Ethics Case Analysis Lake Pleasant Bodies Case (A)

Submitted By: Group #6 March 2, 1999

Background Attorney Frank Armani has been assigned by a district court in the State of New York to defend Robert Garrow, a convicted rapist and suspected child molester, for the murder of an eighteen year-old camper in the Adirondack Mountains near Lake Pleasant, New York. Mr. Armani had provided advice to Mr. Garrow on three previous occasions, a minor auto accident and a charge of unlawful imprisonment and possession of a dangerous drug, which were later dismissed. In addition, Mr. Armani had been retained by Garrow to defend him for allegedly molesting two young girls. Mr. Garrow never appeared for trial and shortly thereafter was identified as the murderer of the camper near Lake Pleasant.

Investigators suspected that Garrow was also responsible for the murder of Daniel Porter and the disappearance of Susan Petz, two campers in the same area. Authorities believed that Susan Petz could still be alive and wanted Garrow to reveal her whereabouts. Garrow was finally located, and while being apprehended by police was shot several times. Before going into surgery, Garrow requested that Armani defend him on the murder charge and from that point forward refused to talk with anyone else.

Armani was reluctant to accept the case because of Garrows background and his own lack of criminal defense experience; however, he felt an obligation to meet with Garrow in the hospital. The police asked Armani to let them know if Garrow revealed anything about Susan Petzs whereabouts. Garrow was unwilling to talk to Armani about any of the murders and denied killing anyone. Garrow did not have the resources to hire a

private attorney. The court appointed Armani to defend Garrow because of their ongoing relationship, despite Armanis lack of murder defense experience. Armani asked his friend Francis Belge, an experienced criminal defense attorney, to help in the defense of Garrow. Belge initially refused, but later agreed to be co-counsel.

Garrow still refused to be forthcoming with information for his defense or to admit murdering anyone. Armani persuaded Garrow to submit to hypnosis, during which he planted suggestions that Garrow should cooperate fully during an afternoon interview. During the afternoon interview Garrow described killing a young lady named Alicia Hauck, as well as killing Porter and Petz. Garrow also described where he hid the bodies of Petz and Hauck. However, Garrow denied involvement in any other crimes, including the murder of the original camper for which he was being held.

Belge and Armani confirmed Garrows story by locating Petzs body in an abandoned mine shaft. Belge later located Haucks body in the vicinity of where Garrow had described. Belge and Garrow believed they could not tell anyone of their findings because of the legal and ethical responsibilities involved in the attorney-client privilege.

Susan Petzs father has now come to see Armani in an attempt to get information regarding the whereabouts of his daughter.

Issues The primary ethical issue facing Frank Armani is whether or not to tell Susan Petzs father where his daughters body is located. Withholding the information from Mr. Petz would be a violation of Armanis personal ethics and emotions. Armani wants to give the Petz family closure regarding the welfare of their daughter. Armani feels empathetic toward the Petz family because his own parents suffered pain when his younger brother disappeared over the North Sea and the body was never recovered. Armani imagines how he would feel and that he would want to know the outcome if it were his daughter. However, by disclosing the location of the body, Armani would violate the attorneyclient privilege and the ethical duty of confidentiality to his client.

The attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the testimonial privileges protecting confidential communications (Internet 1). Generally the privilege covers legal advice, and guidance and communications between the lawyer and the client. While the privilege belongs to the client, it is the attorneys ethical responsibility to be the guardian of the clients privilege. In New York, where this case is located, the attorney-client privilege, which is codified in C.P.L.R. 4503, is broader in scope than the federal common-law standard in that the privilege applies when an attorneys communication is made to render legal advice or services to the client (Internet 2). The federal standard defines the privilege only for communication containing confidential client information.

Canon 4 of the American Bar Association Model Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer should preserve the confidences and secrets of a client (Cannon

95). Information that the client has requested be kept confidential or information that would be detrimental to the clients case are covered by this Code. The client must consent to the disclosure of the confidential or detrimental information.

There are four conditions under which the Code allows confidentiality to be broken: Client Consent When Required by the Model Code, law, or court order To prevent the commission of a crime To establish or collect a fee or to defend against an accusation of wrongful conduct.

