While the Third Circuit, in an opinion by Senior Judge Anthony Scirica, didn’t come out and hold that the district court erred in holding Pennsylvania’s adoption of a variation of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) was constitutional, it all but sloughed off the complaints of FIRE’s Zach Greenberg when it held he lacked standing to challenge the nefarious rule.
In a facile decision of stunning naïveté, the court held that the ramifications of a lawyer speech code prohibiting knowing harassment, defined in such vague terms as to cover pretty much anything, in any aspect of the practice of law based on “race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, and socioeconomic status” had yet to be sufficiently established. Zach pre-emptively sought to enjoin the rule, arguing that it would form the basis for discipline, or chill his speech, when he taught continuing legal education courses. Continue reading

