Lewis & Clark Law Review
First Page
1063
Abstract
Though a growing number of states have legalized recreational or medical cannabis use, cannabis is still categorized as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, and its use, possession, and cultivation are federal offenses. This conflict between state and federal law creates a unique challenge for the legal community. Unless states with legalized cannabis programs have amended their state rules of professional conduct or provided advisory opinions on the matter, local attorneys assume a great deal of risk when representing clients within the cannabis industry.
To further complicate matters, what happens when a lawyer, who is licensed to work in a state with amended rules or prescribed ethical guidance, attempts to relocate to a state without such measures? Might their bar applications be denied? This Note explores the hypothetical example of a fictional attorney who is faced with such a predicament. What are her options? Can she challenge the constitutionality of the decision?
As the number of states across the country legalizing cannabis use increases, so too does the probability of scenarios like the one presented in this Note. I examine not only the potential constitutional arguments for lawyers placed in these difficult situations, but also the various measures that can be taken at the state and federal level to avoid such quandaries altogether.
Recommended Citation
Hayley Hollis,
Cannabis Law, the Constitution, and the ABA Model Rules,
23
Lewis & Clark L. Rev.
1063
(2019).
Available at:
https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/lclr/vol23/iss3/9
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons