Motivated in part by this concern, the American Bar Association (ABA) established the Kutak Commission (formerly the Commission for the Evaluation of Professional Standards) in 1977 to assess the relevance of existing ethical rules, including the Model Code of Professional Liability. [28] Chaired by Robert J. Kutak, co-founder of the law firm Kutak Rock LLP, the Commission has set itself the goal of “developing professional standards that are comprehensive, consistent, constitutional and, most importantly, consistent with other laws to which they belong.” [28] Although the MRPC does not have binding effect per se, some courts and administrative authorities, which are not limited to a single state, refer to the MRPC or explicitly follow it in their opinions, court orders or regulations. California`s new rules are numbered to accurately match their MRPC analogues. [3] Until recently, California had not adopted the MRPC. [2] California`s recent changes to largely adopt the MRPC are the result of a lengthy attempt to overhaul the state`s ethics rules. Because federal district courts sit in a single state, many use that state`s professional rules. [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] During the drafting process and debate, the Kutak Commission recommended, and the House of Representatives agreed that, for ease of use, the MRPC should be presented in a format similar to the American Law Institute`s Reformulations of the Law with numbered rules and additional commentaries on each rule. [24] The Commission submitted that this format would be familiar to counsel and would clearly distinguish between the “black letter rules” and the useful but non-binding “interpretative guidelines” in the comments. [24] The U.S.

Supreme Court occasionally refers to the MRPC when considering cases involving the conduct of counsel in any way. For example, in 1986, in Nix v. . . .