Suits Season 1 Episode 9 Part 1

Suits 1x9 - "Undefeated" - Part 1

Two Violations of 8.4(c)
First, Travis Tanner lies to Mike Ross, telling Mike he is a close friend of Harvey's so that he can find out where Harvey's office is. Second, Travis lies to Donna, telling her that a witness fainted so that she can leave her post and he can visit Harvey uninterrupted. These two lies technically violate 8.4(c) which says that an attorney commits professional misconduct when they "(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."

Violation of 1.6(a)
We find out that an associate at Pearson Hardman leaked a confidential witness list to Wakefield-Cady, a rival firm. Once that information was sent, Wakefield-Cady had to comply with 4.4b, even though the genie was already out of the bottle, so to speak. 4.4b dictates that "(b) A lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored information relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows or reasonably should know that the document or electronically stored information was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender." Even if they notified Pearson Hardman, Wakefield-Cady already received the information, so that's all that matters to them. The person who sent it, who we later find out was Jimmy, sent it intentionally and therefore broke a client's confidentiality, violating rule 1.6(a) which states that "(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b)." Here, none of the exceptions applied and Jimmy violated 1.6(a).

Five violations of 8.4(a), violation(s) of 5.3(c)(1), possible violations of 4.1(a), 4.2, 4.4, 8.4(a), (b), and (c), two violations of 8.4(b), and 8.4(c)
Travis uses a proxy (a third party person) to intimidate Kenny, the lead plaintiff in Harvey's class action lawsuit, telling Kenny he needs to accept the settlement offer or the other side is going to tear the other plaintiffs apart in cross-examination. That person is probably violating 4.1(a), 4.2, 4.4(a), and 8.4(a), (b), and (c). Here, Travis is violating 8.4(a) because it is professional misconduct to "(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another." Because Travis and his client hired that person to intimidate Kenny, he was violating the rules through the acts of another, and was himself violating 8.4(a) for each action someone took on his behalf or per his orders. Additionally, assuming that third person was a nonlawyer, Travis was also violating Rule 5.3(c)(1) where "(c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if (1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved." Here, Travis and his client ordered the nonlawyer to intimidate Kenny. The question becomes whether Travis simply violated 5.3(c)(1) because he ordered the conduct involved, or whether 5.3(c)(1) means Travis violated 4.1(a), 4.2, 4.4(a), and 8.4(a), (b), and (c) because he ordered the conduct involved. Please feel free to post in the comments below about your opinion on this and any other matters. Additionally, by ordering someone else to criminally intimidate Kenny, Travis is probably also guilty of criminal intimidation, and so this would be an independent violation of 8.4(b).

Two violations of 8.4(c)
We then find out later that Jimmy (1) impersonated Luis so he could (2) use Rachel's employee access codes to fax Wakefield-Cady the confidential witness list. Jimmy is twice violating 8.4(c), where an attorney violates the rules by committing professional misconduct when they "(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."

Violation of 8.4(a)
Travis Tanner then does something brilliant which is, at first blush, not a violation of the Rules. Tanner knows that speaking to Harvey's clients would violate Rule 4.2 because he cannot speak to them because they are represented- he can only speak to Harvey. So, someone hired by Tanner gathers all of Harvey's plaintiffs in a room and when Harvey gets there, Travis Tanner speaks loudly to Harvey, hoping that the other plaintiffs will hear them. This is technically not a violation of Rule 4.2 because Tanner is not "communicating" with the other plaintiffs, but only with Harvey. Whoever did contact the plaintiffs to gather them in the same room is violating Rule 4.2, and Tanner is violating Rule 8.4(a) again by violating the Rules of Professional Conduct "through the acts of another."

Violation of 1.8(e)
Harvey eventually decides to pay for, out of pocket, a cash advance to hedge the settlement offer Tanner is proposing. He thinks Tanner's offer is low, and so he wants the clients to rest assured that they should stay in the litigation because that money is already assured. This is an interesting issue (and I look forward to your comments below) but I think Harvey is violating Rule 1.8 by providing financial assistance for clients for things other than the cost of the litigation. Comment 10 of Rule 1.8 is insightful, stating that, "Lawyers may not subsidize lawsuits or administrative proceedings brought on behalf of their clients, including making or guaranteeing loans to their clients for living expenses, because...such assistance gives lawyers too great a financial stake in the litigation." Harvey is essentially promising to pay the plaintiffs if he settles for less or losses the case, and this seems to violate the spirit of the Rule, and therefore Harvey is most likely violating Rule 1.8(e).