484020091

Playing by the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, (as revised by the SJC effective 1 July 2015)

J. Charles MokriskiProfessional Responsibility Counsel

Proskauer Rose LLP

5 August 2015

2

Two Pillars of Legal Ethics

I. Loyalty to Clients:

Confidentiality

Unconflicted, Competent Advice and Advocacy

II. Honesty

Honesty to All

Candor to the Court

48402009

Rule 1.6(a): Confidentiality of Information

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal confidential information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b).

Note word “confidential” before “information”. It reduces the scope of the Rule to the protection of information that a client would care about. The Model Rule’s omission of the word “confidential” makes its literal application impractical, and requires a “common sense” reading.

484020093

Rule 1.6(b): Exceptions to Obligation of Confidentiality

(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm, or to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another;

(2) to prevent the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in substantial injury to property, financial, or other significant interests of another;

(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to property, financial, or other significant interests of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services; (emphasis added)

Subparagraph (3) is new in Massachusetts and is almost identical to the corresponding paragraph of the Model Rule, but note the underlined phrase in subparagraphs (2) and (3). It does not appear in the Model Rule, and its presence here expands the scope of the exception.

484020094

Rule 1.6(b): Exceptions (cont’d.)

(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;

(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client;

(6) to the extent permitted or required under these Rules or to comply with other law or a court order; or

(7) to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer’s potential change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client

484020095

Rule 1.6 Official Comments

[1] This Rule governs the disclosure by a lawyer of confidential information relating to the representation of a client during the lawyer’s representation of the client. See Rule 1.18 for the lawyer’s duties with respect to confidential information provided to the lawyer by a prospective client, Rule 1.9(c)(2) for the lawyer’s duty not to reveal confidential information relating to the lawyer’s prior representation of a former client, and Rules 1.8(b) and 1.9(c)(1) for the lawyer’s duties with respect to the use of such information to the disadvantage of clients and former clients.

Rules 1.9(c)(2), 1.8(b) and 1.9(c)(1) follow on slides 12 through 17

484020096

Rule 1.6 – Official Comments (cont’d.)

[3] The principle of client-lawyer confidentiality established by this Rule is broader than the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. The attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine apply in judicial and other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or otherwise required to produce evidence concerning a client. The rule of client-lawyer confidentiality also applies in situations other than those where evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law.

484020097

Rule 1.6 Comment [3A]

[3A] “Confidential information” consists of information gained during or relating to the representation of a client, whatever its source, that is (a) protected by the attorney-client privilege, (b) likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client if disclosed, or (c) information that the lawyer has agreed to keep confidential….

Subsection (c) is a notable departure from the corresponding Comment prior to the recent changes. Based on the old Code category of confidential information called “secrets”, the Comment used to protect “information the client has requested be held inviolate”. The revised Comment cuts back on the lawyer’s confidentiality obligation with respect to “secrets” to information the lawyer has “agreed” to keep confidential, so that a client’s request with which the lawyer has not agreed has no effect.

484020098

Comment [3A] to Rule 1.6 (cont’d.)

…“Confidential information” does not ordinarily include (i) a lawyer’s legal knowledge or legal research or (ii) information that is generally known in the legal community or in the trade, field or profession to which the information relates…. Information that is “generally known in the local community or in the trade, field or profession to which the information relates” includes information that is widely known. Information about a client contained in a public record that has received widespread publicity would fall within this category. On the other hand….

484020099

Comment [3A] to Rule 1.6 (cont’d.)

…On the other hand, a client’s disclosure of conviction of a crime in a different state a long time ago or disclosure of a secret marriage would be protected even if a matter of public record because such information was not “generally known in the local community.” As another example, a client’s disclosure of the fact of infidelity to a spouse is protected information, although it normally would not be after the client publicly discloses such information on television and in newspaper interviews.

NB. In re Anonymous, 932 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. 2010)

4840200910

Old Comment [6] to Mass. Rule 1.6

The requirement of maintaining confidentiality of information relating to representation applies to government lawyers who may disagree with the policy goals that their representation is designed to advance.

Quaere: What was this comment in the former version of the Rules designed to accomplish, and why was it deleted in the recent revision?