Armani should consider these conditions when formulating his ethical and legal position on the issues.

The essence of the privilege is that an attorney cannot give the best legal advice to the client without being fully informed of all the facts. A client may be reluctant to talk freely if there is fear that the attorney would disclose the information. As was ruled in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976), As a practical matter, if the client knows that damaging information could more readily be obtained from the attorney following disclosure than from himself in the absence of disclosure, the client would be reluctant to confide in his lawyer and it would be difficult to obtain fully informed legal advice.

Ethical Theories There are several theories explaining the origin of ethics and moral standards. Positive law, natural law, moral relativism, and religious beliefs are among these theories

(Jennings 41). Positive law states that ethical decisions are based upon whether or not a particular action is legal. If the action is legal, then it is ethical. Natural law is the theory that some universal code governs our behavior and that this code applies to everyone. Natural law does not consider whether the action is legal or not. A third way to assess ethics is to consider the situation. Moral relativism bases morality and ethics on the circumstances of a particular decision. For example, stealing may be ethically correct if the situation justifies the thievery. Finally, religious beliefs are a way to explain ethical and moral conduct. Writings such as the Bible and the Koran serve to guide many people in their decisions of right and wrong.

The three most frequently used theories of ethical decision making are Egoism, Deontology, and Utilitarianism. Simply put, Ethical Egoism is the idea that we should always act selfishly (Internet 3). A true egoist does not believe in laws or moral codes, unless these laws and codes support the egoists self-interest. As described by John Beverley Robinson in his essay Egoism, egoism is the realization by the individual that he is above all institutions and all formulas; that they exist only so far as he chooses to make them his own by accepting them (Internet 4). If Frank Armani were an egoist, he would inform Daniel Petz of the location of Petzs daughter. The sole reason Armani would relate information about Petzs daughter is because Armani wants to tell Petz. This decision is purely selfish and is made irrespective of the ethical code of his profession.

Deontology is the belief that the rightness and wrongness of actions does not depend entirely on considerations of goodness (Internet 5). Instead, decisions are made based on the individuals personal moral code. This moral code may or may not be based on generally accepted principles of law and ethics. Under deontology, an individual would always make the same decision in all situations. The decision would be based on a sense of obligation (Internet 6). If Frank Armani were a deontologist, he would most likely inform Petz as to the location of Petzs missing daughter. Armani would ignore the ethical code of his profession and would follow his own personal moral code. Considering that Armani had a brother who was missing in action in Asia, he can empathize with the suffering that Mr. Petz is experiencing. This empathy would drive Armanis moral decision to tell.

The final theory to be discussed is Utilitarianism. This theory emphasizes happinessproducing consequences (Internet 6). Behaviors that produce happiness for the majority are supported. A subset of utilitarianism, called Rule Utilitarianism, states that if a small and simple set of rules are followed by everyone, then the maximum benefit would insue in the long run (Internet 6). Ethical codes of conduct, such as those of the New York State Bar Association, serve to enforce rule utilitarianism. Therefore, under this doctrine, Armani would not disclose any information to Mr. Petz. Instead, Armani would uphold the standards of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality.

Alternatives and Consequences Armani has two primary alternatives: to tell Mr. Petz where his daughter can be found or to uphold the legal rule of attorney-client privilege and the ethical rule of confidentiality. Both of these alternatives have positive and negative consequences affecting Armani, Garrow, Belge, the Petz family, the Lake Pleasant community, and the legal system as a whole.

Scenario 1 Mr. Armani divulges the whereabouts and condition of Susan Petz to her father. By choosing this alternative Armani knowingly and deliberately violates the legal and ethical rules of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality; however, there are considerable positive consequences to taking this course of action. Although the news may be horrifying to Mr. Petz, at least he knows what has happened to his daughter and can take appropriate action to have her properly buried and begin the mourning process. In addition, the police and the local Lake Pleasant community can discontinue the search for Susan Petz, saving valuable time and community resources. Armani feels good on a personal level as a father, because he would have wanted information if it had been his daughter. Lastly, a positive aspect for the community is that Garrow could be charged with the murder of Susan Petz and possibly convicted.

