By Steve Levine · Updated August 23, 2026 · 8 min read
Quick Answer
The California Rules of Professional Conduct — usually shortened to the CRPC — are the ethics rules that govern every lawyer licensed in California. The State Bar of California's Board of Trustees adopts them, but they bind no one until the California Supreme Court approves them. The current set of 69 rules was approved on May 10, 2018 and became operative on November 1, 2018, replacing the 46 rules that had governed since 1989. That overhaul moved California onto the ABA Model Rules numbering (1.x–8.x) so its rules can be compared with other states' — while keeping substance that is still distinctly Californian, including a fee rule that bars only an unconscionable fee and a competence rule that requires more than ordinary negligence. The rules are enforced through attorney discipline by the State Bar Court and the California Supreme Court, not by clients suing on the rules directly.
On this page
The California Rules of Professional Conduct are the ethics code for lawyers admitted to practice in California. They occupy an unusual position: the State Bar of California's Board of Trustees writes and adopts them, but under the State Bar Act they take effect only when the California Supreme Court approves them. That approval is what turns a proposed rule into a binding one, and it is why the Supreme Court — not the State Bar — has the last word on California attorney ethics.
The rules sit alongside, not instead of, the statutes in the State Bar Act (Business and Professions Code sections 6000 and following). Some of the obligations a California lawyer owes come from a rule, some come from a statute, and several important ones come from both at once. A lawyer's duty of confidentiality is a good example: rule 1.6 states the ethical duty, while Business and Professions Code section 6068(e) states the statutory one.
For most of modern California practice, the state's ethics rules used a numbering scheme nobody else used. Conflicts of interest lived at former rule 3-310, client trust accounts at 4-100, advertising and solicitation at 1-400. That made comparing California's rules against any other state's a translation exercise.
On May 10, 2018 the California Supreme Court approved a comprehensive replacement: 69 rules, operative November 1, 2018, superseding the 46 rules that had governed since 1989. It was the first full rewrite in nearly thirty years, and its most visible change was structural — California adopted the ABA Model Rules numbering, so its rules now line up in the same eight families other states use:
• Rule 1.x — The Client-Lawyer Relationship. Competence (1.1), fees (1.5), confidentiality (1.6), the conflict rules (1.7–1.9), and safekeeping client property (1.15).
• Rule 2.x — Counselor. The lawyer acting as advisor.
• Rule 3.x — Advocate. Duties to the court — candor, no frivolous claims, fairness to the other side.
• Rule 4.x — Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients. Including the no-contact rule (4.2) barring communication with someone the lawyer knows is represented by other counsel.
• Rule 5.x — Law Firms and Associations. Supervision, and the bar on sharing legal fees with non-lawyers (5.4).
• Rule 6.x — Public Service. Pro bono and related work.
• Rule 7.x — Information About Legal Services. Advertising (7.1–7.2) and solicitation (7.3).
• Rule 8.x — Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession. Reporting misconduct and the catch-all misconduct rule (8.4).
Adopting the ABA's numbering is not the same as adopting the ABA's rules, and this is the single most common misreading of what happened in 2018. California took the filing cabinet, not the contents. Many rules that now carry a familiar ABA number still say something California-specific, and a few California rules have no ABA counterpart at all.
Most of the code governs how lawyers run their practices. A handful shape what a client or class member actually experiences:
• Rule 1.5 — Fees. A California lawyer may not charge or collect an unconscionable or illegal fee, and the rule sets out the factors used to judge that. This is the rule behind the percentage a plaintiffs' firm takes from a recovery. It is reinforced by statute: Business and Professions Code section 6147 requires a written contingency fee agreement, and section 6148 requires a written agreement in most matters expected to run past $1,000. Non-compliance can make the agreement voidable by the client.
• Rule 1.15 — Safekeeping Funds and Property. Money belonging to a client or a third person — settlement proceeds very much included — must sit in a separate client trust account, never commingled with the lawyer's own funds, with records kept and the client promptly notified and paid. Anything genuinely in dispute stays in trust until the dispute is resolved. This is the rule that protects a claimant's share of a settlement while it is in counsel's hands.
