Supreme Court justices debate revised ethics code amid secret deliberations

In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed a lawsuit concerning the Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct. The rule in question, Rule 8.4(7), imposes restrictions on attorney speech based on content and viewpoint, identifying certain speech as professional misconduct if deemed as harassment or discrimination based on specific characteristics such as race, sex, and sexual orientation. Attorneys Mario Cerame and Tim Moynahan, represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), argued that the vagueness of the rule led to self-censorship due to fear of potential charges. Previously, the district court had dismissed their complaint, claiming they did not have standing since they had not been charged under the rule. However, the Second Circuit found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the rule, as they had demonstrated a well-founded fear of enforcement that might infringe on their First Amendment rights. The decision marks an important development in First Amendment law, particularly regarding the rights of attorneys to discuss controversial topics freely without facing disciplinary actions. The case now returns to the district court for further consideration of whether the Eleventh Amendment will impact the plaintiffs' claims.