Also known as: Model Rules 3.3 · Rule 3.3 · MRPC 3.3 · ABA Model Rule 3.3
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A rule of professional conduct that bars a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or failing to correct a material false statement previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer. The rule further requires reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, when a lawyer knows a client intends to engage in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding or when the lawyer knows of directly adverse controlling authority not disclosed by opposing counsel.
Miranda Morales tells her defense lawyer that she plans to testify she was not at the scene of the robbery even though she was. The lawyer urges her not to lie and, when she insists, informs the court that he cannot present her testimony. The court allows the lawyer to withdraw from the perjury portion of the case without violating the client's right to effective assistance.
Mohan Malhotra represents a criminal defendant on appeal and locates a recent controlling decision that directly rejects the exact argument he plans to raise. Opposing counsel has not cited the case. Malhotra files a brief that omits the decision, leaving the appellate court without the binding authority that undercuts his client's position.
Ellis T. McCoy, an indigent defendant, was convicted by a Wisconsin trial judge of abduction and sexual assault and sentenced to twelve years in prison. He filed an appeal from that conviction, and the court appointed an attorney to represent him. After studying the case, the appointed attorney advised McCoy that further appellate proceedings would be completely useless. The attorney presented three options: voluntarily dismiss the appeal, proceed without a lawyer, or authorize the attorney to file a brief presenting the strongest arguments for reversal while also advising the court of the conclusion that the appeal was frivolous. McCoy selected the third option. Counsel then prepared a brief that set forth the facts, advanced four arguments for reversal, and prayed that the conviction be set aside. In the same document, counsel stated that further appellate proceedings would be frivolous and without any arguable merit and prayed that he be permitted to withdraw. The brief contained no explanation of the reasons for counsel's conclusion that the appeal lacked merit. Because the brief did not comply with the discussion requirement in Rule 809.32(1), the court ordered it stricken and directed counsel to submit a conforming brief within fifteen days. Counsel did not comply. After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain a ruling on the constitutionality of the rule in the intermediate appellate court, counsel filed an original action in the Wisconsin Supreme Court seeking to have the discussion requirement declared unconstitutional. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the rule. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument.
View caseA lawyer must correct a false statement of material fact or law once the lawyer later learns it was inaccurate. The duty continues until the proceeding ends and applies even if the information is otherwise confidential.
Supporting sources
Yes. A lawyer must disclose legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction that is known to be directly adverse to the client's position and that has not been disclosed by opposing counsel.
Supporting sources
The lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures, which may include disclosure to the tribunal if other steps such as persuasion or withdrawal prove inadequate.
Supporting sources
Yes. The obligation to avoid false statements and to correct material falsehoods applies to any adjudicative proceeding, including those before professional responsibility boards.
Supporting sources