Rule 5.1.Responsibilities of a Partner of Supervisory Lawyer 
 (a)A partner in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to 
 ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance 
 that  all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional 
 Conduct. 
  
 (b)A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another 
 lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer 
 conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 
  
 (c)A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation 
 of the Rules of Professional Conduct if: 
  
 (1)the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific 
 conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or 
  
 (2)the lawyer is a partner in the law firm in which the other 
 lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other 
 lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be 
 avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial  action. 
  
 

                                                                
ANNOTATIONSCOMMENT 
 Paragraphs (a) and (b) refer to lawyers who have supervisory 
 authority over the professional work of a firm or legal department of a 
 government agency.  This includes members of a partnership and the 
 shareholders in a law firm organized as a professional corporation; 
 lawyers having supervisory authority in the law department of an 
 enterprise or government agency; and lawyers who have intermediate 
 managerial responsibilities in a firm. 
  
 The measures required to fulfill the responsibility prescribed in 
 paragraphs (a) and (b)  can depend on the firm's structure and the 
 nature of its practice.  In a small firm, informal supervision and 
 occasional admonition ordinarily  might be sufficient.  In a large firm, 
 or in practice situations in which intensely difficult ethical problems 
 frequently arise, more elaborate procedures may be necessary.  Some 
 firms, for example, have a procedure whereby junior lawyers can make 
 confidential referral of ethical problems directly to a designated 
 senior partner or special committee.  See Rule 5.2.  Firms, whether 
 large or small, may also rely on continuing legal education in 
 professional ethics.  In any event, the ethical atmosphere of a firm can 
 influence the conduct of all its members and a lawyer having authority 
 over the work of another may not assume that the subordinate lawyer will 
 inevitably conform to the Rules. 
  
 Paragraph (c) (1) expresses a general principle of responsibility 
 for acts of another.  See also Rule 8.4 (a). 
  
 Paragraph (c) (2) defines the duty of a lawyer having direct 
 supervisory authority over performance of specific legal work by another 
 lawyer.  Whether a lawyer has such supervisory authority in particular 
 circumstances is a question of fact.  Partners of a private firm have at 
 least indirect responsibility for all work being done by the firm, while 
 a partner in charge of a particular matter ordinarily has direct 
 authority over other firm lawyers engaged in the matter.  Appropriate 
 remedial action by a partner would depend on the immediacy of the 
 partner's involvement and the seriousness of the misconduct.  The 
 supervisor is required to intervene to prevent avoidable consequences of 
 misconduct if the supervisor knows that the misconduct occurred. Thus, 
 if a supervising lawyer knows that a subordinate misrepresented a matter 
 to an opposing party in negotiation, the supervisor as well as the 
 subordinate has a duty to correct the resulting misapprehension. 
  
 Professional misconduct by a lawyer under supervision could reveal 
 a violation of paragraph (b) on the part of the supervisory lawyer even 
 though it does not entail a violation of paragraph (c) because there was 
 no direction, ratification or knowledge of the violation. 
  
 Apart from this Rule and Rule 8.4 (a), a lawyer does not have 
 disciplinary liability for the conduct of a partner, associate or 
 subordinate.  Whether a lawyer may be liable civilly or criminally for 
 another lawyer's conduct is a question of law beyond the scope of these 
 Rules. 
  
  
  
 ANNOTATION 
  
 Annotator's note. 
 Rule 5.1 is similar to 
 DR 1-102, DR 4-101, DR 7-107, and DR 7-108 as they 
 existed prior to the 1992 repeal and reenactment of the Code of 
 Professional Responsibility. 
 Relevant cases construing 
 DR 1-102 have been included under Rule 3.1, cases construing DR 4-101 have been 
 included Rule 1.6, cases construing DR 7-107 have been included under Rule 3.3, 
 and cases construing DR 7-108 have been included under Rule 3.5.