California Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Changes to Rules of Professional Conduct to Address Civility

By Neil J Wertlieb*

On September 25, 2025, the California Supreme Court granted changes proposed by the State Bar of California to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.7 but, while expressing appreciation for the effort, denied proposed changes to the California Rules of Professional Conduct intended to promote civility, professionalism, and mutual respect within the legal profession. 

Background

In July 2023, the State Bar of California’s Board of Trustees approved certain proposed rule amendments intended to improve civility among lawyers authorized to provide legal services in California.  The proposed changes, based on recommendations of the California Civility Task Force, were submitted in August 2023 to the California Supreme Court for review and approval.^[1]  This was followed by a letter brief of the California Civility Task Force in Support of the State Bar’s Civility Proposals being submitted in January 2024.

The State Bar’s proposed changes included the following: 

Proposed Changes to the California Rules of Professional Conduct to Address Civility: Amendments to Rules 1.2 and 8.4 and New Rule 8.4.2

The State Bar had proposed adding to Comment [1] to California Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority) the following sentence:

Notwithstanding a client’s direction, a lawyer retains the authority to agree to reasonable requests of opposing counsel or self‐represented parties that do not prejudice the rights of the client, be punctual in fulfilling all professional commitments, avoid offensive tactics, and treat all persons involved in the legal process with dignity, courtesy, and integrity.

The State Bar also proposed revising the Comments to California Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) to add the underlined sentence to existing Comment [4] and to add new Comment [6]:

[4] A lawyer may be disciplined under Business and Professions Code section 6106 for acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, whether intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent. A lawyer also may be disciplined regarding significantly unprofessional conduct that is abusive or harassing, see rule 8.4.2.

*     *     *

[6] A lawyer’s violation of paragraph (d) includes engaging in significantly unprofessional conduct that is abusive or harassing in the practice of law as defined in rule 8.4.2.  A lawyer does not violate paragraph (d) merely by, for example, standing firm in the position of the client, protecting the record for subsequent review, or preserving professional integrity.

For further guidance, a lawyer should consult the current California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism and other applicable legal authorities, such as the local rules of court and bar associations’ codes of civility.

The State Bar also proposed adding new California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4.2 (Prohibited Incivility):

Rule 8.4.2 Prohibited Incivility

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not engage in incivility in the practice of law.

(b) For purposes of this rule, “incivility” means significantly unprofessional conduct that is abusive or harassing and shall be determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct.

Comment

[1] For guidance on conduct that may be significantly unprofessional that is abusive or harassing, a lawyer should consult the current California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism and other relevant legal authorities, such as the local rules of court and bar associations’ codes of civility.

[2] A lawyer does not violate this rule merely by, for example, standing firm in the position of the client, protecting the record for subsequent review, or preserving professional integrity.

[3] A lawyer’s violation of this rule may also constitute a violation of rule 8.4(d).

[4] “Incivility” as used in this rule does not apply to speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution. “Incivility” as used in this rule may include speech or conduct that violates an attorney’s duties under Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivisions (b) and (f).  (See California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3B, advisory commentary: Canon 3B(2) noting a judge’s responsibility to require lawyers under the judge’s direction and control to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others.)

[5] A disciplinary investigation or proceeding for conduct coming within this rule may also be initiated and maintained if such conduct warrants discipline under California Business and Professions Code sections 6106 and 6068, the California Supreme Court’s inherent authority to impose discipline, or other disciplinary standard.

Proposed Change to California Rule of Court 9.7 (Attorney Oath and Reaffirmation of Oath)

In addition to the proposed changes to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, the State Bar also proposed an amendment to California Rule of Court 9.7 to require lawyers to annually affirm or reaffirm their civility oath – i.e.: “As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.”

The California Supreme Court’s Decision

As stated by the California Supreme Court on the California Courts Docket (posted online September 25, 2025):^[2]

The State Bar of California’s “Request that the Supreme Court of California Approve Proposed Amended Rule 9.7 of the California Rules of Court, and Proposed Amended Rules 1.2 and 8.4 and Proposed New Rule 8.4.2 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct” is granted in part and denied in part.

Denial of Proposed Changes to the California Rules of Professional to Address Civility

The California Supreme Court declined to make the changes proposed by the State Bar to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, stating: 

Although the Court appreciates the effort to promote civility, professionalism, and mutual respect within the legal profession, the Court is concerned that the proposed definition of prohibited incivility may present vagueness concerns under the First Amendment. (See Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1991) 501 U.S. 1030, 1049 [holding that an attorney disciplinary rule was void for vagueness because it relied on words that “have no settled usage or tradition of interpretation in law,” and the rule “has no principle for determining” what conduct is permitted or not permitted].)

