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

Conclusion
Under amended Rule 8.3, a lawyer does not have a duty to report every known
violation of the rules, but must report those that underlie the core values of the profession:
honesty, trustworthiness and fitness. It would be impossible to list all the cases in which a
reporting duty arises. . . . Lawyers who are unable to decide whether they must report, may
contact the Hotline Member in the appropriate judicial district for advice. It is not easy to
file a report against a fellow lawyer or judge, particularly if the reporting lawyer has a
personal relationship with the lawyer or judge or knows of some unfortunate circumstances
involving either. Nevertheless, the Rules require lawyers to report lawyers and judges who
have engaged in serious misconduct. A lawyer’s obligation to the profession and to the
public outweighs any personal reservations the lawyer may have about reporting another
lawyer or judge. Again, it is not the lawyer’s duty to determine another lawyer’s or judge’s
guilt, but merely to make the report so that the appropriate disciplinary authorities can
make that determination.
Problem
15-1. Fox meets his close friend and law school roommate, Prosecutor, for dinner.
Prosecutor tells Fox that he’s just learned he has only months to live. After several drinks,
he also confides that two years ago he suppressed exculpatory DNA evidence in order to
obtain a murder conviction of a man he knew was “guilty as sin.” What should Fox do?
B. Law Practice Restrictions Model Rules 1.17, 5.6
State ex rel. Verizon West Virginia, Inc. v. Matish
740 S.E. 2d 84 (W. Va. 2013)
DAVIS, Justice:
. . . In 2009, [Steptoe & Johnson PLLC (hereinafter “Steptoe)] filed a lawsuit
(hereinafter “Rowh”) against Verizon on behalf of a former Verizon employee alleging
wrongful termination and violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. Thereafter, in
2010, Steptoe filed a similar lawsuit (hereinafter “Radcliff”) on behalf of another Verizon
employee. Both of these individuals had worked at Verizon’s call center in Clarksburg,
West Virginia.
During the course of the Rowh litigation, the parties entered into an agreed protective
order to secure the confidentiality of certain documents disclosed in discovery. A similar
agreed protective order was entered in the Radcliff proceedings. . . .
Both the Rowh and Radcliff lawsuits were resolved through the entry of confidential
settlement agreements. The terms of these agreements prohibited the parties from divulging
the nature, substance, or amount of the settlements and further prohibited the plaintiff
462