Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`IN RE EDWARD R. REINES,
`Respondent.
`______________________
`
`14-MA004 (14-4)
`______________________
`
`Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK,
`MOORE, O'MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, and
`HUGHES Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46,
`it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Edward
`R. Reines, a member of the bar of this court, is publicly
`reprimanded for his misconduct in disseminating an
`email to clients and prospective clients that he received
`from then-Chief Judge Rader.
`I
`Respondent is a member of the bar of this court, hav-
`ing been admitted to practice on October 1, 1993. At that
`time, he took an oath to “comport [himself] as an attorney
`and counselor of this court, uprightly and in accordance
`with the law . . . .” Respondent has appeared frequently
`before this court, and has served as the chair of the court’s
`Advisory Council.
`This matter had its genesis in oral argument held on
`March 4, 2014, in two companion cases: Promega Corp. v.
`
`PROTIVA - EXHIBIT 2002
`Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. v. Protiva Biotherapeautics, Inc.
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`2
`
` IN RE REINES
`
`Life Technologies Corp., 2013-1011 and Promega Corp. v.
`Applied Biosystems, LLC, 2013-1454. Respondent repre-
`sented the appellants in both cases on appeal, and pre-
`sented the oral arguments.
`The next day, on March 5, 2014, at 3:24 p.m. EST,
`then-Chief Judge Rader sent a private email to the re-
`spondent.1 In the email, then-Chief Judge Rader, who was
`
`1 The email is included as Attachment A to this order.
`The subject line of the email was “Congratulations.” The
`text of the email is as follows:
`Ed,
` On Wednesday, as you know, the judges meet
`for a strictly social lunch. We usually discuss poli-
`tics and pay raises. Today, in the midst of the
`general banter, one of my female colleagues inter-
`rupted and addressed herself to me. She said that
`she was vastly impressed with the advocacy of
`“my friend, Ed.” She said that you had handled
`two very complex cases, back to back. In one case,
`you were opposed by Seth Waxman. She said Seth
`had a whole battery of assistants passing him
`notes and keeping him on track. You were alone
`and IMPRESSIVE in every way. In both cases,
`you knew the record cold and handled every ques-
`tion with confidence and grace. She said that she
`was really impressed with your performance. Two
`of my other colleagues immediately echoed her en-
`thusiasm over your performance.
`
`I, of course, pointed out that I had taught you
`everything you know in our recent class at Berke-
`ley together . . . NOT! I added the little enhance-
`ment that you can do the same thing with almost
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
` IN RE REINES
`
` 3
`
`not a member of either panel, stated that judges on the
`Promega panels at a judges-only lunch had praised re-
`spondent’s performance at the oral arguments. The email
`referred to a special friendship between Mr. Reines and
`then-Chief Judge Rader. In the email, then-Chief Judge
`Rader referred to Mr. Reines as “my friend” and said, “[i]n
`sum, I was really proud to be your friend today!” Then-
`Chief Judge Rader closed with “[y]our friend for life.” The
`email also added an effusive endorsement by then-Chief
`Judge Rader himself and contained an invitation to share
`the email with others.
`Respondent then circulated the email to no fewer than
`35 existing and prospective clients, with accompanying
`comments soliciting their business based on the email.
`The majority of the more than 70 individuals who re-
`ceived it were lawyers, but some were non-lawyers. Re-
`spondent told some recipients that this type of feedback
`
`
`any topic of policy: mastering the facts and law
`without the slightest hesitation or pause!
`
`In sum, I was really proud to be your friend
`today! You bring great credit on yourself and all
`associated with you!
`
`And actually I not only do not mind, but en-
`courage you to let others see this message.
`
`Your friend for life, rrr
`We note that the email contained certain inaccuracies, as
`then-Chief Judge Rader has himself noted. Letter from
`then-Chief Judge Randall Rader to Federal Circuit Judg-
`es (May 23, 2014) (“The email reported, with certain
`inaccuracies, a conversation I had with another member
`of the court . . . .”).
