- Fastcase
- Directories
- Check CLE
- Public Information
- Handbook
- Member Essentials
- Programs
- Ethics
- Cornerstones of Freedom
- Communications
- Sections
- Young Lawyers Division
- Related Organizations
- Bar Meetings
- Parking Deck
- Law-Related Education
- Sponsorship/Marketing
- Vendor Directory
- Conference Center
- Storefront
RULE 5.2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF A SUBORDINATE LAWYER
(a) A lawyer is bound by the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct
notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another
person.
(b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a
supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of
professional duty.
The maximum penalty for a violation of this Rule is disbarment.
Comment
[1] Although a lawyer is not relieved of responsibility for a violation
by the fact that the lawyer acted at the direction of a supervisor,
that fact may be relevant in determining whether a lawyer had the
knowledge required to render conduct a violation of the Rules. For
example, if a subordinate filed a frivolous pleading at the direction
of a supervisor, the subordinate would not be guilty of a professional
violation unless the subordinate knew of the document's frivolous
character.
[2] When lawyers in a supervisor-subordinate relationship encounter a
matter involving professional judgment as to ethical duty, the
supervisor may assume responsibility for making the judgment. Otherwise
a consistent course of action or position could not be taken. If the
question can reasonably be answered only one way, the duty of both
lawyers is clear and they are equally responsible for fulfilling it.
However, if the question is reasonably arguable, someone has to decide
upon the course of action. That authority ordinarily reposes in the
supervisor and a subordinate may be guided accordingly. For example, if
a question arises whether the interests of two clients conflict under
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest, the supervisor's reasonable resolution
of the question should protect the subordinate professionally if the
resolution is subsequently challenged.