In the discussion about the California rules, I offered the following four propositions in the comments. My fear is that the Supreme Court of California has decided that it wants what its clerk called a minimal set of disciplinary standards with little in the way of comments. As explained in that post, I believe that California's rules are inadequate and its approach to our field is disorganized. Anyway, here are the propositions. If you agree or disagree, feel free to leave a comment (anonymously or with your name) to that effect.
(1) I believe that California’s law of lawyering should be set forth in comprehensive rules that are accessible to the public, to clients, and to lawyers.
(2) I believe we currently lack that.
(3) I believe that using the ABA structure would go a long way to accomplishing Proposition (1) without precluding California from maintaining any distinctive approaches to the law governing lawyers within the text of particular rules.
(4) I believe that the drafting of a minimal set of disciplinary rules, with little commentary, would not be in the best interests of the public, the clients, the lawyers, or the legal profession.