However, in a twist befitting a courtroom drama, the Third Circuit recently pulled the rug from under Greenberg’s case. They posited that the looming specter of the rule’s enforcement on him was merely a phantom, as he faced “no credible threat of enforcement.”
Peering behind the curtains of public disciplinary records paints a revealing picture. The Third Circuit’s assertion might not be as baseless as one would think. Few, if any, have faced the fiery wrath of this new rule in places where it’s been put into play.
The Anti-Bias Rule Controversy : The Real-world Effects of 8.4(g)
But the tale is far from black and white. A dive into the depths of disciplinary records across states illuminated that while the revised rules rarely culminated in punitive measures, those that did largely revolved around explicit misconduct rather than mere remarks.
Myles Lynk, once the helm of the ABA’s ethics committee during the inception of 8.4(g), isn’t taken aback. Recalling the initial uproar, he mused how many believed it would muzzle free speech. Yet, the rule’s history tells a different story.
