The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and change frequently; always consult with a qualified professional regarding your specific situation. The author and publisher assume no liability for any actions taken based on this information.
Key Facts
- Federal level: The ABA House of Delegates adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in 1983, and the Model Rules function as a model framework rather than federal law.
- State level: Each state’s highest court and the District of Columbia regulate lawyers within their borders, and many states adopt the Model Rules with variations.
- National overview: The ABA created the Commission on Ethics 20/20 in 2009 to review the Model Rules and the U.S. system of lawyer regulation in light of technology and global legal practice developments.
- National overview: On August 6, 2012, the ABA House of Delegates approved several Ethics 20/20-related revised Model Rule packages, including Revised 105A as amended and Revised 105F.
- National overview: On February 11, 2013, the ABA House of Delegates approved additional Ethics 20/20 resolutions, including Revised 107A, Revised 107C as amended, and Revised 107D.
- National overview: In an Aug. 2012 Introduction and Overview submission, the commission described proposed Model Rule updates involving confidentiality protections in Model Rule 1.6, technology-linked competence language, and a Rule 1.18 “discusses” to “consults” terminology change.
- National overview: In a February 2012 Reporter Resources update, the commission said it was undecided about recommending nonlawyer limited ownership of law firms and asked for comments by Feb. 29 on related discussion papers.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- Why an archive recovery item on Ethics 20/20 still matters
- What “Reporter Resources” was doing in the Ethics 20/20 communications
- The legal system behind ABA ethics discussions state courts and Model Rules
- The February 2012 Reporter Resources update nonlawyer limited ownership and a comment deadline
- Milestones the House of Delegates approved in 2012 and 2013
- What the Aug. 2012 Introduction and Overview described as Model Rule proposals
- Confidentiality protection tied to “reasonable measures” and the medium used
- Competence language that explicitly addressed technology benefits and risks
- Prospective client communication terminology tied to electronic interactions
- A quick comparison project proposals versus enforceable ethics rules
- Limits of the archived post for modern compliance questions
- Takeaway for readers revisiting Ethics 20/20 materials
- Sources
Why an archive recovery item on Ethics 20/20 still matters
An ABA NOW “Reporter Resources” page about the Commission on Ethics 20/20 captured the project as it was developing: the ABA used a public-facing update format to point reporters to topics, draft discussion materials, and the commission’s evolving posture.
Modern readers encounter these archived posts when they research professional responsibility questions involving technology, confidentiality, and client communications. The archive context matters because Ethics 20/20 did not operate like a court decision; it produced proposals that had to travel through additional steps—ABA action and then state-by-state adoption—before they could affect lawyer conduct rules.
What “Reporter Resources” was doing in the Ethics 20/20 communications
On the ABA’s project site, the February 2012 “Reporter Resources” update appears as part of how the ABA communicated ethics-reform work to the public. That “Reporter Resources” entry highlighted specific workstreams under the Commission on Ethics 20/20, including the commission’s focus on whether to recommend changes related to nonlawyer involvement in law firms.
In the same update, the ABA described that the commission was seeking feedback on related documents by a specified date (Feb. 29). That structure reflects a mid-project communications cycle: background, discussion, and comment solicitation rather than an immediately binding ethics rule.
The legal system behind ABA ethics discussions state courts and Model Rules
U.S. lawyer regulation does not begin with Congress or a single federal agency. The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20’s preliminary framework described that “the highest court of each state and the District of Columbia has the authority to regulate lawyers within its borders.”
That same ABA preliminary framework also explained that Model Rules adoption is widespread but not perfectly uniform: “All states except California have adopted the Model Rules with some variations.”
The ABA’s Model Rules page provides the backbone for understanding why Ethics 20/20 attracted attention. It states that the ABA Model Rules were adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in 1983 and “serve as models for the ethics rules of most jurisdictions.”
The February 2012 Reporter Resources update nonlawyer limited ownership and a comment deadline
One concrete use of the archived “Reporter Resources” format shows up in the February 2012 ABA update. The ABA stated that the Commission on Ethics 20/20 “still is undecided” about whether it would make a recommendation allowing nonlawyers to have “some form of limited ownership interest in U.S. law firms.”