`
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`4
`
`
`
` IN RE REINES
`
`was “unusual” or “quite unusual.” Reines Ex. 4; Ex. 8; Ex.
`44; Ex. 45.
`On June 5, 2014, we ordered that respondent show
`cause as to why his actions associated with the email did
`not warrant discipline by this court, inter alia, because
`they violated Rule 8.4(e) of the American Bar Associa-
`tion’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The Show
`Cause order is included as Attachment B to this order.
`Model Rule 8.4(e) provides that it is professional miscon-
`duct for a lawyer to “state or imply an ability to influence
`improperly a government agency or official or to achieve
`results by means that violate the Rules of Professional
`Conduct or other law.” Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.
`8.4(e) (2014).
`Mr. Reines responded to the show cause order on July
`7, 2014. Respondent acknowledged forwarding the email
`to clients and potential clients. Mr. Reines argued, inter
`alia, that he did not imply any improper influence under
`Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(e); according to
`Mr. Reines, he forwarded the email “because information
`about [his] skill at oral advocacy is an appropriate consid-
`eration in the selection of counsel.” Decl. of Edward R.
`Reines ¶ 19. Respondent also argued that ordering disci-
`pline would be unconstitutional under the First Amend-
`ment. Mr. Reines included statements of experts in legal
`ethics to support his arguments. Mr. Reines did not
`request a hearing in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule
`of Appellate Procedure 46(c) and Federal Circuit Attorney
`Discipline Rule 5(b).
`Because of the importance of this matter, we deter-
`mined to consider it en banc.
`II
`It is initially important to review the source of the
`court’s authority. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46
`provides that a member of the bar of a court of appeals is
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
` IN RE REINES
`
` 5
`
`subject to suspension or disbarment if he or she “is guilty
`of conduct unbecoming a member of the court’s bar.” Fed.
`R. App. P. 46(b)(1)(B). Similarly, any attorney who prac-
`tices before the court may be subject to discipline “for
`conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.” Id. 46(c). The
`Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 46 to “require[]
`members of the bar to conduct themselves in a manner
`compatible with the role of courts in the administration of
`justice.” In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 644–45 (1985). This
`court and other circuits have imposed discipline under
`Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46.2
`In determining whether an attorney’s conduct consti-
`tutes “conduct unbecoming a member of the bar” under
`Rule 46, courts are to be guided “by case law, applicable
`court rules, and ‘the lore of the profession,’ as embodied in
`codes of professional conduct.” Id. at 645. These sources of
`guidance include the code of professional conduct promul-
`gated by the attorney’s home state bar. While state ethics
`rules “do[] not by [their] own terms apply to sanctions in
`the federal courts,” a federal court “is entitled to rely on
`the attorney’s knowledge of the state code of professional
`conduct . . . .” Id. at 645 n.6. Here, respondent is a mem-
`ber of the State Bar of California. We have also adopted
`Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rules, establishing
`procedures for attorney discipline, but not elaborating on
`the substantive standard for imposing discipline.
`We conclude that with respect to the email dissemina-
`tion we should look to the Model Rules of Professional
`Conduct rather than to the rules of any individual state.
`We note that other circuits have imposed discipline by
`
`2 See, e.g., In re Violation of Rule 28(D), 635 F.3d
`1352, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Girardi, 611 F.3d
`1027, 1035 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Mann, 311 F.3d 788,
`790–91 (7th Cir. 2002).
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 6 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`6
`
`
`
` IN RE REINES
`
`referring to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.3 We
`think that Model Rule 8.4(e) sets forth the relevant
`standard.
`
`III
`We consider whether disseminating the email violated
`Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(e). Rule 8.4(e)
`states that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer
`to . . . state or imply an ability to influence improperly a
`government agency or official to achieve results by means
`that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other
`law.” Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 8.4(e) (2014 ed.). “A
`lawyer who suggests that he or another lawyer is able to
`influence a judge or other public official because of a
`personal relationship violates Rule 8.4(e).” Lawyers’
`Manual on Prof’l Conduct (ABA/BNA), at 101:703 (Mar.
