As we welcome 2026 with high hopes and new resolutions, let’s review some highlights from 2025 and consider practices that should be carried forward into the new year and those which should be left behind.
Ethics Opinions Issued in 2025
In Texas Ethics Opinion 701, the Professional Ethics Committee concluded that an attorney practicing in Texas could not join a D.C. law firm in which a nonlawyer is a partner. Our takeaway is that lawyers cannot pick and choose which rules to follow based on the rules that are the most favorable to their situation. Lawyers or firms licensed or operating in multiple states must be cognizant of the jurisdictional differences in ethics rules or risk ethics violations.
In ABA Opinion 516, the Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility clarified that while Rule 1.16(b)(1) is not a free pass and dropping a client like a hot potato might not be the best look, it does not automatically equate to a Rules’ violation. Our takeaway is that lawyers should always carefully analyze whether there would be an adverse material effect before terminating any representation. Still, lawyers must be aware that withdrawing from a representation in this manner might risk disqualification anyway.
The Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee opined that it would be ethically improper for a lawyer to agree (as a party to a client’s settlement agreement) to terms that would prohibit the lawyer from “taking any action or making any statements, verbal or written, to any third party that disparage or defame” the opposing party as a condition of settlement by the opposing party. Our takeaway is that lawyers must be mindful of Rule 5.6(b) when entering into any settlement agreements.
Social Media Guidance
Litigators have to be especially careful on social media. Our takeaway is that running afoul of ethical guidelines can lead to disciplinary problems for the lawyer, but it can also be damaging to your client’s interests if it happens in the midst of litigation. An Illinois appellate court, guided by Rule 3.6, set aside a $43 million dollar verdict for the plaintiff and ordered a new trial due to the plaintiff’s attorney’s blog and social media posts about jurors during the trial. The posts, titled “What Jurors Should Know But Don’t,” talked about the case and other matters that they claimed were hidden from the jury during trial.
Even when just using social media for business development, ethics rules still apply to lawyer conduct. Our takeaway is that lawyers are not any less susceptible to discipline for ethics violations just because their conduct takes place on social media instead of in the courtroom.
Think twice before you respond to online reviews. Confidentiality rules can be broken when addressing online criticism with client information.
Be mindful of Rule 8.2, when criticizing judges online. Impugning a judge’s integrity or qualifications can lead to disciplinary suspensions.
Multijurisdictional practice and the authorized practice of law
Pay attention to State and Local Court Rules when appearing in Federal Courts. Many require state bar licensure and failure to adhere risks engaging in UPL and being suspended from practicing in the federal court. P.S., pay your bar dues. If you’ve decided you no longer need your license in a certain state, simply not paying your bar dues is not the proper way to remove yourself from the roll of attorneys. It usually results in suspension, and that creates a lot of complications there and elsewhere.
And remember electing to go to “inactive status,” generally means no legal activity. If you are not eligible to practice law in that state, you are precluded from doing any legal work, including sending demand letters to out-of-state businesses on behalf of out-of-state residents.
Honesty is Required at All Times
Lawyers are always required to be honest. Dishonesty can carry severe consequences.
If you miss a deadline or fail to complete a filing for your client—just be honest about it upfront. There may be consequences, but compounding the issue with dishonesty makes things worse. Trying to avoid consequences by forging a judge’s signature? Not a great plan. It can lead to disbarment and land you in prison.
Just because you are trying to help your client doesn’t mean dishonest conduct is permissible. Allowing your assistant to complete a court-mandated course intended for your client is dishonest, and for one attorney lead to disciplinary hot water (and wasn’t great for the client either).
Don’t take money intended for your law firm. Fees earned through firm resources generally belong to the firm. If you feel you are not being compensated, then it might be time to move on, but it is never time to steal. The consequences for doing so can lead to disbarment and jail time.
Lawyers also need to watch out for dishonest clients—unworthy clients can cause law firms millions of dollars in litigation and trigger disciplinary issues for the lawyers entangled in the web of deceit.
What about AI in 2026?
2025 saw an incredible expansion of the use of AI by attorneys for a variety of tasks. And notwithstanding a lot of publicized incidents and escalating sanctions, the number of attorneys that used AI to write briefs that included hallucinated citations (and got caught) also increased. According to one source, there had been at least 90 such incidents by mid-2025 and that number is surely growing dramatically. Lawyers give many reasons for why they used AI and ended up with false citations. The excuses are varied, as are the sanctions, but it is clear that the role of AI in the industry is expanding as fast as in other industries. But unlike other industries, those using it without care are putting their pocketbooks and maybe their livelihoods at risk. Sanctions are escalating and it won’t be long before attorneys are sanctioned, suspended or even disbarred for lack of care. When using AI check all citations to law or fact.
Have a safe and healthy 2026!