RPC Violations in Suits Season 2: A Washington State Perspective

The second season of Suits dives deeper into the complexities of corporate law, but it also highlights numerous ethical violations. If these actions occurred in Washington State, they would breach several key Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC). This article explores the major RPC violations committed by the characters in season 2 of Suits and provides links to the relevant Washington State RPCs.

1. Unauthorized Practice of Law (RPC 5.5)

Mike Ross’s continued practice of law without a license is a significant ethical violation. Under Washington’s RPC 5.5, practicing law without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. Mike’s actions, along with Harvey Specter’s knowledge and complicity, would result in severe disciplinary actions in Washington State.

2. Conflicts of Interest (RPC 1.7)

Conflicts of interest arise frequently in season 2 as characters navigate overlapping personal and professional relationships. According to Washington’s RPC 1.7, a lawyer must avoid representing clients with conflicting interests unless informed consent is obtained from all parties. The failure to properly manage these conflicts, as depicted in Suits, would constitute a serious ethical violation.

3. Duty of Confidentiality (RPC 1.6)

In Suits, characters often mishandle confidential client information, violating Washington’s RPC 1.6. This rule mandates that lawyers must protect all information related to the representation of a client, unless the client consents to disclosure or an exception applies. The casual handling of sensitive information shown in the series would be a significant breach of this duty.

4. Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation (RPC 8.4(c))

Season 2 features multiple instances of dishonest and fraudulent behavior. Washington’s RPC 8.4(c) explicitly prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Examples include falsifying documents and making false statements, which would be clear violations of ethical standards in Washington.

5. Improper Communication with Represented Parties (RPC 4.2)

Improper communication with represented parties is another issue highlighted in season 2. Washington’s RPC 4.2prohibits a lawyer from communicating with a person known to be represented by another lawyer about the subject of the representation without the consent of that lawyer. Such communications, as depicted in Suits, would lead to serious ethical repercussions.

6. False Statements to the Tribunal (RPC 3.3)

In several instances, characters in Suits present false or misleading information to the court, a violation of Washington’s RPC 3.3. This rule requires lawyers to be truthful in their dealings with the tribunal and to correct any false statements of material fact or law. The deliberate deception of the court seen in the show would be considered serious professional misconduct.

7. Failure to Report Professional Misconduct (RPC 8.3)

Several characters in Suits are aware of unethical conduct but fail to report it. Under Washington’s RPC 8.3, lawyers are required to report professional misconduct that raises a substantial question about a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. The failure to report such misconduct, as shown in the series, would itself be an ethical violation.

Conclusion

Season 2 of Suits is filled with dramatic legal battles and ethical dilemmas, but many of the actions taken by the characters would violate Washington’s Rules of Professional Conduct. From unauthorized practice and conflicts of interest to breaches of confidentiality and fraudulent behavior, these violations would have serious consequences in the real world. For legal professionals, Suits serves as both entertainment and a reminder of the importance of adhering to strict ethical standards in practice.

Review our client resources here

About Blanford Law:

We are no-nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We are great listeners instead of fast talkers, that is just who we are. More than 20 years ago, Ken began practicing law with a deeply-seeded belief that every person has the right to the best legal representation available. He built his law firm on that belief. Another belief that he strongly adheres to is his fundamental belief that clients deserve respect, with no assumptions or preconceived notions. If you or someone you know is accused of a crime or injured as a result of the negligence of another, please have them call us at 253-720-9304 or email us info@blanfordlaw.com

Additional Resources on Washington Law and Legal Representation

For more information on legal representation, professional conduct, and key legal cases in Washington State, check out these related articles:

Understanding RPC 1.2: Scope of Representation and Client Authority in Washington State

This article explores the boundaries of attorney-client relationships under RPC 1.2, including how attorneys balance legal strategy with a client’s decision-making authority.

Understanding RPC 1.3: Diligence in Legal Representation

Learn about an attorney’s duty of diligence under RPC 1.3, which requires lawyers to act with promptness and efficiency in representing their clients.

Williams v. City of Spokane: The Limits of Class Action Suits to Challenge Traffic Camera Fines

An analysis of Williams v. City of Spokane, examining the legal barriers to class-action lawsuits against traffic camera fines and what it means for Washington drivers.

How to Dress for Court in Washington State

Proper courtroom attire can impact how a judge or jury perceives you. This guide provides practical tips on dressing professionally for court appearances in Washington.

Understanding the Case of Lloyd Enterprises v. Longview Plumbing: The Importance of Legal Representation for Corporations in Washington State

This article breaks down a key Washington State legal case that highlights why corporations need skilled legal representation when entering into contractual disputes.