`30, 2011). Respondent argues that the dissemination of
`the email was not improper because it did not suggest an
`improper influence but instead was an “unusually gener-
`ous compliment from an unnamed jurist . . . about [re-
`spondent’s] skill at oral advocacy.” Decl. of Edward R.
`Reines ¶ 19.
`While the dissemination of complimentary comments
`by a judge contained in a public document would not itself
`
`
`3 See Girardi, 611 F.3d at 1035 (imposing discipline
`for violations of Model Rule 3.1 and state bar rules); In re
`Cook, 551 F.3d 542, 554 (6th Cir. 2009) (affirming district
`court disbarment, citing violations of Model Rules 8.4, 1.8,
`and 4.2 in support of discipline); In re Cordova-Gonzalez,
`996 F.2d 1334, 1335 (1st Cir. 1993) (noting that attorney
`also violated Model Rule 1.8(a) in affirming disbarment
`imposed by district court for violation of Model Rule
`8.4(d)).
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 7 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
` IN RE REINES
`
` 7
`
`constitute a violation of Model Rule 8.4(e),4 we conclude
`respondent’s actions violated the rule. First, the email
`both explicitly describes and implies a special relationship
`between respondent and then-Chief Judge Rader. The
`text of the email describes a close friendship between the
`two. The email included the language, “[i]n sum, I was
`really proud to be your friend today,” and closed with
`“[y]our friend for life.” The very fact that the email was a
`private communication rather than a public document
`implies a special relationship, and then-Chief Judge
`Rader’s sharing of internal court discussions (which would
`be ordinarily treated as confidential) about the lawyer’s
`performance in a pending case implies an unusually close
`relationship between respondent and the then-Chief
`Judge. Respondent’s comments transmitting the email
`also convey a special relationship with then-Chief Judge
`Rader and the Federal Circuit. Respondent described the
`email as “unusual” or “quite unusual” in some of his
`accompanying comments, Reines Ex. 4; Ex. 8; Ex. 44; Ex.
`45, and referenced his “stature” within the court and his
`role as chair of the Federal Circuit’s Advisory Council,
`Reines Ex. 38.
`Second, recipients of the email also viewed it as sug-
`gesting the existence of a special relationship between
`respondent and then-Chief Judge Rader and perhaps
`other judges of the court. Several responses referred to
`the high opinion then-Chief Judge Rader and judges in
`general had for Mr. Reines. 5 Other responses specifically
`
`
`4 See, e.g., Public Citizen, Inc. v. La. Attorney Discipli-
`nary Bd., 632 F.3d 212, 221–22 (5th Cir. 2011); Alexander
`v. Cahill, 598 F.3d 79, 92 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Dwyer v.
`Cappell, 762 F.3d 275, 283–84 (3d Cir. 2014).
`5 See Reines Ex. 15 (“it’s clear [judges] hold you in
`high regard—you easily engage in discussions with them
`
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 8 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`8
`
`
`
` IN RE REINES
`
`referenced the friendship between respondent and then-
`Chief Judge Rader.6
`Third, the transmission of the email did more than
`suggest that respondent should be retained because of his
`superior advocacy skills. It suggested that his special
`relationship with the court should be taken into account.
`Respondent touted his role as chair of this court’s Adviso-
`ry Council, and stated that his “stature” within the court
`had helped “flip” a $52 million judgment in favor of his
`client and that he “would love to help [the recipient of his
`message] do the same.” Reines Ex. 38. Another lawyer in
`respondent’s firm in forwarding the email stated that
`respondent “knows the judges extremely well.” Reines Ex.
`49. Albeit respondent noted that he did not approve of the
`communication, he took no steps to advise the recipient of
`his disapproval. Decl. of Edward R. Reines ¶ 21.
