proRo class 14

rule 3.2

falsity
it's the lawyer's responsibility to

OJ simspon problem from DG. the lawyers do some redecorating and remove all the pictures of white people and replace with pictures of black people. JC puts a picture of a little girl getting escorted to school by fed agents. this was all done to play on the jury's racial prejudices.

hypo.
"by creating the false impression on the witness that she may have liquid damages and making her unwilling to work with prosecution, attorneys have violated 3.3, 3.4, 3.5" the lawyers are suspended and sanctioned for 3 months. what did the lawyers do wrong? they made a suggestions that was incorrect and didn't make it into the

"the eyewitness"
can the prosecutor argue that

see p. 382 -- why not let the trial judge instruct the jury that a defense lawyer can make stuff up, but the prosecutor can't?

rule 3.2
DG has a lot of problems about this rule.
wouldn't it be unethical to file a dilatory motion to improve financial situation of the client, or to influence the client's likelihood of success on the merits, under this rule?

hypo.
in a civil case, court decides for P and tells lawyer to draw up judgment and give to defnse for approval. the D doesn't want to sign cause another case is still pending in front of a different court, and the ruling will potentially be a basiss for overruling the current case's decision.

hypo.
client asks to stay out of jail as long as possible. lawyer files lots of motions to keep the client delayed.... what if the client is on death row? is this a 3.2 violation?

the point is -- what does this rule mean?
if the method of delay itself is unethical, then does the rule make a difference?

how do you enforce competence in an ethical system? lack of legal competence is different than malpractice.