[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

sanctionable under Rule 38. We direct Atlanta Casualty’s counsel to submit within 14 days
a statement as to why it or its client, or both, should not be sanctioned under Rule 38 for
failing to cite the Shondel case to us.
We are not quite done. Rule 46(c) of the appellate rules authorizes us to discipline
lawyers who practice before us. In deciding whether a lawyer has engaged in conduct
sanctionable under that rule, we have looked not only to the rules of professional conduct
but also to Rule 11 of the civil rules, which makes it sanctionable misconduct for a lawyer
to sign a pleading or other paper, including a brief, if he has failed to make a reasonable
inquiry into whether his position “is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law
or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”
Reasonable inquiry would have turned up Shondel. The lawyer who signed Atlanta
Casualty’s briefs in this court is therefore directed to submit a statement within 14 days as
to why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 46(c). . . .
Problem
8-10. Martyn is preparing an appellate brief. She argues that the trial court properly
dismissed an indictment against her client because the court correctly construed a criminal
statute narrowly so as to exclude her client’s conduct. Martyn finds only one reported
decision citing the statute, a ten-year-old state supreme court case that upheld the statute’s
constitutionality. The prosecutor’s brief does not mention this case, and Martyn doesn’t
like the case’s dicta, which might suggest a broader statutory meaning. Should Martyn cite
the case?
4. False Evidence Model Rules 1.6(b)(6), 3.3 RLGL §§ 63 and 120
United States v. Shaffer Equipment Co.
11 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 1993)
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
In an action brought by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., to recover over $5 million in costs incurred in
cleaning up a hazardous waste site in Minden, West Virginia, the district court found that
the government’s attorneys deliberately and in bad faith breached their duty of candor
owed to the court during the course of proceedings. The court found that Robert E. Caron,
the EPA’s on-scene coordinator for the cleanup, had misrepresented his academic
achievements and credentials in this and in other cases and that the government’s attorneys
wrongfully obstructed the defendants’ efforts to root out the discrepancies and failed to
reveal them once they learned of them. 1 . . .
When the defendants first scheduled the deposition of Caron for September 12, 1991,
an EPA assistant regional counsel, Charles Hayden, reviewed Caron’s academic credentials.
248