4840200911

Mass. Rules Definition of “Firm”

(d) "Firm" or "law firm" denotes a lawyer or lawyers in a law partnership, professional corporation, limited liability entity, sole proprietorship or other association authorized to practice law; or lawyers employed in a legal services organization or the legal department of a corporation, government entity, or other organization.

The Model Rules do not include governmental law departments within the definition of “firm”. Their inclusion in Massachusetts (and New York and other jurisdictions) could have implications for imputed conflicts of interest.

4840200912

Comment [3A] to Rule 1.6 (cont’d.)

…The accumulation of legal knowledge that a lawyer gains through practice ordinarily is not client information protected by this Rule. In addition, the factual information acquired about the structure and operation of an entire industry during the representation of one entity within the industry would not ordinarily prevent an attorney from undertaking a successive representation of another entity in a matter when the attorney had no other relevant confidential information from the earlier representation and there was no other conflict of interest at issue.

4840200913

Rule 1.18: Duties to Prospective Clients

(a) A person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.

(b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned confidential information from a prospective client shall not use or reveal that information, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to confidential information of a former client

This is a new rule, added by the ABA to its Model Rules 10 years ago. Its subparagraph (d) contains an important path to avoid the firm’s disqualification when one of its lawyers receives confidential information.

4840200914

Rule 1.18: Duties to Prospective Clients (cont’d.)

(c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received confidential information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter, except as provided in paragraph (d). If a lawyer is disqualified from representation under this paragraph, no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d). (emphasis added)

4840200915

Rule 1.18: Duties to Prospective Clients (cont’d.)

(d) When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined in paragraph (c), representation is permissible if:

(1) both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmed in writing, or:

(2) the lawyer who received the information took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client; and68

(i) the disqualified lawyer is timely screened, as defined in Rule 1.10(e), from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and

(ii) written notice is promptly given to the prospective client.

4840200916

Rule 1.9(c): Duties to Former Clients

(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(1) use confidential information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client, except as Rule 1.6, Rule 3.3 or Rule 4.1 would permit or require with respect to a client; or

(2) reveal confidential information relating to the representation except as Rule 1.6, Rule 3.3 or Rule 4.1 would permit or require with respect to a client.

4840200917

Rule 1.8: Conflict of Interest; Prohibited Transactions

(b) A lawyer shall not use confidential information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client or for the lawyer’s advantage or the advantage of a third person unless the client gives informed consent, except as permitted or required by these Rules. (emphasis added)

This version of paragraph (b) of the Rule differs from the ABA Model Rule, which does not contain the underlined language, making this restriction broader than the Model Rule. New York has an equally broad restriction, but it is contained in Rule 1.6, the basic confidentiality rule rather than here.

4840200918

Comment [5] to Rule 1.8: Conflicts of Interest; Prohibited Transactions

[5] Use of confidential information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the client violates the lawyer’s duty of loyalty. Paragraph (b) prohibits disadvantageous use of client confidential information unless the client gives informed consent, except as permitted or required by these Rules. See Rules 1.2(d), 1.6, 1.9(c), 3.3, 4.1(b), 8.1, and 8.3. Paragraph (b) applies when such information is used to benefit either the lawyer or a third person, such as another client or business associate of the lawyer. For example, if a lawyer learns that a client intends to purchase and develop several parcels of land, the lawyer may not use that information to purchase one of the parcels in competition with the client or to recommend that another client make such a purchase.

Quaere: Is the final sentence of this comment intended to narrow the scope of this prohibition to situations in which the former client is disadvantaged? How about buying a nearby parcel because the client’s plans will enhance its value?

4840200919

4840200920

Rule 4.1: Truthfulness in Statements to Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

Comment: [2] This Rule refers to statements of fact….Under generally accepted conventions in negotiation, certain types of statements ordinarily are not taken as statements of material fact. Estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction and a party’s intentions as to an acceptable settlement of a claim are [ordinarily] in this category, and so is the existence of an undisclosed principal except where nondisclosure of the principal would constitute fraud.

Note: Model comment includes the second “ordinarily”. The MA comment does not.

Implications of Comment [2] for Negotiations

Consider possible answers to the following questions:

“What are you authorized to pay [or accept] to settle?”

“Is the company confident of the validity of its key patents?”

