Suits Episode 1- Part 2

Now, I think we get to one of the more interesting PR fact setups of the episode: When Jessica takes away Harvey's promotion because he lied to his client, Gerald Tate, and then Mr. Tate fired the firm, Harvey visits Jessica in her office after talking to Mike. Harvey says that if Jessica doesn't give Harvey back his promotion, he will take her to the ethics board because she should have notified the board as soon as she knew he lied (MR 8.3). Essentially, he is threatening her with an ethics violation to get what he wants. I searched through 8.3 and the comments, and there is nothing in there to suggest that threatening a partner with a violation of the ethics rule, especially when that lawyer knows the ethics violation is true, is against the ethics rules themselves. There is some literature to suggest that threatening opposing counsel with an ethics violation in order to achieve a more favorable civil result may be an ethics violation, but here, Jessica is his boss, not opposing counsel, and this is about inter-office politics, not a civil matter. So, threatening Jessica with an ethics violation is probably not an ethics violation unless the threat opened up Harvey to criminal prosecution under the rules of that jurisdiction.

The second issue is now that Harvey knows that Jessica is violating Rule 8.3 because she failed to report him to the bar, does HE have a duty under Rule 8.3 to report her for failing to report him? Maybe technically, but the comments to Rule 8.3 shed light on this, saying that the rule limits reporting to substantial offenses. Here, while Jessica's failure to report Harvey's lying may be considered a substantial offense, an 8.3 violation for failing to report someone else for an 8.3 violation is probably not considered serious enough to warrant a violation in and of itself.

Violation of 5.3(b)

Mike's first case as an associate is helping a woman who is the victim of sexual harassment (pictured above). The Model Rules dictate that all non-lawyers (here, Mike Ross) have the same professional obligations as lawyers when supervised by lawyers (here, Harvey Specter, because he is Mike Ross' supervisor). This is explained by MR Rule 5.3(b) "a lawyer having direct supervisor authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer." Here, those professional obligations include Rule 1.1 and 5.5. Mike Ross, although a genius, may lack the competency required under Rule 1.1 - competent representation requires "the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the preparation." Here, Mike Ross is not a lawyer, never went to law school, and cannot fill out a subpoena. Therefore, he is probably not competent. He is certainly in violation of 5.5 which is the unauthorized practice of law, because he does not have a license to practice anywhere because he has not gone to any law school. Harvey Specter has not made reasonable efforts to ensure that Mike Ross is fulfilling his professional obligations- he knows Mike Ross is not a licensed attorney and refuses to remedy the situation, and he refuses to teach Mike how to fill out a subpoena. Therefore, Harvey Specter is in violation of 5.3(b) because Mike Ross is violating 1.1 and 5.5, and Harvey is his supervisor.