taken by every person on admission to practice law is to conclude with the following: “As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.”

the oath in all 50 states here 

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW 

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules:
Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines
Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Rules of Admissibility – Evidence Admissibility

Confrontation Clause – Sixth Amendment

Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule – Confronting Evidence

Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Successful Brady/Napue Cases – Suppression of Evidence

Cases Remanded or Hearing Granted Based on Brady/Napue Claims

Unsuccessful But Instructive Brady/Napue Cases

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution – fiduciary duty