`Fourth, in sending the email to clients and prospec-
`tive clients, respondent sought to directly influence their
`decisions about retaining counsel. He typically stated,
`“[a]s you continue to consider us for your Federal Circuit
`needs, I thought the below email from Chief Judge Rader
`
`
`and they often hang on your words and are eager to gain
`insights from you”); Ex. 15 (“it was completely evident in
`the event in your offices last month that the judges had
`an enormous amount of respect for you”); Ex. 16 (the
`email “speaks of the high regard he and others have for
`you”).
`6 See Reines Ex. 28 (“I share with Judge Rader great
`admiration for your legal acumen, as well as the honor of
`your friendship.”); Ex. 40 (“It’s clear [then-Chief Judge
`Rader]’s an enormous fan.”); Ex. 48 (then-Chief Judge
`Rader seemed like “a pretty cool dude and a great friend
`too”).
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 9 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
` IN RE REINES
`
` 9
`
`might be helpful.” Reines Ex. 11.7 Prospective clients
`likewise stated that they would consider it in making
`retention decisions.8
`Finally, the email itself and respondent’s comments
`accompanying the sending of the email suggested that
`Federal Circuit judges would look favorably on the reten-
`tion of respondent. Then-Chief Judge Rader invited
`respondent to distribute the email to others. Respondent
`suggested that clients should “listen[] to . . . the Federal
`Circuit judges[.]” Reines Ex. 30.
`It would blink reality not to view respondent’s action
`as suggesting his retention because his special relation-
`
`7 Reines included the same language in many of his
`emails. See Reines Ex. 3; Ex. 10; Ex. 13; Ex. 15; Ex. 16;
`Ex. 17; Ex. 19; Ex. 20; Ex. 21; Ex. 22; Ex. 23; Ex. 24; Ex.
`29; Ex. 30; Ex. 32; Ex. 33; Ex. 34; Ex. 35; Ex. 36; Ex. 39;
`Ex. 41; Ex. 42; Ex. 43; Ex. 46; Ex. 48 (all containing the
`same or similar language.); see also Reines Ex. 4 (“I would
`be delighted to work with you again should that fit your
`needs.”); Reines Ex. 8 (“With these appeals completed, I’m
`hopeful that we will continue to work with TF and the
`Life unit, notwithstanding the exciting changes. Your
`support in that regard would of course also be appreciat-
`ed.”).
`8 See Ex. 3 (“I will certainly keep it in mind”); Ex. 19
`(“Will keep [the email] here. Very useful.”); Ex. 22 (“I’m
`definitely interested in learning more about Weil’s appel-
`late practice.”); Ex. 30 (“[A colleague] was just saying the
`same thing recently and suggested we find a way to get
`you more involved with our appeal strategies and Fed Cir
`activities.”); Ex. 39 (“we will keep your firm in mind going
`forward”); Ex. 41 (“we will definitely keep you in mind”);
`Ex. 46 (“We will keep you in mind, for sure, in our trips to
`the Federal Circuit.”).
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 10 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`10
`
`
`
` IN RE REINES
`
`ship would help to secure a favorable outcome at the
`Federal Circuit. Under these circumstances, forwarding
`the email to clients and potential clients “impl[ies] an
`ability to influence improperly a government agency or
`official to achieve results by means that violate the Rules
`of Professional Conduct or other law.” Model Rules of
`Prof’l Conduct R. 8.4(e) (2014).
`IV
`The next question is what discipline should be im-
`posed.
`In determining the discipline to impose, we look to
`“the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.”
`Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement R.
`10(C)(4). In this respect, we consider that respondent is
`generally well-regarded in the legal community and has
`rendered important service to this court as the chair of its
`Advisory Council and in other capacities. It appears that
`he has never previously been disciplined. Respondent has
`recognized that “it was a mistake to distribute the Email,
`and [he] apologize[d] for having done so.” Personal State-
`ment of Edward E. Reines. The violation involved an
`implicit suggestion rather than an explicit statement of
`ability to influence. Then-Chief Judge Rader’s invitation
`to share the message with others also mitigates the
`impropriety of the respondent’s action though it does not
`excuse it.