“Are the key employees in good health?”

“How old are the COO and CFO?”

4840200921

Rule 4.1: Truthfulness…Comment [4]

[4] Paragraph (b) requires a lawyer in certain circumstances to disclose material facts to a third person “unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.” …. under Rule 1.6(b)(2), a lawyer may reveal confidential information to prevent a criminal or fraudulent act that is likely to result in substantial injury to the property of another. If Rule 1.6(b) gives a lawyer permission to make disclosure, then disclosure is not prohibited by Rule 1.6, and disclosure under paragraph (b) of this Rule is mandatory. If Rule 1.6(b) does not give permission to disclose – [for] example, when the injury from a criminal or fraudulent act is not “substantial” – then the disclosure requirement of Rule 4.1(b) does not apply.… Even if Rule 1.6 prohibits disclosure, the lawyer may have other duties, such as a duty to withdraw from the representation. See Rule 1.2(d) and Rule 1.16(a)(1).

4840200922

Rule 1.4: Communication

(a) A lawyer shall

(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(f), is required by these Rules;

(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;…

(5) Consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance no permitted by the Rules…or other law….

[These are the new paragraphs added by the SJC; the old rule required only keeping the client “reasonably informed”, “promptly complying with reasonable requests for information, and “explaining matters to the extent necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation”.]

4840200923

24

Ethics Opinions Bearing on Negotiations

ABCNY Op. 477 (1939) (when lawyer recognizes inadvertent mistake made by other lawyer in settlement agreement, lawyer should urge client to reveal the mistake and, if the client refuses, the lawyer should do so);

Cf. ABA Informal Op. 86-1518 (1986) (Where the lawyer for A has received for signature from the lawyer for B the final contract from which an important provision favorable to B previously agreed upon has been inadvertently omitted by the lawyer for B, the lawyer for A, should contact the lawyer for B to correct the error and need not consult A about the error.)

Is the 2nd Opinion above consistent with the lawyer’s obligation under Rule 1.4 (see previous slide) to keep the client informed, and the obligation to consult with the client about the “means” for seeking the client’s objectives?

48402009

25

Buyer obtains agreement to a covenant not to compete from the Seller of a business. After Buyer’s attorney prepares an initial draft, Seller’s tax advisor advises Seller that the tax impact would be more favorable to him if more of the purchase price is be allocated to the sale of the business and less to the covenant. Responsive to this request, Buyer has his Attorney revise the agreement to allocate all but $1 of the consideration to the sale. Seller’s attorney realizes that the effect of this change is to render the covenant worthless, since if breached, Buyer would receive only $1, and so notifies Seller. Seller instructs him not to call error to the attention of the Buyer. Two scenarios discussed: 1.. Where Buyer’s Attorney did the redraft, Seller’s Attorney can abide by Seller’s instructions a keep mum. Where Seller’s Attorney did the redraft, he must still stay mum but must withdraw from the representation rather than consummate the transaction.

Ethics Opinions Bearing on Negotiations (cont’d) California State Bar Formal Opinion 2013-189

48402009

Rule 1.2: Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer

(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law.

Comment [10] A lawyer may not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally supposed was legally proper but then discovers is criminal or fraudulent. The lawyer must, therefore, withdraw from the representation of the client in the matter. See Rule 1.16(a). But see Rule 3.3(e). In some cases, withdrawal alone might be insufficient. It may be necessary for the lawyer to give notice of the fact of withdrawal and to disaffirm any opinion, document, affirmation or the like. See Rule 4.1.

Last sentence describes what is referred to as a “noisy withdrawal”, and it was added to the Comment in the recent revisions by the SJC

4840200926

Use of Social Networking WebSites of Othersto Obtain Information

ABCNY Op. 2010 – 02; NYSBA Op 843;Phil.Bar Ethics Op. 2009 – 02, Mass. Bar Assoc. Ethics Op. 2014-5, ABA Formal Opinion 466.

