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

employer to sanctions. While this violation was effectively brought to light by opposing
counsel, this was not done until after the expenditure of significant time and money. . . .
In this case, the government proposed to the district court a lesser sanction to be
imposed if a breach of the duty of candor were to be found. It suggested (1) opening for de
novo review the administrative record with respect to the selection of the solvent extraction
method; (2) allowing discovery by defendants on the EPA’s selection of the solvent
extraction method; and (3) allowing discovery on any and all matters involving Caron. The
district court rejected this offer as a “rather slight sanction.” . . .
The occasion to consider the disciplining of members of the bar is not a happy one, and
the district court’s response was understandably stern. . . . But we also observe that through
an outright dismissal, the defendants receive the benefit of a total release from their
obligations under the environmental protection laws. This would provide the defendants
relief far beyond the harm caused by the government attorneys’ improper conduct and
would frustrate the resolution on the merits of a case which itself has strong policy
implications. . . .
Without suggesting a sanction which is appropriate, we point out that in considering
the proper role of the administrative record in this case and the respective burdens of proof,
the district court may deny the government the benefit of any portion of the record or the
right to claim any expense, which may have been tainted by Caron’s misconduct, even if it
becomes impossible to assess accurately the extent of that taint. Because of the
government’s misconduct, the benefit of any doubt must be resolved in the defendants’
favor. . . .
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s finding that a breach of ethical conduct
occurred, but we vacate the judgment of the district court dismissing the case and remand
for the imposition of a sanction short of outright dismissal. Since an award of attorney’s
fees may be part of the district court’s overall calculus in selecting a sanction after further
proceedings, we leave for later review, if necessary, any question on whether attorney’s fees
were appropriately awarded. * . . .
Problems
8-11. Prior to trial, Fox discusses with Client whether he has ever smoked marijuana.
Client asks what that has to do with the matter, and Fox tells him, “Nothing, but I am
worried the other side just might ask that question.” Client admits he smokes marijuana
from time to time. At trial, opposing counsel asks Client whether he has ever smoked
marijuana, and he immediately responds, “No.” Does Fox have any obligation to correct
the record? Can we settle the case before the lie is disclosed? What if the same thing
happened during Client’s deposition?
8-12. Fox was retained by estate executor, the testator’s daughter, to probate an estate,
and he discovered substantial amounts of estate money unaccounted for. He confronted the
executor, who admitted that she paid the money to her nephew for college expenses, even
though the nephew had been disinherited under the will. Fox promptly informed the
253