‼️
Prof Responsibility • Candor
PR#072
Legal Definition
The duty of candor is the duty to present facts and evidence truthfully. An attorney must not make a false statement of material fact or offer evidence they know to be false to a tribunal, or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law they previously presented. Further, an attorney has a duty to state the law truthfully and cite adverse authority where it is controlling and on point.
Plain English Explanation
Lawyers can't lie to the judge or jury, period. They can't knowingly present false evidence or make up facts. If a lawyer realizes they've accidentally said something untrue, they have to correct it right away. It's like playing a game where the referee is always watching, and you have to call your own fouls.
But it's not just about avoiding lies. Lawyers also have to be upfront about the law itself. If there's a legal precedent or rule that goes against their case, they can't just ignore it. They have to bring it up, even if it hurts their argument. It's like telling your teacher about a grading mistake that lowers your score – not fun, but necessary.
Why is this rule so important? Well, courts rely on lawyers to present accurate information to make fair decisions. If lawyers could twist the truth or hide important facts, the whole justice system would fall apart. It's about maintaining trust in the legal process.
The Duty of Candor doesn't mean lawyers can't argue passionately for their clients. They can still present facts in the most favorable light and make persuasive arguments. But they have to do it within the bounds of truth and honesty. It's a balancing act between zealous advocacy and ethical integrity.
Remember, this duty extends beyond just what lawyers say in court. It applies to all their interactions with the legal system, including written submissions and negotiations. It's a constant reminder that in the legal world, honesty isn't just the best policy – it's the only policy.
But it's not just about avoiding lies. Lawyers also have to be upfront about the law itself. If there's a legal precedent or rule that goes against their case, they can't just ignore it. They have to bring it up, even if it hurts their argument. It's like telling your teacher about a grading mistake that lowers your score – not fun, but necessary.
Why is this rule so important? Well, courts rely on lawyers to present accurate information to make fair decisions. If lawyers could twist the truth or hide important facts, the whole justice system would fall apart. It's about maintaining trust in the legal process.
The Duty of Candor doesn't mean lawyers can't argue passionately for their clients. They can still present facts in the most favorable light and make persuasive arguments. But they have to do it within the bounds of truth and honesty. It's a balancing act between zealous advocacy and ethical integrity.
Remember, this duty extends beyond just what lawyers say in court. It applies to all their interactions with the legal system, including written submissions and negotiations. It's a constant reminder that in the legal world, honesty isn't just the best policy – it's the only policy.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is representing Sam in a personal injury lawsuit. During the trial, Sam testifies that he has been unable to work since the accident. Later, Bob discovers an Instagram post showing Sam working at a construction site last week. Bob knows this information contradicts Sam's testimony and could significantly impact the case. Result: Under the Duty of Candor, Bob is obligated to disclose this information to the court. Even though it may harm his client's case, Bob must correct the false statement made by Sam. He should first discuss this with Sam and advise him to correct his testimony. If Sam refuses, Bob must inform the court about the contradictory evidence.
Hypo 2: Bob is representing Sam in a civil lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company. During his research, Bob discovers a recent appellate court decision from their jurisdiction that seems to undermine Sam's main argument. The opposing counsel hasn't cited this case, and the judge hasn't mentioned it. Bob knows that if he brings up this case, it could significantly weaken Sam's position. Result: Despite the potential harm to Sam's case, the Duty of Candor requires Bob to inform the court about this recent appellate decision. Even though it wasn't brought up by the opposing counsel or the judge, Bob must disclose this adverse authority because it's controlling in their jurisdiction and directly relevant to the case. Bob should advise Sam about this development and explain that ethically, he must bring it to the court's attention. Bob can still try to distinguish the case or argue why it shouldn't apply, but he cannot ignore or hide its existence from the court.
Hypo 3: Bob is representing Sam in a contract dispute. During discovery, Bob realizes that a crucial document supporting Sam's case is actually a forgery created by Sam. Sam insists on using the document, claiming the other party will never know. Result: Bob is strictly prohibited from knowingly using false evidence. He must refuse to present the forged document to the court. If Sam insists on using it, Bob should withdraw from the case. If withdrawal is not possible, Bob must disclose the fraudulent nature of the document to the court, even if it means losing the case for his client.
Hypo 4: Bob is representing Sam in a divorce case. During a settlement conference, Sam tells Bob privately that he has a secret bank account with substantial funds that he hasn't disclosed to his spouse or the court. Result: Bob has a duty to advise Sam to disclose the hidden assets, as failing to do so would be tantamount to fraud on the court. If Sam refuses, Bob must withdraw from the case. While Bob can't directly disclose the information due to attorney-client privilege, he cannot continue to represent Sam while knowing that Sam is deliberately misleading the court.
Hypo 2: Bob is representing Sam in a civil lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company. During his research, Bob discovers a recent appellate court decision from their jurisdiction that seems to undermine Sam's main argument. The opposing counsel hasn't cited this case, and the judge hasn't mentioned it. Bob knows that if he brings up this case, it could significantly weaken Sam's position. Result: Despite the potential harm to Sam's case, the Duty of Candor requires Bob to inform the court about this recent appellate decision. Even though it wasn't brought up by the opposing counsel or the judge, Bob must disclose this adverse authority because it's controlling in their jurisdiction and directly relevant to the case. Bob should advise Sam about this development and explain that ethically, he must bring it to the court's attention. Bob can still try to distinguish the case or argue why it shouldn't apply, but he cannot ignore or hide its existence from the court.
Hypo 3: Bob is representing Sam in a contract dispute. During discovery, Bob realizes that a crucial document supporting Sam's case is actually a forgery created by Sam. Sam insists on using the document, claiming the other party will never know. Result: Bob is strictly prohibited from knowingly using false evidence. He must refuse to present the forged document to the court. If Sam insists on using it, Bob should withdraw from the case. If withdrawal is not possible, Bob must disclose the fraudulent nature of the document to the court, even if it means losing the case for his client.
Hypo 4: Bob is representing Sam in a divorce case. During a settlement conference, Sam tells Bob privately that he has a secret bank account with substantial funds that he hasn't disclosed to his spouse or the court. Result: Bob has a duty to advise Sam to disclose the hidden assets, as failing to do so would be tantamount to fraud on the court. If Sam refuses, Bob must withdraw from the case. While Bob can't directly disclose the information due to attorney-client privilege, he cannot continue to represent Sam while knowing that Sam is deliberately misleading the court.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
According to the Duty Not to Contact Represented Parties, which individuals within an organization must an attorney obtain permission from the organization's lawyer before contacting directly?
Can lawyers compensate witnesses?
How do the rules in California differ regarding how a lawyer balances their Duty of Candor with their criminal defendant client's right to testify if they believe the client intends to lie?
How must a lawyer balance their Duty of Candor with their criminal defendant client's right to testify if they believe they intend to lie?
In California, can an attorney disclose information to set the record straight if one of their witnesses intends to lie?
What are the 9 Affirmative Duties of a Public Prosecutor?
What is an ex parte proceeding, and how does it affect what a lawyer must disclose?
What is the Duty Not to Contact Represented Parties?
What is the Duty to Produce Evidence?
What must a lawyer do if they know that their witness intends to lie in their testimony?
