What We Could Be Now: Civility and Ethics 2025

Lawyers always have an obligation to be civil — to one another, to opponents, to judges and other tribunals. But it can be difficult to balance civility and zealous advocacy, and to navigate changing environments and expectations. In this presentation, we’ll examine the ethical rules and principles that guide lawyers in crafting their approaches to each other and to the public, and we’ll examine what can happen when lines are crossed. We’ll review recent studies, proposals, and rules that seek to analyze and affect lawyers’ behavior, and we’ll examine what the boundaries of the profession’s regulation of civility are — and what they should be.

Topics covered include:

Legal Ethics Civility Law Practice

Agenda:

Introduction: Civility Generally

In this section, we will examine the concept of civility, including how it is referred to and refined in the Preamble to ABA Model Rules
We will also discuss zealous advocacy, and how it relates to — or sometimes conflicts with — civility

Incivility in Practice: Incidents and Cases

In this section, we will review fact patterns in which lawyers have had difficulty behaving in a civil matter
The speaker will provide an anecdote from his own practice involving an agitated attorney, and we will then discuss two disciplinary cases (In re Gomez; In re Cohn) in which lawyers were sanctioned for uncivil conduct

Developing Studies and Approaches to Civility

In this section, we will discuss the work of several studies and task forces bearing on lawyer civility
We will discuss the report of the California Civility Task Force and the Illinois study on bullying in the legal profession
Finally, we will review the recently-enacted Rule 8.4(j) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and we will discuss what its implementation means for lawyer regulation nationwide

Civility in Responding to Negative Reviews

In this section, we will review relevant rules and commentary that guide lawyers in their responses to negative reviews
We will examine the definition of a “controversy” between a lawyer and client for purposes of Rule 1.6, and we will discuss common and accepted methods of handling negative reviews
We will also review two disciplinary cases (In re Conry; In re Tsamis) in which lawyers were sanctioned for incorrect responses to reviews

Questions & Answers (as time permits)

Duration of this webinar: 60 minutes

Originally broadcast: May 27, 2025 9:00 AM PT

Webinar Highlights

This webinar is divided into section summaries, which you can scan for key points and then dive into the sections that interest you the most.

00:00 Introduction

James Doppke has a background in professional responsibility and legal ethics. James discusses the title of his presentation, explaining its musical inspiration and the importance of understanding communication and interpretation. He emphasizes the significance of civility and ethics in the legal profession, setting the stage for the webinar's focus.

05:07 Civility and Professional Conduct

James reflects on the aspirational nature of the presentation title, linking it to the profession's current state and potential. He explores the concept of civility in legal practice, focusing on communication, interpretation, and reaction. The discussion includes the role of professional conduct rules in restraining behavior and communication. James examines the idea of partnership and adversarial relationships in the legal profession. He references the ABA Model Rules, emphasizing lawyers' roles as public citizens seeking improvements in the legal system.

10:38 Zealous Advocacy and Civility Challenges

James delves into the concept of zealous advocacy, highlighting its application beyond courtroom settings. He discusses the balance between zeal and civility, noting the challenges of maintaining equanimity in advocacy. The evolution of communication technology is acknowledged as a factor influencing civility and advocacy. James reflects on the changes in legal practice since he was licensed, emphasizing the impact of rapid communication. He underscores the importance of balancing client demands with professional obligations, including cooperation with adversaries.

16:19 Disciplinary Cases and Civility

James shares experiences from his time as an ethics prosecutor, illustrating the impact of heightened emotions on civility. He recounts a disciplinary case involving uncivil communication, highlighting the consequences of crossing ethical lines. The case involved inappropriate language and threats, leading to a significant suspension for the lawyer involved. James discusses the balance between First Amendment rights and professional conduct, noting limitations on verbal abuse. He emphasizes the importance of maintaining civility in professional interactions, even under pressure.

31:00 Civility in Legal Practice

James discusses a California civility task force report, recommending additional civility training and rule changes. The report suggests annual affirmations of civility by lawyers, emphasizing dignity, courtesy, and integrity. James highlights a study on bullying in the legal profession, noting its disproportionate impact on marginalized groups. He introduces Illinois Rule 8.4 J, addressing harassment and discrimination in legal practice. The rule allows disciplinary action without prior findings by other agencies, marking a shift in enforcement.

47:00 Responding to Negative Reviews

James addresses the ethical considerations of responding to negative reviews, emphasizing confidentiality rules. He outlines options for handling negative reviews, including non-response and reputation management strategies. James advises caution in responding to reviews, highlighting the risks of revealing confidential information. He shares examples of disciplinary cases involving inappropriate responses to negative reviews. James encourages analytical approaches to negative feedback, promoting civility and professionalism.

01:04:24 Ethical Considerations and Emerging Issues

James discusses the confidentiality of lawsuit outcomes, advising client consent for public disclosure. He reflects on generational differences in civility, suggesting mentorship adaptations to bridge communication gaps. James considers the impact of emerging technologies, like AI, on ethical duties of competence and candor. He highlights the importance of careful use of AI to avoid ethical breaches and maintain civility.

Please note this AI-generated summary provides a general overview of the webinar but may not capture all details, nuances, or the exact words of the speaker. For complete accuracy, please refer to the original webinar recording.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Credits

*CLE credit is only available to Justia Connect Pros. Not a Pro? Upgrade today>>

California CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 Civility in the Legal Profession

Earn Credit Until: June 30, 2026

South Carolina CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility

Difficulty: All Levels

Earn Credit Until: December 31, 2025

North Carolina CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 Ethics

Earn Credit Until: February 28, 2026

Texas CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility

Earn Credit Until: April 30, 2026

This presentation is approved for one hour of Civility in the Legal Profession CLE credit in California, one hour of Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility CLE credit in South Carolina (all levels), and one hour of Ethics CLE credit in North Carolina. This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.00 credit hours, of which 1.00 credit hours will apply to Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility credit.

Justia only reports attendance in jurisdictions in which a particular Justia CLE Webinar is officially accredited. Lawyers may need to self-submit their certificates for CLE credit in jurisdictions not listed above.

Note that CLE credit, including partial credit, cannot be earned outside of the relevant accreditation period. To earn credit for a course, a lawyer must watch the entire course within the relevant accreditation period. Lawyers who have viewed a presentation multiple times may not be able to claim credit in their jurisdiction more than once. Justia reserves the right, at its discretion, to grant an attendee partial or no credit, in accordance with viewing duration and other methods of verifying course completion.

At this time, Justia only offers CLE courses officially accredited in certain states. Lawyers may generate a generic attendance certificate to self-submit credit in their own jurisdiction, but Justia does not guarantee that lawyers will receive their desired CLE credit through the self-submission or reciprocity process.

Looking for CLE credit? Visit CLE Dashboard

Speaker

Jim Doppke Partner
Robinson, Stewart, Montgomery & Doppke, LLC

James A. Doppke, Jr. is a partner in the Chicago firm of Robinson, Stewart, Montgomery & Doppke, LLC. Since 2013, he has concentrated his practice in professional responsibility issues of all kinds, including disciplinary defense and bar admissions, and consultation on legal ethics issues. Prior to that, Jim was Senior Counsel for the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. There, he handled the investigation and prosecution of numerous attorney misconduct matters. He has also participated in presenting many MCLE- and PMCLE-accredited programs on legal ethics issues, including at ABA and ISBA conferences. Prior to working for the ARDC, Jim worked as a staff attorney at a legal aid agency in Will County. Jim is a graduate of Loyola University Chicago School of Law, and he received his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame. Read More ›