This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, procedures, and agency rules can differ by jurisdiction and may change over time. A qualified professional can address specific facts and current requirements. The author and publisher are not responsible for actions taken based on this information.
Key Facts
- National overview: The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 was created to review the ABA Model Rules and the U.S. system of lawyer regulation in light of technology and global legal practice developments.
- State level: ABA materials describe the Model Rules as models for ethics rules of jurisdictions, and the ABA also provides implementation assistance for Model Rule changes.
- National overview: The Commission expected its work to take three years, with year one focused on research/outreach/analysis, year two on development for comment, and year three on continued vetting and presentation.
- National overview: On August 6, 2012, the ABA House of Delegates approved Ethics 20/20 resolutions including Revised 105A as amended (Technology & Confidentiality), 105B, 105C (Outsourcing), 105D (Practice Pending Admission), 105E (Admission by Motion), and Revised 105F (Model Rule 1.6: Detection of Conflicts of Interest).
- National overview: On February 11, 2013, the ABA House of Delegates approved Ethics 20/20 resolutions including Revised 107A (Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law), Revised 107B (Model Rule for Registration of In-House Counsel), 107C as Amended (Pro Hac Vice Admission), and 107D (Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law).
- National overview: ABA’s Washington Letter summary described the Ethics 20/20 amendment areas as technology and confidentiality, technology and client development, outsourcing, practice in a new jurisdiction, admission by motion, and reducing a time-in-practice requirement while addressing detection of conflicts of interest.
- National overview: ABA’s Ethics 20/20 work product page lists initial draft proposals released May 2, 2011, including Tech & Confidentiality, Model Rule 5.5, and Pro Hac Vice.
- National overview: ABA’s House of Delegates filings index lists an “Annual Meeting August 2011 informational report” filed with the House about law firm and lawyer ratings and rankings, without providing the report’s full text in the index excerpt.
The legacy archive URL points to August 2011 activity connected to the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20, but the ABA primary materials reviewed for this archive recovery identify an August 2011 informational report filed with the House and then later House approvals in August 2012 and February 2013. Because ABA Model Rules operate as models that jurisdictions may adopt or modify, the August 2011 label alone does not indicate how later Model Rules concepts showed up in state lawyer conduct rules.
- What the Ethics 20/20 Commission was designed to do
- How the 2011 House of Delegates filing fits the project timeline
- The House of Delegates approvals in August 2012
- Additional House of Delegates approvals in February 2013
- What amendment areas ABA described as the focus of the Model Rules changes
- Model Rules updates and state lawyer conduct rules
- Where the nonlawyer ownership debate showed up in the archive record
- Archive recovery takeaway for readers researching Ethics 20/20
- Sources
What the Ethics 20/20 Commission was designed to do
The ABA explains that the Ethics 20/20 Commission was created by then ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm in 2009 to perform a thorough review of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the U.S. system of lawyer regulation, focusing on advances in technology and global legal practice developments.
The ABA also describes the Commission’s expected project length as three years, with year one consisting of research, outreach, and analysis; year two centered on development of proposed policies or principles for comment; and year three involving continued vetting and presentation.
How the 2011 House of Delegates filing fits the project timeline
ABA’s House of Delegates filings index lists an “Annual Meeting August 2011: Informational Report to the House of Delegates regarding law firm and lawyer ratings and rankings.” The index excerpt confirms that the informational report was a House filing item, but it does not provide the report’s contents or any specific resolution text that the legacy archive title might suggest.
To connect the August 2011 filing item to the project’s development stage, ABA’s Ethics 20/20 work product page lists initial draft proposals released May 2, 2011, including “Tech & Confidentiality,” “Model Rule 5.5,” and “Pro Hac Vice.” That release timing supports reading August 2011 as part of a broader multi-year workstream rather than as a moment when final Model Rules became uniformly effective everywhere.
The House of Delegates approvals in August 2012
ABA’s Commission summary page states that on Monday, August 6, 2012, the House of Delegates approved specific Ethics 20/20 resolutions, including the following topic labels: Revised 105A as amended (Technology & Confidentiality), 105B, 105C (Outsourcing), 105D (Practice Pending Admission), 105E (Admission by Motion), and Revised 105F (Model Rule 1.6: Detection of Conflicts of Interest).
Additional House of Delegates approvals in February 2013
The same ABA Commission summary page states that on Monday, February 11, 2013, the House of Delegates approved additional resolutions, including Revised 107A (Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law), Revised 107B (Model Rule for Registration of In-House Counsel), 107C as Amended (ABA Model Rule on Pro Hac Vice Admission), and 107D (Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law).
What amendment areas ABA described as the focus of the Model Rules changes
In a Washington Letter recap of the August 2012 Annual Meeting, ABA described the approved Ethics 20/20 recommendations as amending the ABA Model Rules in six broad areas: lawyers’ use of technology and confidentiality; lawyers’ use of technology and client development; outsourcing; practice in a new jurisdiction of a lawyer; admission by motion; and reducing the time in a practice requirement while addressing detection of conflicts of interest.
That six-part framing matters for archive recovery because it explains the policy themes behind the project, even though the House approvals in 2012 and 2013 appear in the record as specific resolution and Model Rule topic labels.
Model Rules updates and state lawyer conduct rules
The “Ethics 20/20” materials describe ABA policy work that interfaces with state professional conduct rules through the ABA Model Rules framework. The ABA Model Rules page states that the Model Rules were adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in 1983 and serve as models for ethics rules of most jurisdictions, and it also describes implementation assistance through the CPR Policy Implementation Committee.
ABA’s Policy & Initiatives page further describes implementation support for jurisdictions and references implementation tools such as charts comparing jurisdictional rules to the Model Rules and information on the status of each jurisdiction’s review of adopted policy.
The archive topic can confuse readers because it mixes (1) an ABA national policy timeline and (2) state systems that ultimately adopt, revise, or reject changes. A compact way to separate them is:
| ABA Ethics 20/20 materials | What they reflect | Where binding lawyer conduct rules come from |
|---|---|---|
| Commission work and House-approved resolutions | National ABA policy activity aimed at updating Model Rules concepts | State ethics rules and disciplinary systems in each jurisdiction |
| ABA Model Rules framework | Model language meant to guide jurisdictions | Jurisdictional adoption choices, since Model Rules serve as models rather than uniform federal rules |
ABA’s News & Announcements page also includes an ABA statement that the Model Rules are the direct basis for lawyer conduct rules in every state except California, which underscores the close relationship between Model Rules and state rules while still leaving room for jurisdiction-specific review and implementation as reflected in ABA’s implementation materials.
Where the nonlawyer ownership debate showed up in the archive record
In the Ethics 20/20 project’s ongoing communications, ABA’s News & Announcements page reported that the Commission was undecided at the time of reported February 3, 2012 coverage on whether it would recommend allowing nonlawyers to have limited ownership interests in U.S. law firms.
That point fits the archive timeline as an example of how Ethics 20/20 materials tracked open policy questions before the House approved the specific resolution topic labels reflected in later 2012 and 2013 summaries.
Archive recovery takeaway for readers researching Ethics 20/20
Because the archived legacy URL is labeled for August 2011, the most common misread is to assume the August 2011 entry contains the final House approval that amended specific Model Rules provisions. ABA’s own filings index excerpt instead identifies an August 2011 informational report filed with the House about ratings and rankings, while the Commission’s House approval summaries point to August 2012 and February 2013 for the named resolution topic labels.
For another example of how ABA Houses of Delegates actions show up in the broader archive category, see another example of an ABA House of Delegates resolution.