• Rules 1.7–1.9 — Conflicts of Interest. A lawyer generally cannot represent clients with directly adverse interests, or turn a former client's confidences against them, without informed written consent — a recurring question in large cases where one firm represents many people at once.
• Rule 1.8.7 — Aggregate Settlements. When one lawyer represents multiple clients, a settlement covering all of them requires each client's informed written consent, after being told what everyone else is getting. The rule matters most in mass actions and multi-plaintiff matters rather than in a certified class action, where court approval performs a different protective function.
• Rules 7.1–7.3 — Advertising and Solicitation. These govern the "you may qualify" ads and post-incident outreach many people meet first. California layers a statute on top of the rules — see our guide to California attorney advertising rules for how rules 7.1–7.3 and Business and Professions Code section 6157 work together.
Four differences are worth knowing, because each changes the practical answer to a question a consumer might ask.
The competence threshold is higher. The ABA model requires competent representation. California's rule 1.1 is written as a discipline standard and reaches conduct that is intentional, reckless, grossly negligent, or repeated:
A lawyer shall not intentionally, recklessly, with gross negligence, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.
— Cal. Rules of Prof'l Conduct r. 1.1(a) (paraphrased; consult the current rule for the operative text)
The practical effect: one ordinary mistake is generally a malpractice question rather than a discipline question. That is a deliberate design choice about what the State Bar prosecutes, not a statement that the mistake did not matter.
The fee standard is "unconscionable," not "unreasonable." The ABA model bars an unreasonable fee. California bars an unconscionable or illegal one, which is a meaningfully harder standard for a client to establish. The written-agreement statutes do much of the consumer-protective work California's rule does not.
Some rules have no ABA counterpart. Rule 8.4.1 prohibits discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the practice of law and in law firm employment — a substantive California rule with its own reporting mechanics. Rule 1.8.10 flatly prohibits sexual relations with a current client, with a narrow exception for a consensual relationship that predated the representation, rather than the model's softer treatment.
The Comments are part of the package. California's rules ship with official Comments approved alongside them. They interpret rather than expand: where a Comment and a rule conflict, the rule controls. (This differs from New York, which adopted only the black-letter rules and leaves its Comments to the state bar association as guidance — see our guide to the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.)
Enforcement runs through three bodies, in sequence. The State Bar of California's Office of Chief Trial Counsel receives and investigates complaints. Charges it files are prosecuted in the State Bar Court, a dedicated professional discipline court with its own hearing department and review department. And the California Supreme Court holds the actual disciplinary power: only it can suspend or disbar a licensee, acting on the State Bar Court's recommendation. Business and Professions Code section 6077 supplies the statutory hook, making a willful breach of the rules a basis for discipline.
Outcomes range from a private reproval through public reproval, suspension, and disbarment, and discipline imposed against a California lawyer is a matter of public record on the State Bar's licensee search. Client trust accounts get their own compliance layer: the State Bar's Client Trust Account Protection Program requires licensees to register their trust accounts and certify compliance annually, and it can trigger a review independent of any client complaint.
This is the distinction that trips people up most often, and it is worth stating plainly: the CRPC defines what a lawyer can be disciplined for. It does not create a right to sue.
A client who lost money because of how a lawyer handled their matter brings a legal malpractice or breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, and that claim has its own elements and its own statute of limitations. California courts have treated a violation of the ethics rules as relevant evidence of the standard of care in such a case — useful, sometimes persuasive, but not a substitute for proving the claim. A State Bar complaint and a malpractice suit are separate tracks with separate outcomes: the first can discipline the lawyer, only the second can compensate the client. Pursuing one does not preserve the other, and the deadlines do not run together.