`We note, however, that we are troubled by certain
`statements by Mr. Reines seeking to minimize his rela-
`tionship with then-Chief Judge Rader. Certain record
`facts suggest that the relationship was closer than Mr.
`Reines’s submissions indicate, suggesting that Mr. Reines
`did not fully describe the nature and extent of the rela-
`tionship. Finally, the fact that Mr. Reines circulated the
`email extensively and that it became a matter of general
`public knowledge warrants a public response by this
`court.
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 11 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
` IN RE REINES
`
` 11
`
`Under the circumstances, and considering all the rel-
`evant circumstances, we conclude that a public reprimand
`is the appropriate discipline.
`V
`Respondent argues that the First Amendment pro-
`tects disseminating compliments received from judges and
`makes it unconstitutional to subject him to discipline.
`The Supreme Court has held that attorney advertis-
`ing may not be “subjected to blanket suppression.” Bates
`v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350, 383 (1977). In Bates,
`the Court held that advertisements that listed legal
`services and corresponding prices could not be restricted.
`See id. at 384; see also In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 205–06
`(1982) (state could not ban an attorney from sending
`mailings about an office opening to a general audience);
`In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 422 (1978) (state could not
`discipline sending a targeted letter “communicating an
`offer of free assistance by attorneys associated with the
`ACLU” in order to “express personal political beliefs and
`to advance the civil-liberties objectives of the ACLU,
`rather than derive financial gain”); Zauderer v. Office of
`Disciplinary Council of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S.
`626, 645 (1985) (state could not impose discipline for
`newspaper advertisements which were “easily verifiable
`and completely accurate”).
`But the right to communicate with clients and pro-
`spective clients is not unfettered. In Ohralik v. Ohio State
`Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447 (1978), the Court upheld disci-
`pline against a lawyer for in-person solicitation of clients,
`recognizing the state’s “particularly strong” interest in
`attorney conduct. Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 449, 460. The
`Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionally of a
`state’s “30-day restriction on targeted direct-mail solicita-
`tion of accident victims and their relatives,” recognizing
`the bar’s “substantial interest both in protecting injured
`[citizens] from invasive conduct by lawyers and in pre-
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 12 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`12
`
`
`
` IN RE REINES
`
`venting the erosion of confidence in the profession . . . .”
`Fla. Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 635 (1995).
`A lawyer’s dissemination of compliments contained in
`judicial opinions was addressed in Dwyer v. Cappell, 762
`F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2014). The Third Circuit held that an
`attorney-conduct guideline banning advertising with
`quotations from judicial opinions unless the opinions
`appear in full was unconstitutional. Id. at 276. But re-
`spondent cites no authority and we are aware of none
`which calls into question the validity of Model Rule 8.4(e)
`or recognizes a right to suggest a special relationship with
`a judge to improperly influence a court.
`As the Supreme Court recognized in Ohralik and
`Florida Bar, a strong interest exists in protecting the
`integrity of the legal profession and in protecting the
`public from misleading commercial speech by attorneys.
`See Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 460; Fla. Bar, 515 U.S. at 635.
`The compliments here were centered in a private commu-
`nication and both stated and implied a special relation-
`ship between the respondent and then-Chief Judge Rader.
`The comments to existing and potential clients invited
`respondent’s retention in future matters based on this
`relationship. Attorney speech which “state[s] or impl[ies]
`an ability to influence improperly a government agency or
`official or to achieve results by means that violate the
`Rules of Professional Conduct or other law,” Model Rules
`of Prof’l Conduct R. 8.4(e) (2014), is either misleading
`(because the attorney has no ability to influence the
`official) or, if true, solicits business based on an offer to
`improperly influence the public official.
`VI
`In the course of considering the email matter dis-
`cussed above, we considered another matter relating to
`Mr. Reines. This additional matter is separate from and
`does not directly involve the email matter discussed
`above. This matter concerns the exchange of items of
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 13 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
` IN RE REINES
`
` 13
`
`value between Mr. Reines and then-Chief Judge Rader.
