Suits Season 1 Episode 8 - Part 1

Suits 1x8- "Identity Crisis" - Part 1

Violation of Rule 4.4(a)
At the beginning of the episode, Luis decides not to wait for Harvey and begins deposing Elliot Perkins. He badgers Mr. Perkins, harassing him and throwing accusation after accusation. Luis asks questions like, "Do you sleep well at night?" and making statements like "When I take this public, you are gonna be disgraced." Luis' use of the deposition shows no other substantial purpose than to embarrass and harass Mr. Perkins, and so Luis is violating Rule 4.4(a). Rule 4.4(a) states that, "In representing a client [Here, Luis was representing Stable Shelters], a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person."

Later in the episode, Luis contacts Inez, an employee who works for Maslow. We know Maslow is being represented as a company because Luis refers to Mr. Perkins' lawyer as an "in-house" attorney, and the attorney for Mr. Perkins is the same attorney for Mr. Maslow. So, the attorney is representing Maslow's company, and Maslow is presumably the CEO. Comment 1 to Rule 1.13 states that, "Officers, directors, employees, and shareholders are the constituents of the corporate organizational client." Therefore, because Inez works for the company, she is a constituent of the company. However, even thought the company is represented by counsel, she is not a represented person of the company as explained by the comments to rule 4.2, which state that, "in the case of a represented organization, this Rule [Rule 4.2] prohibits communications with a constituent of the organization who supervises, directs or regularly consults with the organization's lawyer concerning the matter or has the authority to obligate the organization with respect tot he matter or whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability." Inez, carrying dry cleaning out of the company building, is probably not someone who regularly consults with the company's counsel and probably is not someone who can make decisions on behalf of the company. Therefore, it was ethically appropriate for Luis to speak with her, because she did not represent the company, and therefore was not one of the organization's "represented persons" under Rule 4.2.

Violation of 3.4(b); Possible Violation of 8.4(b)
However, Luis bribes Inez, offering to get her a job at Pearson Hardman working for Jessica Pearson if she would testify for their side. This is a textbook violation of Rule 3.4(b) where a lawyer shall not "falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, of offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Bribing a witness is probably also a criminal act (although Jessica later suggests that it isn't because no money exchanged hands) and so Luis is probably also violating 8.4(b) where it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." 

Two Violations of 8.3(a); Possible Violation of 8.4(b) 

Inez tells Robert Geller, the attorney for Maslow. Geller tells Luis and Harvey that Luis tried to bribe Inez, but that they can put this whole mess behind them if Harvey's client now settles the case. Harvey and Robert both know that Luis violated the ethics rules, and because neither of them report Luis they are both violating Rule 8.3(a) which states that "a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority." Additionally, Robert Geller is trying to gain an advantage in settling the civil suit by threatening Luis with an ethical or criminal violation. While "the purpose of the Rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons" (see the preamble and scope of the rules) there is nothing in the language of the rules to suggest that threatening opposing counsel with legitimate ethical violations is a violation of the rules in and of themselves. Mostly, the rules have left that idea up to the states. However, this threat may rise to the level of extortion, which would be a criminal act, and Robert Geller would be violating 8.4(b) where it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." 

Violation of Rule 8.3(a) 

Harvey then tells Jessica that Luis tried to bribe Inez into testifying for them. Jessica reprimands Luis, telling him that if he tries that again, it will be his last day at Pearson Hardman. First, Jessica is not violating Rule 5.1(c)(1) because she did not ratify Luis' conduct here; she reprimanded him for trying to bribe a witness. However, because Harvey told her, Jessica has actual knowledge that Luis has violated the Model Rules, she is violating rule 8.3(a) because she has failed to report him to the appropriate professional authority.