­ Public pages of networking websites, accessible without need of “friending” or otherwise obtaining special access, may be used without restriction

­ Cannot use deception or trickery to obtain access, for example, by using an assistant to conceal identity or giving false reason for seeking access

­ “Friending” a represented person on Facebook, or similar actions with other electronic social networking networks, would constitute a prohibited contact under Rule 4.2

­ Reviewing Jurors’ Internet Presence – ABA v. ABCNY

4840200927

4840200928

Rule 8.4: Misconduct

A lawyer or law firm shall not:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; …

(h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.

[ Rule 8.4 (c) and Rule 4.1 prohibit “pretexting” ]

4840200929

Rule 5.2: Responsibility of a Subordinate Lawyer

(a) A lawyer is bound by these Rules notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person.

(b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate these Rules if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer’s reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.

Note that paragraph (b) is very narrowly construed; after the decision in Daniels v. Alander, 844 A.2d 184 (Conn. 2006), Connecticut repealed its (b). This Rule was not changed by the

recent SJC revisions.

Rule 1.7:Conflicts of Interest: Current Clients

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) The representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

This rule has been rearranged, moving both “direct adversity” conflicts and “material limitation” conflicts to paragraph (a), and setting forth the circumstances under which the representation can proceed notwithstanding the conflict in paragraph (b).

4840200930

Rule 1.7 (cont’d)

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and

(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Subparagraph s (3) and (4) are new, and (4) adds a new substantive requirement that consent be confirmed in writing, but it can be by simply sending an email to the lawyer on the other side confirming consent given orally. Same requirement exists for consents to former client conflicts.

4840200931

Mass. Bar. Assoc. Ethics Op. 02-02: Conflict of Interest

Lawyer represents Client X and Client Y simultaneously with respect to permitting for development of adjoining land parcels.

After representations commenced Client X announced it plans to object to Client Y’s permit application.

Issue: May lawyer continue to represent both, even though in representing the client to whose permit the other client is objecting?

No, because lawyer will be adverse to Client X, when X opposes Y’s application.

Will lawyer be able to continue representing one of the two clients?

Probably yes, Client Y, but in its permit application only.

“thrust upon” exception to the “hot potato” rule. Comment 5 to Rule 1.7.

4840200932

Communication with person represented by counsel -- HYPOTHETICAL

General Counsel of Alpha Corp participates in trial alongside outside counsel in bitter and protracted litigation against Beta Corp. Alpha has made several offers of settlement to Beta’s lawyer, all of which have been rejected or ignored.

During a recess in the trial, Jones, Beta’s CEO, who has been attending the trial, approached Alpha’s GC in the courthouse elevator bank and said to him:

“Why can’t we settle this case for $250,000? This trial is costing both sides more than it’s worth.”

33

Communication with person represented by counsel (cont’d)

How should the GC respond to him?

“I agree. We’ve already offered terms with a total economic value equivalent to your last demand, which I believe your lawyer has not communicated to you.”

“If that’s the way you feel, why don’t you and Alpha’s CEO get together without any lawyers present.”

“I can’t discuss the matter with you.”

34

35

Rule 4.2: Communication with Person Represented by Counsel

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.

Commonly called the “no contact” rule, Rule 4.2 is designed to prevent an opposing lawyer from circumventing counsel whom a counterparty in a transaction or opposing party in a dispute has retained to represent her in regard to a dispute, transaction or negotiation. It is one of the most litigated Rules of Professional Conduct.

48402009

Communication with person represented by counsel (cont’d)

Later that same day the GC called Alpha’s CEO, saying,

“I think if you call Jones you can settle the case with him. Tomorrow morning I will give you a brief outline of essential settlement terms, a few bullet points describing how attractive our offer is, and few ideas of how to appeal to Jones’ vanity and his disinclination to spend money on lawyers.”

Is this advice by the GC to her client improper?

36

Comment [4] to Rule 4.2

[4] …Parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other, and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make. A lawyer may not, however, make a communication prohibited by this Rule through the acts of another. See Rule 8.4(a).

(emphasis added to show language added to the comment by the SJC)

ABA Formal Opinion 11-461 – SCEPR went overboard in permitting a lawyer to script her client’s meeting with the other party. MBA Ethics Op. 11-03 would prohibit similar conduct. Massachusetts’ phrasing of its Comment, by inverting the above two sentences and adding the word “however” , qualifies the scope of this permissive comment to deter overreaching.

