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.
- ABA Resolution 107B is tied to the ABA policy process
- Revised Resolution 107B focused on in-house counsel registration
- The Commission linked the 2013 revision to foreign in-house counsel limitations
- ABA model rules differ from binding jurisdiction rules in the United States
- The Model Rules describe how discipline and civil claims are treated differently
- Confusion around ABA Resolution 107B often comes from mixing policy and local rules
- Sources
Key Facts
- Federal and state: ABA resolutions generally function as policy statements and do not operate as binding ethics rules unless adopted by a jurisdiction.
- Federal and state: The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct are designed to serve as models for the ethics rules of most U.S. jurisdictions.
- Federal and state: Revised Resolution 107B addressed an ABA Model Rule for Registration of In-House Counsel.
- Federal and state: The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 filed Revised Resolutions 107A and 107B for consideration in early 2013.
- Federal and state: The ABA House of Delegates approved Revised Resolution 107B at the February 2013 ABA Midyear Meeting in Dallas, Texas.
- Federal and state: The Commission described a revision affecting how foreign in-house counsel may give advice on U.S. law in relation to licensed U.S. lawyers’ advice.
- Federal and state: The Model Rules’ scope explains that comments provide guidance but do not add obligations to the rules’ text.
- Federal and state: The Model Rules’ scope also explains that a rule violation does not automatically create a private cause of action against a lawyer.
ABA Resolution 107B is tied to the ABA policy process
American Bar Association policy is commonly set through votes of the ABA House of Delegates, which ABA materials describe as the organization’s policy-making body.
One place the ABA collects official House of Delegates materials is its House of Delegates filings page, which lists resolutions and related reports for specific meetings.
Revised Resolution 107B focused on in-house counsel registration
In ABA materials, Revised Resolution 107B is described as addressing a “Model Rule for Registration of In-House Counsel,” meaning it relates to a model framework rather than a directly enforceable court rule.
According to the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20, the ABA House of Delegates approved Revised Resolution 107B on February 11, 2013, at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Dallas, Texas, along with other related resolutions from the same project.
The Commission linked the 2013 revision to foreign in-house counsel limitations
The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 explained that revised language affecting foreign in-house counsel was intended to clarify that foreign in-house counsel cannot advise on the law of a U.S. jurisdiction or of the United States except “based on the advice of a lawyer licensed and authorized by the jurisdiction to provide that advice.”
The Commission also stated that this change was made to align the wording with the ABA Model Rule for Licensing and Practice of Foreign Legal Consultants and to avoid ambiguity for jurisdictions that might adopt the model language.
ABA model rules differ from binding jurisdiction rules in the United States
The ABA describes the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct as a set of model ethics rules adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in 1983 that serve as models for most jurisdictions’ ethics rules.
Separate from ABA policy, the Model Rules’ scope notes that the rules “presuppose a larger legal context,” including court rules and statutes relating to licensure, along with other substantive and procedural law.
The Model Rules describe how discipline and civil claims are treated differently
In its scope discussion, the ABA explains that failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process, and that discipline is assessed based on the facts and circumstances at the time of the conduct.
That same scope discussion states that a violation of a Model Rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against a lawyer, and it adds that the rules are designed to provide guidance and structure for regulation through disciplinary agencies rather than to create civil liability.
The ABA also explains in the scope that comments do not add obligations to the rules but are intended to provide guidance for complying with the rules’ text.
Confusion around ABA Resolution 107B often comes from mixing policy and local rules
One recurring issue in professional responsibility discussions is that ABA resolutions and model rules can be read as if they were automatically binding in every jurisdiction, even though the ABA describes them as model materials intended for jurisdictions to consider.
Another common mix-up arises when commentary is treated as a separate, enforceable rule, despite the Model Rules’ scope explaining that comments do not add obligations beyond the rules’ text.
A final point of confusion involves civil lawsuits, because the Model Rules’ scope states that a rule violation should not itself create a private cause of action and should not create a presumption that a legal duty was breached.
