Nothing’s happening, Dana. It’s just lawyers being lawyers, and being jerks (but I digress.) Because the decision was to place the promise in an oath rather than the California Rules of Professional Conduct, only truly egregious violations are likely to spur formal complaints and bar discipline. These would have to be based upon the ruled prohibiting dishonesty, not the words of the oath itself. For the vast majority of legal practitioners, the mandatory oath will only serve as a reminder of basic professional standards. There will be occasions, I assume, when a lawyer being disciplined for other rules violations may have repeated and gross incivility used to justify a harsher penalty.
Judges also have authority to punish incivility in court that they find injurious to the justice system, and their judgment—after all, they are judges—will generally be accepted. The First Amendment complaint really is a tell: any lawyer stooping to this is rejecting the concept of professionalism, which means that lawyers should behave in a manner that engenders the public trust. There is a lot of wiggle room in that pledge: the oath-taker doesn’t promise to be dignified and courteous, he or she only promises to “strive”–that is try—to be.
If you want see an example of a rough and tumble litigation style that I would defend as being within the bounds of acceptable civility, watch the performances of James Stewart and George C. Scott as the warring lawyers during the trial in “Anatomy of a Murder.” An example of a California lawyer charging over that line is in the entertaining series “Goliath,” where rogue attorney Billy Bob Thornton routinely uses “fuck” for effect while addressing the judge ad others.
Ethics Alarms 
Being mad at such a basic standard of professional conduct is strange indeed.
On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
I am surprised they have to take an oath every year.
Apart from being admitted to practice law in The State Mondale Won, I am also admitted in Wisconsin, where the oath contains this unattainable standard: “I will abstain from all offensive personality.”
Here is a handy guide to the oaths for all 50 states:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.inbar.org/resource/resmgr/litigation/Oaths.pdf
This may be outdated, though, as it appears Wisconsin revised its oath in 2021 to include the following language (from an article in the Wisconsin Lawyer):
Under the new oath, lawyers would vow to conduct themselves “with integrity, dignity and civility and show respect toward judges, court staff, clients, fellow professionals and all other persons.”
The article continues: “One justice noted that less than half the states have updated their attorney oaths with language on civility. Wisconsin’s attorney oath, recently administered to more than 300 new law school graduates, does not mention civility directly.”
(I don’t get it, the new oath contains civility, but “does not mention civility directly.”)
-Jut
It appears that abstaining from offensive personality is contained in 11 oaths, while the mention of “lucre” is in 19 (probably the only time most people ever utter the word “lucre” in their lives).
-Jut
“Lucre” is dirty money, right? Not sure what that means. I suppose means knowingly engaging in or accepting funds from illegal activities. Well, what if I represent cannabis distributors or marijuana sellers in Denver? Their goods are illegal under federal law and would probably run afowl of many federal drug running and RICO and money laundering statutes. But, under the Colorado law, their products are decriminalized. What is a legal Denver business to do with the cash received from sales the decriminalized products? Federally regulated or chartered banks won’t touch it. Are state regulated or chartered banks permitted to take funds from these places? What if I am lobbying for changes in state and federal drug laws to legalize or decriminalize sale of marijuana and I am paid by those businesses presently declared illegal under federal law? Is that lucre?
Or, what if I am a criminal lawyer representing a fellow accused of fentanyl distribution and he pays my legal fees in funds derived from said sale?
jvb
jvb,
As I understand it, “lucre” is money (think lucrative), while “filthy lucre” is dirty money.
The typical phrase in the oath is “nor delay any person’s cause for lucre or malice.”
So, don’t drag out a case just to make more money.
-Jut
I guess they’re trying to stop the lawyers who are assholes, or the lawyers who act like assholes because it’s good for business to stop acting like assholes. Good luck with that. My view is informed by having practiced transactional law for twenty years. (Hello litigators, you know, you’re not the only people who are lawyers. Assholes!) Lawyers are paid assholes. They operate at and mediate the tensions at the seams of people rubbing up against each other. It’s a pretty soul crushing and thankless job. These pledges are ridiculous. I can’t believe lawyers have drafted them. They are meaningless. Why not make lawyers put “Be kind!” bumper stickers on their cars. If I had to sign such a pledge in order to flush hundreds of dollars down the tube when renewing my license, I’d write, “Fuck you! and strong letter to follow” on the form.
I had a lawyer friend who was doing collection work at the time and he said something to the effect of “vice, greed and sin are my stock in trade.”
Anyway, doing litigation work, I have recently dealt with some very obnoxious attorneys on the other side. But, now I am on a bit of a streak of cooperative relationships with opposing counsel.
-Jut
Right, Jut! Vice, greed and sin create his stock in trade: delinquent accounts!
Probably a week or two after I’d been sworn in, one of the two lawyers who were supposedly supervising and training me, gave me a loan to document and negotiate. The borrower’s counsel, completely unknown to me, of course, screamed at me over the phone right out of the chute. It turned out the guy was probably the meanest, most intimidating business lawyer in Phoenix and well known for being so. The guy supervising me, a soon to be partner who’d come in as a lateral from a firm upstairs, was literally terrified to deal with the guy he’d pawned me off to deal with.
I guess my point is that once lawyers are involved, civility has already gone out the window. People don’t realize that. Commerce is dicey and not really nice. Once people are suing each other, they can’t be considered to be civil anymore. Once a deal is done on anything more than a handshake, trust has gone out the window and things are inherently less civil.
A couple of musings here. Is there a legal definition of the term “civility”? Or is it just as vague as the term “obscenity” (I know it when I see it”) or “vulgarity” (“One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric”)?
Are lawyers still allow to write mean letters?
I suppose that the term “civility” applies to behavior not in the court room. In court a judge can charge a lawyer with contempt as the following recent example demonstrates.