`On Mr. Reines’s side, he provided a ticket for one concert,
`at another concert arranged for upgrading to a standing
`area near the stage, and arranged for backstage access for
`then-Chief Judge Rader at both. Then-Chief Judge Rader
`paid for accommodations. This occurred while Mr. Reines
`had cases pending before this court. We do not decide
`whether Mr. Reines’s actions violated standards of profes-
`sional responsibility. We have decided to refer this sepa-
`rate matter and the underlying relevant documents to the
`California bar authorities for their consideration.
`In the ordinary course, having concluded that a public
`reprimand is warranted, we would disclose the full record
`of proceedings. See Fed. Cir. Attorney Disc. R. 10(b). We
`are authorized, however, to maintain confidentiality of
`portions of the record. In referring this matter to the
`California bar authorities, we have determined to enter a
`protective order and to place the filings relating to the
`matter under seal since this does not concern a matter as
`to which we have imposed discipline. Federal Circuit
`Attorney Discipline Rule 10(b) allows for placing a “per-
`manent protective order prohibiting the disclosure of any
`part of the record to protect the interest of a complainant,
`a witness, a third party or nonparty, or the attorney” even
`after an order has issued. Fed. Cir. Attorney Disc. R.
`10(b). The California rules also provide for confidentiality
`during the period of investigation. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
`§ 6086.1(b). We leave it to the California bar authorities
`whether and when such materials should be disclosed.
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`Respondent is publicly reprimanded, and the
`(1)
`pleadings related to the show cause order are
`placed on the public record;
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 14 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`14
`
`
`
` IN RE REINES
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`
`
`
`
`Respondent shall send copies of this Order to
`all courts or jurisdictions in which he is admit-
`ted; and
`The unresolved matter is referred to the Cali-
`fornia bar authorities, together with relevant
`correspondence, and those documents shall be
`placed under seal, without prejudice as to a
`determination by the California bar authori-
`ties whether the matter should be disclosed.
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` November 5, 2014
`
` Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: Michael Sundermeyer, William Burke, and Peter
`Anthony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
`
` Daniel E. O’Toole
`
`Clerk of Court
`
`

`

`nt
`From: "Chie??s§ge1l€'aéer, RDogwfizgflicfi?cgfsctggns.05jo 11/05/2014
`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 15 Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`
`Date: March 5,2014 at 3:24:12 PM EST
`To: Edward Reines <edward.reines@weil.com>
`
`Subject: Congratulations
`
`Ed.
`
`On Wednesday. as you know, the judges meet for a strictly
`social lunch. We usually discuss politics and pay raises. Today, in
`the midst of the general banter, one of my female colleagues
`interrupted and addressed herself to me. She said that she was
`vastly impressed with the advocacy of “my friend, Ed." She said
`that you had handled two very complex cases, back to back. In one
`case. you were opposed by Seth Waxman. She said Seth had a
`Whole battery of assistants passing him notes and keeping him on
`track. You were alone and IMPRESSIVE in every way. In both
`cases, you knew the record cold and handled every question with
`confidence and grace. She said that she was really impressed with
`your performance. Two of my other colleagues immediately echoed
`her enthusiasm over your performance.
`I, of course, pointed out that I had taught you everything you
`know in our recent class at Berkeley together .
`.
`. NOT!
`I added the
`little enhancement that you can do the same thing with almost any
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 16 Filed: 11/05/2014
`Filed: 11/05/2014
`Page: 16
`Document: 16
`Case: 14-4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`topic of policy: mastering the facts and law without the slightest
`
`
`
`hesitation or pause!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In sum, I was really proud to be your friend todayl You bring
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`great credit on yourself and all associated with you!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`And actually I not only do not mind, but encourage you to let
`
`
`
`
`others see this message.
`
`
`
`
`Your friend for life, rrr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. lithe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`recipient. you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prohibited. if you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, postmaster©weil.com,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and destroy the original message. Thank you.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 17 Filed: 11/05/2014
`Case: 14-4
`Document: 16
`Page: 17
`Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`Attachment B
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`Qfintteb games Qtuurt of Qppealz
`
`for the feneral Qttrtuit
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`IN RE EDWARD R. REINES,
`Respondent.