4840200937

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, except as provided in Rule 3.3(e). If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client , or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures , including if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false …

(emphasis added to show new language in rule))

4840200938

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal (cont’d)

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, including all appeals, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

(emphasis added to indicate new language)

4840200939

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal (cont’d)

(e) In a criminal case, defense counsel who knows that the defendant, the client, intends to testify falsely may not aid the client in constructing false testimony, and has a duty strongly to discourage the client from testifying falsely, advising that such a course is unlawful, will have substantial adverse consequences, and should not be followed.

(1) If a lawyer discovers this intention before accepting the representation of the client, the lawyer shall not accept the representation;

(2) If, in the course of representing a defendant prior to trial, the lawyer discovers this intention and is unable to persuade the client not to testify falsely, the lawyer shall seek to withdraw from the representation…. Disclosure of privileged or prejudicial information shall be made only to the extent necessary to effect the withdrawal….ex parte to a judge other than the judge who will preside at the trial….If the lawyer is unable to obtain the required permission to withdraw, the lawyer may not prevent the client from testifying.

4840200940

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal (cont’d)

(3) If a criminal trial has commenced and the lawyer discovers that the client intends to testify falsely at trial, the lawyer need not file a motion to withdraw from the case if the lawyer reasonably believes that seeking to withdraw will prejudice the client. If, during the client's testimony or after the client has testified, the lawyer knows that the client has testified falsely, the lawyer shall call upon the client to rectify the false testimony and, if the client refuses or is unable to do so, the lawyer shall not reveal the false testimony to the tribunal. In no event may the lawyer examine the client in such a manner as to elicit any testimony from the client the lawyer knows to be false, and the lawyer shall not argue the probative value of the false testimony in closing argument or in any other proceedings, including appeals. [rule the same as prior to SJC’s recent revisions]

4840200941

Comments to Rule 3.3

[1] This Rule governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in the proceedings of a tribunal. See Rule 1.0(p) for the definition of “tribunal.” It also applies when the lawyer is representing a client in an ancillary proceeding conducted pursuant to the tribunal’s adjudicative authority, such as a deposition….

[8] The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer’s knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(g). Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood. …

These comments, from the Model Rules, were added in the SJC’s recent revision

4840200942

Origins of the exception for testimony of a criminal defendant in the last sentence of Rule 3(a)(3) Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986)

Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment.

Justice Holmes taught us that a word is but the skin of a living thought. A "fact" may also have a life of its own. From the perspective of an appellate judge, after a case has been tried and the evidence has been sifted by another judge, a particular fact may be as clear and certain as a piece of crystal or a small diamond. A trial lawyer, however, must often deal with mixtures of sand and clay. Even a pebble that seems clear enough at first glance may take on a different hue in a handful of gravel.

As we view this case, it appears perfectly clear that respondent intended to commit perjury ….

43

Nix v. Whiteside, Justice Stevens’ Concurrence (cont’d)

…Nevertheless, beneath the surface of this case there are areas of uncertainty that cannot be resolved today. A lawyer's certainty that a change in his client's recollection is a harbinger of intended perjury - as well as judicial review of such apparent certainty - should be tempered by the realization that, after reflection, the most honest witness may recall (or sincerely believe he recalls) details that he previously overlooked... [O]ne can be convinced - as I am - that this lawyer's actions were a proper way to provide his client with effective representation without confronting the much more difficult questions of what a lawyer must, should, or may do after his client has given testimony that the lawyer does not believe. The answer to such questions may well be colored by the particular circumstances attending the actual event and its aftermath.

44

Mass Rule 8.5: Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law

(a) Disciplinary Authority. A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs. A lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction is also subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in this jurisdiction. A lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another jurisdiction for the same conduct.

(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows:

(1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a governmental tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise; and

4840200945

Rule 8.5 (Cont’d.)

(2) for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer's principal office is located shall be applied, unless the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, in which case the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied. A lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur. (Emphasis added)

Instead of underscored text, The ABA Model Rule has “in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred”. This Rule was not changed in the recent SJC revision.

4840200946

4840200947

Playing by the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, (as revised by the SJC effective 1 July 2015)

J. Charles Mokriski

Professional Responsibility Counsel

Proskauer Rose LLP

5 August 2015