Greenberg v. Goodrich, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52881 (E.D. Pa. March 24, 2022) (Kenney, J.) This Court fully commends and supports the aims and intentions of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) in its creation of the ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) as a statement of an ideal and as a written conviction that we must be constantly vigilant and work towards eliminating discrimination and harassment in the practice of law. If the ABA were to apply the Model Rule as a standard to maintain good standing for its voluntary members, it would indeed be the gold standard. It is a measure that most members of the ABA would aspire to, as would the vast number of those in the profession not represented by the ABA. When, however, the ABA standard is adopted by government regulators and applied to all Pennsylvania licensed lawyers, as in this instance by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (the “Board”), it must pass constitutional analysis and muster. The ABA’s power over its voluntary membership is of an immensely different kind, quality, and force than that of the government over its constituents. The government cannot approach free speech in the same manner in which the ABA may choose to do so with its voluntary membership. Here, the Board adopted its own version of the ABA Model Rule and Plaintiff Zachary Greenberg challenges the Rule on the basis that it violates his individual right to free speech. Plaintiff argues that the Board should not have the power to investigate, interrogate, and discipline attorneys based on this Rule, and the regulation is otherwise too vague to equitably enforce. In conclusion, the Court finds that Rule 8.4(g) is an unconstitutional infringement of free speech according to the protections provided by the First Amendment. The Court also finds that Rule 8.4(g) is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement and denies Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.