By choosing to tell Mr. Petz the whereabouts of his daughter, Armani risks substantial negative consequences on a personal level, as well as on a legal and social level. By violating the rules of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality Armani is likely to

receive sanctions from the Bar Association, with the possibility of being disbarred, thereby ending his career as an attorney. In addition, his law firm may be negatively impacted by the turmoil experienced while Armani is under review by the legal system. The firm may lose business because potential clients will question whether their confidential information and communications will be respected. Not only is Armanis firm affected, but so is Mr. Belge who specifically counseled Armani against divulging the information. Belge may also lose business through his association with Armani as co-counsel. Therefore, not only does Armani risk losing his own career, his actions could affect the careers of his colleagues.

Garrow and the legal system could suffer additional negative impacts. On one hand, Garrows rights would be violated and he would most likely be charged with the murder of Susan Petz. On the other hand, it is also possible that Garrow could be acquitted of the murder or he could receive a mistrial due to the improper disclosure and faulty legal representation by Armani. If Garrow was also acquitted of the murder of the first camper, he could possibly go free, which would have the greatest negative impact on the community.

Scenario 2 Mr. Armani does not divulge the confidential information learned from Garrow. As under Scenario 1, there are both negative and positive consequences if Armani decides to abide by the rules of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality. Obviously, Mr. Petz is negatively affected by Armanis decision to withhold the information regarding his

daughter. Mr. Petz will continue to wonder whether his daughter is alive or dead and the Lake Pleasant community will continue to expend considerable resources to search for Susan Petz. Another negative effect is the personal impact on Armani. He must fight the personal urge to divulge the information, which seems to go against his moral standards. Armani may feel extreme guilt regarding his decision. In addition, it is likely that the community would react negatively against Armani if they were to find out he withheld the information.

There are several positive results if Armani chooses not to tell Mr. Petz the information regarding his daughter. Individually, Armani is unlikely to face sanctions from the legal community and he preserves his relationships with his law firm and Belge. More importantly, Armani upholds the ethical and legal standards of the legal profession by preserving the attorney-client privilege and rules of confidentiality. Garrow has the right to counsel and due process, both of which would be compromised if Armani were to violate Garrows confidence.

Conclusion/Recommendation The recommendation is that Frank Armani follow the Utilitarian theory of ethical decision making and maintain his clients confidentiality for the greater good of society. Therefore, Armani will not reveal any information that violates the attorney-client privilege. With the assistance of his co-council Frank Belge, Armani is familiar with the canons of the New York State Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility (see Appendix A). Canon 4 of the code: A Lawyer Should Preserve the Confidences and

Secrets of a Client, clearly states that informing the families would be a violation of Disciplinary Rule (DR) 4-101 [1200.19]. For personal reasons, it will be very difficult for Armani not to ease the minds of the Petz family. However, his solace is the preservation of the U.S. criminal justice system and the balance and safety it instills in our society. The first line of the aforementioned code states: The continued existence of the free and democratic society depends upon recognition of the concept that justice is based upon the rule of law grounded in respect for the dignity of the individual and the capacity of the individual through reason for enlightened self-government (Internet 7). Armani must support the justice system and uphold the code.

Canon 4 of the code outlines the rights of the client to privacy, and this right is automatic. The lawyer must get the client to waive the right to allow disclosure. The lawyer cannot disclose information without the clients consent. According to the utilitarian theory of ethics, convincing the client to provide the information about the crimes will support the greater good of all: the family of the victim, the criminal justice system, and the client himself. Armani should try to convince his client to allow the disclosure of the location of the bodies. Armani has two arguments to help persuade his client to disclose this information: 1) to reinforce the insanity defense, and 2) to assist in potential pleabargains. In addition by Garrow disclosing the information, Armani would be able to uphold the Bar Association Code of ethics.