That same update identified a comment phase for related work. It stated that “the commission is asking for comments on both documents by Feb. 29,” tied to discussion papers and initial draft proposals about alternative law practice structures and choice-of-law or fee-sharing issues.
Milestones the House of Delegates approved in 2012 and 2013
A key difference between an archive “Reporter Resources” update and later ABA materials is what the ABA characterizes as formal action. The ABA’s Ethics 20/20 project page records House of Delegates approvals tied to Ethics 20/20 packages.
According to that ABA project page, the House approved Ethics 20/20-related revised Model Rule packages on August 6, 2012, including:
- Revised 105A as amended (Technology and Confidentiality)
- Revised 105F (Model Rule 1.6: Detection of Conflicts of Interest)
The same page reports additional approvals on February 11, 2013, including:
- Revised 107A (Rule 5.5: Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law)
- Revised 107C as Amended (ABA Model Rule on Pro Hac Vice Admission)
- Revised 107D (Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law)
What the Aug. 2012 Introduction and Overview described as Model Rule proposals
Beyond package identifiers, the project also produced descriptive submissions about proposed Model Rule changes. The ABA’s Aug. 2012 “Introduction and Overview” submission described the commission’s approach and the kinds of amendments it discussed before the House acted in later stages.
Confidentiality protection tied to “reasonable measures” and the medium used
In the Aug. 2012 submission, the commission described a proposal for a new paragraph (c) in Model Rule 1.6. The submission explained the goal as clarifying that a lawyer has an ethical duty to take reasonable measures to protect a client’s confidential information from inadvertent disclosure, unauthorized disclosure, and unauthorized access “regardless of the medium used.”
Competence language that explicitly addressed technology benefits and risks
The same Aug. 2012 submission also described making explicit that competence includes understanding technology-related realities. The submission tied this to the idea that technology is “an integral” part of contemporary law practice and referenced “including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”
Prospective client communication terminology tied to electronic interactions
The Aug. 2012 submission further described proposed amendments to Model Rule 1.18. It stated the commission proposed replacing “discusses” with “consults” to address when communications, including electronic communications, trigger prospective-client duties, along with new comment language describing the circumstances that trigger Rule 1.18’s duties.
A quick comparison project proposals versus enforceable ethics rules
A recurring point of confusion for archive readers is treating ABA project materials as if they automatically control legal obligations everywhere. The sources support a more layered understanding: ABA work can influence many jurisdictions, but state adoption and variation determine enforceability.
| Document type (from the Ethics 20/20 record) | What the sources show | What it does not automatically establish |
|---|---|---|
| “Reporter Resources” updates | The ABA described the commission’s mid-project posture and sought comments (for example, in February 2012) | That a specific idea is already binding in every jurisdiction |
| Aug. 2012 Introduction and Overview | The commission described proposals, such as confidentiality and competence concepts in Model Rule 1.6 and related terminology in Model Rule 1.18 | That the proposal’s described wording is the current controlling text in every state |
| House of Delegates approvals | The ABA project page records approvals of revised packages and resolutions | That states adopted those revisions on the same timeline or in the same form |
Limits of the archived post for modern compliance questions
Even when ABA sources document formal House action and describe proposal content, they do not erase the basic jurisdiction structure described in the Ethics 20/20 preliminary outline. State high courts and the District of Columbia regulate lawyer conduct within their borders, and the Model Rules framework exists alongside variations across states (with California noted as the exception in the preliminary outline).
Because of that structure, an archive recovery focused on the “Reporter Resources” communications and proposal descriptions can provide historical understanding of what Ethics 20/20 was considering. It cannot substitute for checking the current ethics rules of a specific jurisdiction when the goal is to identify enforceable obligations.
For readers who want another example of how ABA-era archival posts documented professional responsibility and bar developments, an additional ABA archive item is available as ABA archive on Judge Harry Edwards.
Takeaway for readers revisiting Ethics 20/20 materials
The Ethics 20/20 “Reporter Resources” communication style helped the public track a complex reform process. The ABA’s later commission materials and House of Delegates action, combined with the Model Rules framework used by many states, explain why the archived updates remain relevant for understanding how technology, confidentiality, and electronic communications became central themes in the Model Rules reform conversation.
