Pennsylvania Bar Dismisses 3rd Circuit Appeal in Rule 8.4(g) Challenge

Josh Blackman of the Volokh Conspiracy at Reason.com congratulated HLLI for its free speech victory in Greenberg v. Haggerty. In December, a federal district court declared unconstitutional Pennsylvania's version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). The judge reiterated points that Eugene Volokh and I have been making for years: this rule may be well intentioned, but it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In January, the Pennsylvania Bar filed a…

St. John v. Jones, et al.

The settlement and fee request would provide only 30% of the funds to class members, 25% to attorneys, 5% to the settlement administrator and about 40% or $16 million to third party organizations, called cy pres. The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the diversion of class funds.

Job Description

Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute is hiring an attorney! And it’s a dream job for the sort of lawyer for whom this is a dream job.

Federal Court Enjoins Pennsylvania Rule Disciplining Attorney Speech

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Washington, DC – A federal court based in Philadelphia today preliminarily enjoined enforcement of a Rule of Professional Conduct aimed at disciplining attorneys for their speech. HLLI challenged Rule 8.4(g) on behalf of attorney Zachary Greenberg, a Pennsylvania-licensed attorney working for a non-profit organization that advocates on behalf of students’ constitutional rights and regularly speaks at legal education and other professional events on a variety of hot-button legal…

Yeatman v. Hyland

Class member William Yeatman objected to a settlement that provides no direct benefit to class members but instead pays $1.75 million as “cy pres” to fund the creation of a new non-profit.

Greenberg v. Lehocky

HLLI successfully filed a civil rights suit against the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to block implementation of a rule that would limit speech by Pennsylvania-licensed attorneys. HLLI unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court concerning the revised rule that replaces the one already found to be unconstitutional.

<em>Greenberg v. Lehocky</em>
Ingram Publishing / Alamy Stock Photo
Search this website Type then hit enter to search