Armani had a legitimate need to find out all of the details of his clients crimes. Although he utilized questionable ethics by planting suggestions to obtain more

information while Garrow was under hypnosis, Armani was mounting an insanity defense that could be bolstered with details of additional crimes. In order to support that defense, according to the criminal procedure laws in New York, Armani must fulfill the requirements of Article 730 of the New York State Criminal Procedure by submitting a report outlining the symptoms and condition of his client. Establishing the demented pattern of destruction that Garrow was following would support this defense.

It is also a possibility that the plea-bargain process could be influenced with information about the victim. While it is clear that Robert Garrow should be removed from society, it is the duty of the lawyer to create the best possible defense for his client. In return for information about Susan Petz, the district attorney might be more inclined to accept the insanity plea. If Garrow is found to have had a mental disease or defect at the time of the murders, he could possibly avoid life imprisonment or the death penalty, and be released at a future time if found to be cured.

It is Armanis duty as a lawyer in the state of New York to uphold the New York Bar Association Code. The one exception to the attorney-client privilege that applies in this case is the knowledge of the intent of a client to commit a crime. If Garrow testifies under oath that he did not kill Susan Petz, he will commit perjury. The seventh canon of the Code: A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law, clearly states that if the client commits a fraud, the lawyer should reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal. Armani can use this argument to persuade Robert Garrow to

provide information about the crimes. However, this argument is moot if Garrow does not take the stand and testify.

The Lake Pleasant Bodies Case is a complex study of one of the most important ethical issues facing attorneys whether to maintain the attorney-client privilege of a guilty client, even when the attorney has information that would assist the injured party in the case. By following the tenants of Utilitarianism, and specifically Rule Utilitarianism, Frank Armani would uphold the professional code of ethics and maintain his clients confidentiality. In the long run, this practice benefits society as a whole by maintaining the integrity of a critical component of the United States justice system.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cannon, Therese A. Ethics and Professional Responsibility for Legal Assistants. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1992. Jennings, Marianne. Business: Its Legal, Ethical and Global Environment. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing Co., 1997. West, Ellen. The Lake Pleasant Bodies Case (A). Boston: Harvard Business School, 1990. Internet 1 Chapter 1; The Attorney-Client Privilege [Online]. Available: www.abanet.org/abapubs/5310215chap.html [1999, February 21]. Internet 2 Buzzetta, Daniel J. (1998, August 26). Sizing Up the Variable Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege [Online]. Available: (ljextra.com/practice/professionalresponsibility/0826acp.html) [1999, February 26]. Internet 3 Two Types of Egoism [Online]. Available: http://ethics.acusd.edu/seattle/egoism/tsld003.htm [1999, February 23]. Internet 4 Robinson, John Beverley (No date). Egoism [Online]. Available: http://pierce.ee.washington.edu/~davisd/egoist/articles/Egoism.Robinson.html [1999, February 23]. Internet 5 Hubin, Donald C. (1998). Normative Ethical Theories [Online]. Available: http://philosophy.ohiostate.edu/people/donh/phil130/NormativeEthicalTheories/sld001.htm [1999, February 23].

Internet 6 A Discussion of Deontological and Consequentialist Frameworks [Online]. Available: http://www.princeton.edu/~kenlee/pub/cs291week5.html [1999, February 20]. Internet 7 The New York State Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility [ Online]. Available: http://www.nysba.org/opinions/codes/anchor1.html [1999, February 26].

Appendix A Excerpts from the New York State Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility

Appendix A: Excerpts from The New York State Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility Adopted by the New York State Bar Association Effective January 1, 1970 As Amended Effective May 22, 1996 Table of Contents * PREAMBLE * DEFINITIONS* [1200.1]** * CANON 1 A Lawyer Should Assist in Maintaining the Integrity and Competence of the Legal Profession o Ethical considerations o Disciplinary rules CANON 2 A Lawyer Should Assist the Legal Profession in Fulfilling Its Duty to Make Legal Counsel Available o Ethical considerations o Disciplinary rules CANON 3 A Lawyer Should Assist in Preventing the Unauthorized Practice of Law o Ethical considerations o Disciplinary rules CANON 4 A Lawyer Should Preserve the Confidences and Secrets of a Client o Ethical considerations o Disciplinary rules CANON 5 A Lawyer Should Exercise Independent Professional Judgment on Behalf of a Client o Ethical considerations o Disciplinary rules CANON 6 A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Competently o Ethical considerations o Disciplinary rules CANON 7 A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law o Ethical considerations o Disciplinary rules CANON 8 A Lawyer Should Assist in Improving the Legal System o Ethical considerations o Disciplinary rules CANON 9 A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety o Ethical considerations o Disciplinary rules o Advice on Ethical Questions