The Court, therefore, denies the proposed amendments to the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Court’s denial, however, is not necessarily the end of the story. The Court proceeded to state:

The Court encourages the State Bar to explore the possibility of codifying existing case law reducing requests for attorney fees based on an attorney’s incivility. The State Bar is also encouraged to study the effect of the new continuing education requirements addressing civility in the legal profession.

Grant of the Proposed Changes to California Rule of Court 9.7 (Attorney Oath and Reaffirmation of Oath)

The California Supreme Court did approve changes to California Rule of Court 9.7, effective October 1, 2025.  The changes are as follows (marked to show additions to Rule 9.7 as was in effect prior to October 1, 2025):^[3]

(a)          Oath required when admitted to practice law

In addition to the language required by Business and Professions Code section 6067, the oath to be taken by every person on admission to practice law is to conclude with the following: “As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.”

(b)          Annual declaration

Each active licensee and each special admissions attorney (permitted to practice law in the State of California under rules 9.41.1, 9.44, 9.45, or 9.46) must, pursuant to the procedure adopted by the State Bar, declare adherence to the oath language provided by (a) of this rule and Professions Code section 6067 on an annual basis.

(c)          Implementation schedule and penalty for noncompliance

(1)      The State Bar must develop a schedule to implement the submission of the declaration required by (b) of this rule by the deadline for the payment of the annual license fee.

(2)      Beginning on April 1, 2026, an active licensee or special admissions attorney who fails to submit the annual declaration required by this rule must be enrolled as an inactive licensee of the State Bar under rules adopted by the Board of Trustees of the State Bar.

(d)          Authorization for the Board of Trustees of the State Bar to adopt rules and procedures

The Board of Trustees of the State Bar is authorized to adopt such rules and procedures as it deems necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with this rule.

(e)          Fees and penalties

The State Bar has the authority to set and collect appropriate fees and penalties for violations of this rule.

The California Civility Task Force

The California Civility Task Force has played an important role in improving civility in California’s legal profession.  The California Civility Task Force is a joint project of the California Lawyers Association and the California Judges Association, acting in cooperation with the State Bar of California.  It is comprised of a diverse group of more than 40 distinguished lawyers and judges. 

In September 2021, the California Civility Task Force issued its initial report, “Beyond the Oath: Recommendations for Improving Civility.”^[4]  The report set forth certain proposals to improve civility in California’s legal profession.  In addition to changes to California Rule of Court 9.7 and the California Rules of Professional Conduct (similar to those discussed above), the Civility Task Force also proposed mandating one hour of attorney MCLE devoted to civility training, to be included in the total number of required MCLE hours.  This last proposal was approved and implemented by the State Bar of California beginning with the MCLE compliance period ending January 31, 2025.

In addition to its support in the formation and activities of the California Civility Task Force, the California Lawyers Association has also been actively engaged in promoting civility, including by (among other things) providing input to the State Bar of California on its proposed amendments to the California Rules of Professional Conduct addressing incivility.^[5]   

Conclusion

This is trending news.  As things develop further, and the State Bar of California considers its response, we will keep our readers posted.

* Neil J Wertlieb, the author of this article, is a transactional lawyer, educator and ethicist, who provides expert witness services in disputes involving business transactions and corporate governance, and in cases involving attorney malpractice and attorney ethics.  He is a member of the California Civility Task Force, an Inaugural Co-Chair, Advisor and Founding Member of the California Lawyers Association Ethics Committee, a former Chair of the Business Law Section and its Corporations and Business Litigation Committees, and a former Member of the Board of Representatives of the California Lawyers Association.  Mr. Wertlieb served as a Partner at Milbank LLP for two decades and also served as General Counsel of the firm.  For additional information, please visit www.WertliebLaw.com.  The views expressed herein are his own.

---

[1] https://caljudges.org/docs/pdf/File-Endorsed%20Petition%20re%20Civility%20Rules.pdf.

[2] The Court’s docket entry is available at: https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2722216&doc_no=S281631&request_token=NiIwLSEnTkw2W1BZSCMtSEJIMDg0UDxTKyJOXzlTICAgCg%3D%3D. 

[3] A PDF of the Court’s order is available at: https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/2025-09/S281631-%20Amendments%20to%20Rule%209.7.pdf

[4] https://caljudges.org/docs/PDF/California%20Civility%20Task%20Force%20Report%209.10.21.pdf.

[5] See, e.g., https://calawyers.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-Addressing-Incivility.pdf.