Federalizing Professionalism: How the Seventh Circuit Rewrote Indiana Ethics Law

Authors

Leonard C. Brahin, J.D., College of Law, DePaul University

First & Last Page

1-17

Abstract

While sitting in diversity and adjudicating a federal question, federal courts are occasionally tasked with handling ethical questions about attorney conduct. Despite the frequency that such issues emerge, there are neither uniform federal ethics rules for attorneys nor a consensus amongst the circuits on how to apply (or even use) state ethics rules. Some federal courts have adopted the ethics rules of the state in which they sit. Others have no rules at all. In the Seventh Circuit, federal courts have adopted and interpreted the ethics rules of the states where they sit, independent from state courts and commissions that regulate the profession.In Watkins v Trans Union, the Seventh Circuit departed from principles of federalism, comity, and parity to chart its own path for professional ethics. In doing so, it displaced a role traditionally left to the states without any meaningful explanation as to why. As such, this Article argues that Watkins was an unforced error, unjustified by precedent or necessity. This error will continue to compound as attorneys are forced to balance different or contradictory ethical obligations—even without leaving their own district. There is a simple solution. Instead of this unneeded complexity, state court ethical principles should set the floor on permissible ethical conduct in federal court.

Recommended Citation

Leonard C. Brahin, J.D., Federalizing Professionalism: How the Seventh Circuit Rewrote Indiana Ethics Law, 12 Lincoln Mem’l U. L. Rev. (2025).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/lmulrev/vol12/iss2/1