CANON 4: A Lawyer Should Preserve the Confidences and Secrets of a Client ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS * EC 4-1 Both the fiduciary relationship existing between lawyer and client and the proper functioning of the legal system require the preservation by the lawyer of confidences and secrets of one who has employed or sought to employ the lawyer. A client must feel free to discuss anything with his or her lawyer and a lawyer must be equally free to obtain information beyond that volunteered by the client. A lawyer should be fully informed of all the facts of the matter being handled in order for the client to obtain the full advantage of our legal system. It is for the lawyer in the exercise of independent professional judgment to separate the relevant and important from the irrelevant and unimportant. The observance of the ethical obligation of a lawyer to hold inviolate the confidences and secrets of a client not only facilitates the full development of f acts essential to proper representation of the client but also encourages nonlawyers to seek early legal assistance. * EC 4-2 The obligation to protect confidences and secrets obviously does not preclude a lawyer from revealing information when the client consents after full disclosure, when necessary to perform the lawyer's professional employment, when permitted by a Disciplinary Rule, or when required by law. Unless the client otherwise directs, a lawyer may disclose the affairs of the client to partners or associates of his or her firm. It is a matter of common knowledge that the normal operation of a law office exposes confidential professional information to nonlawyer employees of the office, particularly secretaries and those having access to the files; and this obligates a lawyer to exercise care in selecting and training employees so that the sanctity of all confidences and secrets of clients may be preserved. If the obligation extends to two or more clients as to the same information, a lawyer should obtain the permission of all before revealing the information. A lawyer must always be sensitive to the rights and wishes of the client and act scrupulously in the making of decisions which may involve the disclosure of information obtained in the professional relationship. Thus, in the absence of consent of the client after full disclosure, a lawyer should not associate another lawyer in the handling of a matter; nor should the lawyer, in the absence of consent, seek counsel from another lawyer if there is a reason able possibility that the identity of the client or the client's confidences or secrets would be revealed to such lawyer. Both social amenities and professional duty should cause a lawyer to shun indiscreet conversations concerning clients. * EC 4-3 Unless the client otherwise directs, it is not improper for a lawyer to give limited information to an outside agency necessary for statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, banking, printing, or other legitimate purposes, provided the lawyer exercises due care in the selection of the agency and warns the agency that the information must be kept confidential. * EC 4-4 The attorney-client privilege is more limited than the ethical obligation of a lawyer to guard the confidences and secrets of the

client. This ethical precept, unlike the evidentiary privilege, exists without regard to the nature or source of information or the fact that others share the knowledge. A lawyer should endeavor to act in a manner which preserves the evidentiary privilege; for example, the lawyer should avoid professional discussions in the presence of persons to whom the privilege does not extend. A lawyer owes an obligation to advise the client of the attorney-client privilege and timely to assert the privilege unless it is waived by the client. * EC 4-5 A lawyer should not use information acquired in the course of the representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client and a lawyer should not use, except with the consent of the client after full disclosure, such information for the lawyer's own purposes. Likewise, a lawyer should be diligent in his or her efforts to prevent the misuse of such information by employees an d associates. Care should be exercised by a lawyer to prevent the disclosure of the confidences and secrets of one client to another, and no employment should b e accepted that might require such disclosure. * EC 4-6 The obligation to protect confidences and secrets of a client continues after the termination of employment. A lawyer should also provide for the protection of the confidences and secrets of the client following the termination of the practice of the lawyer, whether termination is due to death, disability, or retirement. For example, a lawyer might provide for the personal papers of the client to be returned to the client and for the papers of the lawyer to be delivered to another lawyer or to be destroyed. In determining the method of disposition, the instructions and wishes of the client should be a dominant consideration. * EC 4-7 The lawyer's exercise of discretion to disclose confidences and secrets requires consideration of a wide range of factors and should not be subject to reexamination. A lawyer is afforded the professional discretion to reveal the intention of a client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime and cannot be subjected to discipline either for revealing or not revealing such intention or information. In exercising this discretion, however, the lawyer should consider such factors as the seriousness of the potential injury to others if the prospective crime is committed, the likelihood that it will be committed and its imminence, the apparent absence of any other feasible way in which the potential injury can be prevented, the extent to which the client may have attempted to involve the lawyer in the prospective crime, the circumstances under which the lawyer acquired the information of the client's intent, and any other possibly aggravating or extenuating circumstances. In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client's interest should be no greater than the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to the purpose. DISCIPLINARY RULES DR 4-101 [1200.19] Preservation of Confidences and Secrets of a Client A. "Confidence" refers to information protected by the attorney-client