California produces an enormous share of the country's consumer class actions, which means the CRPC is the quiet framework behind a lot of what appears on this site. When a California court reviews a proposed class settlement, the fee award it scrutinizes is measured against a reasonableness inquiry that draws on the same factors rule 1.5 lists. When settlement money is distributed, rule 1.15's trust-account requirements are what keep class members' funds segregated and accounted for while they sit with counsel. And the advertising you see around a newly filed case — the "you may be entitled to compensation" pages, the intake forms, the post-incident outreach — is governed by rules 7.1 through 7.3 and the advertising statutes layered on them.
The rules also give a reader a practical checklist. A guaranteed outcome, a cold call from a lawyer you have never spoken to about a case you never asked to join, a fee agreement you were never given in writing, or a settlement check that sits unexplained for months are each a signal to ask a harder question. That is separate from the consumer-protection statutes that power most California class actions — see the CLRA and California's False Advertising Law — but the two operate in the same ecosystem: one governs how businesses may advertise to you, the other governs how lawyers may.
What are the California Rules of Professional Conduct?
They are the ethics rules that govern every lawyer licensed to practice in California. The State Bar of California's Board of Trustees adopts them, but they carry force only once the California Supreme Court approves them. The current set of 69 rules was approved on May 10, 2018 and became operative on November 1, 2018, replacing the 46 rules that had been in place since 1989. They cover competence, fees, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, safekeeping client money, advertising and solicitation, and a lawyer's duties to courts and the public.
Why did California renumber its ethics rules in 2018?
For decades California used its own numbering — conflicts lived at former rule 3-310, client trust accounts at 4-100, advertising at 1-400 — which made it hard to line California's rules up against any other state's. The 2018 overhaul adopted the ABA Model Rules numbering system so the two can be compared rule for rule. Adopting the numbering is not the same as adopting the ABA rules: California kept substantive provisions that differ from the model, and several California rules have no ABA counterpart at all.
Who enforces the California Rules of Professional Conduct?
The State Bar of California investigates complaints through its Office of Chief Trial Counsel, and charges are prosecuted in the State Bar Court, a professional discipline court. The State Bar Court recommends discipline, but only the California Supreme Court can actually suspend or disbar a lawyer. Under Business and Professions Code section 6077, a willful breach of the rules is a basis for discipline.
Does breaking an ethics rule let a client sue their lawyer?
Not by itself. The rules define what a lawyer can be disciplined for; they are not a cause of action. A client who was harmed brings a separate legal malpractice or breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, and California courts have treated a rule violation as relevant evidence of the standard of care in such a case rather than as an independent basis for damages. Filing a State Bar complaint and filing a malpractice suit are two different tracks, and one does not substitute for the other.
How does California's fee rule differ from the ABA Model Rules?
The ABA model bars an unreasonable fee. California rule 1.5 bars a fee that is unconscionable or illegal, which is a harder standard for a client to meet, and the rule lists the factors used to judge it. California also layers statutes on top: Business and Professions Code sections 6147 and 6148 require written fee agreements for contingency matters and for most matters expected to exceed $1,000, and a lawyer who does not comply can leave the agreement voidable by the client.
What does California rule 1.15 do with settlement money?
Rule 1.15 requires a lawyer to hold funds belonging to a client or a third person — settlement proceeds included — in a separate client trust account, never mixed with the lawyer's own money, with records kept and the client promptly notified and paid what they are owed. Disputed portions stay in trust until the dispute is resolved. Trust account compliance is separately monitored by the State Bar through its Client Trust Account Protection Program.
• State Bar of California — Current Rules of Professional Conduct (official text)
• State Bar of California — Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 1, 2018 (PDF)
• California Legislative Information — Business and Professions Code section 6077
• California Legislative Information — Business and Professions Code section 6147 (contingency fee agreements)
• State Bar Court of California — how attorney discipline is adjudicated
About This Page
General informational summary of California's attorney-ethics rules, not legal advice. The rules that actually govern any particular lawyer are the current versions approved by the California Supreme Court, together with their official Comments, the State Bar Act, and the ethics opinions interpreting them — all of which contain qualifications this summary condenses. Rule text is paraphrased here for readability; consult the current official rule for operative language. Lawyers with questions about their own conduct should consult the current rules and ethics opinions directly.
