Model Rule 5.2: Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer

When it applies

This comes up when junior associates are directed by partners or senior lawyers to take an action and later face discipline for it; the MPRE tests whether "just following orders" is a valid defense. It pairs with Rule 5.1, which governs the supervisor's own responsibilities for subordinate misconduct.

What the rule requires

• A subordinate lawyer remains fully bound by all rules of professional conduct despite acting under supervision.
• Following a supervisor's instructions is not a defense if the instructions require a clear violation of the rules.
• A subordinate is protected from discipline only when the underlying question is genuinely arguable, not clearly settled.
• The supervisor's resolution of the arguable question must be reasonable, not merely convenient or self-serving.
• If no reasonable interpretation supports the supervisor's directive, the subordinate must refuse to comply.

Exceptions

• The protection only applies to genuinely arguable questions of professional duty, not to clear-cut violations.
• The safe harbor protects only the subordinate; the supervisor who made the call remains responsible for it, and if the question can reasonably be answered only one way, both lawyers are equally responsible for acting on the wrong answer.

How the MPRE tests Model Rule 5.2

• MPRE questions often present a directive from a senior partner and ask whether the associate is excused; students wrongly assume any instruction from a supervisor provides blanket protection.
• Students confuse "arguable question" with "any disagreement"; if the rule violation is clear (e.g., knowingly filing a false document), Rule 5.2 offers no shield.
• Test-takers forget that the subordinate must still exercise independent judgment when the ethical question is not genuinely debatable.
• Students sometimes conflate Rule 5.2 with Rule 5.1, misattributing supervisory liability rules to the subordinate's own defenses.