privilege under applicable law, and "secret" refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate o r the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client. B. Except when permitted under DR 4-101 [1200.19] (C), a lawyer shall not knowingly: 1. Reveal a confidence or secret of a client. 2. Use a confidence or secret of a client to the disadvantage of the client. 3. Use a confidence or secret of a client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person, unless the client consents after full C. A lawyer may reveal: l. Confidences or secrets with the consent of the client or clients affected, but only after a full disclosure to them. 2. Confidences or secrets when permitted under Disciplinary Rules or required by law or court order. 3. The intention of a client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime. 4. Confidences or secrets necessary to establish or collect the lawyer's fee or to defend the lawyer or his or her employees or associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct. 5. Confidences or secrets to the extent implicit in withdrawing a written or oral opinion or representation previously given by the lawyer and believed by the lawyer still to be relied upon by a third person where the lawyer has discovered that the opinion or representation was based on materially inaccurate in formation or is being used to further a crime or fraud. D. A lawyer shall exercise reasonable care to prevent his or her employees, associates, and others whose services are utilized by the lawyer from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of a client, except that a lawyer may reveal the information allowed by DR 4101[1200.19](C) through an employee.

CANON 7: A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law DISCIPLINARY RULES DR 7-101 [1200.32] Representing a Client Zealously.

A. A lawyer shall not intentionally: 1. Fail to seek the lawful objectives of the client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules, except as provided by DR 7-101 [1200.32] (B). A lawyer does not violate this Disciplinary Rule, however, by acceding to reasonable requests of opposing counsel which do not prejudice the rights of the client, by being punctual in fulfilling all professional commitments, by avoiding offensive tactics, or by treating with courtesy and consideration all persons involved in the legal process. 2. Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but the lawyer may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110 [1200.15], DR 5-102 [1200.21], and DR 5-105 [1200.24]. 3. Prejudice or damage the client during the course of the professional relationship, except as required under DR 7-102 [1200.33] (B). B. In the representation of a client, a lawyer may: 1. Where permissible, exercise professional judgment to waive or fail to assert a right or position of the client. 2. Refuse to aid or participate in conduct that the lawyer believes to be unlawful, even though there is some support for an argument that the conduct is legal. DR 7-102 [1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law. A. In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not: 1. File a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another. 2. Knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. 3. Conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that which the lawyer is required by law to reveal. 4. Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence. 5. Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact. 6. Participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the evidence is false. 7. Counsel or assist the client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent. 8. Knowingly engage in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule. B. A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that: 1. The client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly

call upon the client to rectify the same, and if the client refuses or is unable to do so, the lawyer shall reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal, except when the information is protected as a confidence or secret. 2. A person other than the client has perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal. DR 7-103 [1200.34] Performing the Duty of Public Prosecutor or Other Government Lawyer. A. A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when he or she knows or it is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause. B. A public prosecutor or other government lawyer in criminal litigation shall make timely disclosure to counsel for the defendant, or to a defendant who has no counsel, of the existence of evidence, known to the prosecutor or other government lawyer, that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense or reduce the punishment.

Copyright (c)1996, New York State Bar Association. All rights reserved. The NYSBA logo is a trademark of the New York State Bar Association.