`
`14-MA004
`
`Before PROST, Chief Judge, and NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK,
`MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARAN’I‘O, CHEN, and
`HUGHES, Circuit Judges.1
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
`Procedure and Rules 2(e) and 5(b) of the Federal Circuit
`Attorney Discipline Rules, this court issues a show cause
`order to Edward R. Reines, requesting that he show cause
`why he should not be disciplined for conduct unbecoming
`a member of the bar.
`
`1. Rule 46 provides that a member of the bar of a
`court of appeals is subject to suspension or disbarment if
`he or she “is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of
`the court’s bar.” Fed. R. App. P. 46(b)(1)(B). Similarly, any
`attorney who practices before the court may be subject to
`discipline “for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.”
`
`
`1
`
`Circuit Judge Rader is recused in this matter.
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 18 Filed: 11/05/2014
`Case: 14-4
`Document: 16
`Page: 18
`Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE EDWARD R. REINES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. 46(0). The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 46 to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“require[] members of the bar to conduct themselves in a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`manner compatible with the role of courts in the admin-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`istration of justice.” In re Snyder, 472 US. 634, 644—45
`
`(1985).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. In determining whether an attorney’s conduct con-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stitutes “conduct unbecoming a member of the bar” within
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 46, courts are to be guided “by case law, applicable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`court rules, and ‘the lore of the profession,’ as embodied in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`codes of professional conduct.” Id. at 645. These sources of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`guidance include the code of professional conduct promul-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gated by the attorney’s home state bar. While state ethics
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rules “do[] not by [their] own terms apply to sanctions in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the federal courts,” a federal court “is entitled to rely on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the attorney’s knowledge of the state code of professional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conduct.” Id. at 645 n.6. Here, Mr. Reines is a member of
`
`
`
`
`
`the State Bar of California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Rule 8.4(e) of the American Bar Association’s Model
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct states that “[i]t is profes-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sional misconduct for a lawyer to. .
`. state or imply an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ability to influence improperly a government agency or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`official to achieve results by means that violate the Rules
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of Professional Conduct or other law.” Model Rules of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Profl Conduct R. 84(6) (2013 ed.). “A lawyer who suggests
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that he or another lawyer is able to influence a judge or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`other public official because of a personal relationship
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`violates Rule 84(6).” Laws. Man. on Prof. Conduct
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(ABA/BNA), at 1012703 (March 30, 2011). See also Cal. R.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Profl Conduct 1-400 (“Advertising and Solicitation”);
`id.
`
`
`
`
`
`Standard 6 (creating a presumption that “[a] ‘communica-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tion’ in the form of a firm name, trade name, fictitious
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`name, or other professional designation which states or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`implies a relationship between any member in private
`
`
`
`
`
`
`practice and a government agency or instrumentality”
`
`
`
`violates Rule 1-400).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 14-4 Document: 16 Page: 19 Filed: 11/05/2014
`Case: 14-4
`Document: 16
`Page: 19
`Filed: 11/05/2014
`
`IN RE EDWARD R. REINES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. The following has come to the court’s attention: On
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or about March 5, 2014, then-Chief Judge Rader sent the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`attached email
`to you. See Attachment A. It has been
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`alleged that you disseminated the attached email
`to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Clients and to potential clients in soliciting their business,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`implying a special relationship with the judge. If accurate,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this allegation raises questions concerning a Violation of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prohibiting conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, this allegedly occurred during a time when you
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`had cases pending before then-Chief Judge Rader.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5. The court directs you to show cause as to why these
`
`
`
`
`
`
`actions do not warrant disbarment, suspension, sanction,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or other attorney discipline. In addition to addressing the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`possible ethical violation, your response should include
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the following information in the form of an affidavit or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`declaration:
`(1) whether you or anyone acting on your
`
`
`
`
`