not designed to be a basis for civil liability. Furthermore, the purpose of the Rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons. The fact that a Rule is a just basis for a lawyer’s self-assessment, or for sanctioning a lawyer under the administration of a disciplinary authority, does not imply that an antagonist in a collateral proceeding or transaction has standing to seek enforcement of the Rule. Accordingly, nothing in the Rules should be deemed to augment any substantive legal duty of lawyers or the extra-disciplinary consequences of violating such a duty.” (Emphasis added.) The power to declare a contract void based on a violation of public policy “ ‘is a very delicate and undefined power and, like the power to declare a 15 (Ala.Civ.App.2009)(<HOLDING>). We conclude that the trial court erred to the
holding that the district court  did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial recognizing that venue defects as to a party whose portion of the action has been severed do not bar transfer of the remainder of the action recognizing that the legislature has the sole power of enacting law recognizing that the legislature has committed to the state bar the sole authority to enforce rule 15 ala r prof cond and holding that the trial court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction in a declaratoryjudgment action seeking a declaration as to the validity and enforceability of a contingencyfee agreement where the state bar was not made a party to the action