Trump Trials – A Survey in Legal Ethics

The high-profile trials against former President Donald Trump offer valuable insights into legal ethics. In this thought-provoking conversation, former prosecutors and ethics professors Rebecca Roiphe and Bruce Green examine the various Trump cases under the ABA Model Rules.

Roiphe and Green explore prosecutorial discretion, the limits of attorney privilege, and the line between providing legal advice and enabling a client's misconduct. Their discussion examines the actions of key figures from Michael Cohen to Rudy Giuliani to the judges and prosecutors leading the cases.

Rebecca Roiphe is a former former Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan and a professor of law at New York Law School.  Bruce Green is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney (SDNY) and a professor of law at Fordham Law School.  


  • Attorney CLE accreditation 

ABA Rule 1.2(d) (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer)

Explanation: This rule prohibits a lawyer from counseling or assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. However, a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law. 

ABA Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information)

Explanation: This rule mandates that a lawyer must not reveal information related to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by the rule. 

ABA Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients)

Explanation in part: This rule prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest, unless the lawyer reasonably believes they can provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client, and each client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. 

 

ABA Rule 1.8 (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules)

Explanation in part: This rule addresses specific conflict of interest situations, including prohibiting lawyers from engaging in sexual relationships with clients if such relationships cause a conflict of interest. 

ABA Rule 1.9 (Duties to Former Clients)

Explanation in part: This rule prohibits a lawyer from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent. 

ABA Rule 1.11 (Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees)

Explanation in part: This rule addresses the specific conflict of interest concerns for lawyers who have served as public officers or employees and their ability to represent private clients in matters in which they were personally and substantially involved while in public service. 

ABA Rule 1.13 (Organization as Client)

Explanation in part: This rule addresses a lawyer’s duty when representing an organization, clarifying that the lawyer represents the organization through its duly authorized constituents.

ABA Rule 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation)

Explanation in part: This rule specifies the circumstances under which a lawyer must decline or terminate representation. It includes situations where continuing would result in a violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law, the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs their ability to represent the client, or the lawyer is discharged by the client. 

ABA Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal)

Explanation in part: This principle is embedded in several rules, notably Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal). Rule 3.3(a)(3) specifically states that a lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. 

ABA Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel)

Explanation in part: This rule prohibits a lawyer from unlawfully obstructing another party's access to evidence or unlawfully altering, destroying, or concealing a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. 

ABA Rule 3.4(e)

Explanation in part: Rule 3.4(e) states that a lawyer shall not, in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant, or the guilt or innocence of an accused. 

ABA Rule on Extrajudicial Statements (Rule 3.6)

Explanation in part: Rule 3.6 covers trial publicity. It states that a lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

ABA Rule 3.7 (Lawyer as Witness)

Explanation in part: This rule states that a lawyer shall not act as an advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness. 

ABA Rule 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor)

Explanation in part: This rule outlines the ethical obligations of prosecutors, including the duty to refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause, and the duty to disclose evidence that negates the guilt of the accused. 

ABA Rule 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others)

Explanation in part: This rule requires lawyers to be truthful in their statements to others and prohibits them from making false statements of material fact or law. 

ABA Rule 8.4 (Misconduct)

Explanation in part: This rule defines professional misconduct for a lawyer, including engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. 

Prof. Nathalie Martin discusses A Mindful Practice (Part 2)
A Mindful Practice (Part 2)
Prof. Lenni Benson discusses Lawyers without Papers - Immigration and Legal Ethics
Lawyers without Papers - Immigration and Legal Ethics
Prof. Anthony Sebok discusses Legal Innovation – Investing in Lawsuits
Legal Innovation – Investing in Lawsuits
Prof. Anthony Sebok discusses Legal Innovation – Investing in Lawsuits (Part 2)
Legal Innovation – Investing in Lawsuits (Part 2)
Jennifer Justice discusses RocJustice - Law of Hip-Hop
RocJustice - Law of Hip-Hop
Brian Cuban discusses The Addicted Lawyer - A Profession in Crisis
The Addicted Lawyer - A Profession in Crisis
Brian Cuban discusses The Addicted Lawyer - A Profession in Crisis (Part 2)
The Addicted Lawyer - A Profession in Crisis (Part 2)
Brian Cuban discusses The Addicted Lawyer - A Profession in Crisis (Part 3)
The Addicted Lawyer - A Profession in Crisis (Part 3)
Prof. Carrie Menkel-Meadow discusses The Ethical Limits of Negotiations
The Ethical Limits of Negotiations
Prof. Carrie Menkel-Meadow discusses The Ethical Limits of Negotiations (Part 2)
The Ethical Limits of Negotiations (Part 2)
Prof. Leslie Levin discusses The Malpractice Insurance Dilemma (Prior)
The Malpractice Insurance Dilemma (Prior)
Jon Krop discusses The Mindful Lawyer
The Mindful Lawyer
Jon Krop discusses The Mindful Lawyer (Part 2)
The Mindful Lawyer (Part 2)
Profs Bruce Green & Rebecca Roiphe discusses The Power of the Prosecutor (Part 2)
The Power of the Prosecutor (Part 2)