Suits Season 1 Episode 8 - Part 2

Suits Season 1 Episode 8 - Part 2

Two violations of 5.3(c)(1), Violation of 8.4(a), Violation of 8.4(b)
Near the end of the episode, Mike solicits Lola Jensen to hack into all of the bank records in Lichtenstein to find out where Maslow and his company hid the money. She does this in Pearson Hardman's office with Harvey and Mike present. Hacking into bank records is almost definitely illegal. Accordingly, by inducing her to hack into bank accounts, Mike is also probably breaking the law and committing a criminal act. Mike is asking Lola to break the law to help Harvey's client. Mike would therefore be violating 8.4(a) and (b) if he were a lawyer. Harvey, however, is his supervising lawyer, and as such is responsible for Mike's actions as if Mike were a lawyer. If Mike and Lola were lawyers, both would be violating the rules of professional conduct, and both are being supervised by Harvey. Even though Lola is not employed by Harvey, she is a nonlawyer who is "associating" with him for the time being, and that is probably sufficient to be considered a nonlawyer being supervised by an attorney under Rule 5.3. Therefore, because Harvey accepts what they both are doing and have done, he is ratifying their conduct, and he is violating 5.3(c)(1) which states that "a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged by a lawyer if: (1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved." Additionally, Harvey asks Lola to search the hacked bank records to find the 150 million embezzled on the day the money was stolen from his client. Here, like Mike, he is violating Rule 8.4(a) and possibly 8.4(b). 8.4(a) states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer 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" and (b) states that it is profession 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 1.16(a)(1)
Robert Geller represents Maslow's company, and probably Maslow himself. Rule 1.13(g) states that this dual representation can be ok - that "a lawyer representing an organization may also represent any of its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders, or other constituents, subject to the provisions of Rule 1.7." However, once Robert Geller knew that Maslow had embezzled money from another company, a potential conflict of interest had arisen between Maslow and his company, and Geller, instead of representing Maslow through the negotiation, should have terminated the relationship and told Maslow to seek independent counsel. This idea can first be seen in comment 10 to Rule 1.13 which states that "There are times when the organization's interest may be or become adverse to those of one or more of its constituents. In such circumstances the lawyer should advise any constituent, whose interest the lawyer finds adverse to that of the organization of the conflict or potential conflict of interest, that the lawyer cannot represent such constituent, and that such person may wish to obtain independent representation. Care must be taken to assure that the individual understands that, when there is such adversity of interest, the lawyer for the organization cannot provide legal representation for that constituent individual, and that discussions between the lawyer for the organization and the individual may not be privileged." More importantly, however, is that by continuing to represent Mr. Maslow through the negotiations with Harvey and Luis, Geller's conflict of interest means he is violating Rule 1.16(a)(1) because the continued representation will violate Rule 1.7 (which governs conflict of interest rules). Rule 1.16(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall withdraw from representation of a client when "(1) the representation will result in a violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law."