An attempt to silence a witness may also include other disciplinary rules or laws. See e.B. Addamax Corp.c. Open Software Found. Inc., 151 F.R.D. 504 (D. Mass. 1993) (perjury lawyer); Florida Bar v Machin, 635 So. 2d 938 (Fla.

1994) (Alteration of the administration of justice). Paragraph (c) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation arising from the rules or decisions of a court, unless the lawyer does so openly and because he or she claims that there is no “valid obligation”. See the. Rules of Conduct of Prof`l r. 3.4(c) (2004); see also Restatement (third) of the Lawyer`s Act § 105 (2000). For example, a lawyer may violate this rule by not cooperating with ODC requests. See In re Bark, 72 Sun.3d 853, 856 (La. 2011) (Disciplinary counsel for failing to appear for the affidavit and provide financial records for escrow accounts after promising to do so under oath as part of the ODC investigation).

A lawyer may also not advise a client not to obey such an obligation. [3a] The legal system depends on voluntary compliance with the rules and decisions of the courts to function effectively. As a general rule, a lawyer does not have the right to deliberately violate these rules or judgments. However, paragraph (d) allows a lawyer to take the necessary steps to review the validity of a rule or judgment, including open disobedience. See also Rule 1.2(c). However, this aspect of Rule 3.4(a) may be problematic because the U.S. legal tradition does not hold that litigants are generally required to disclose evidence or information that is harmful to the other party. Cf. In Enstar Corp., 593 A.2d 543 (Del.

Ct. 1991), rev`d for other reasons, 604 A.2d 404 (Del. 1992) (Counsel`s duty of fairness to the other party does not mean that counsel must affirmatively disclose the weakness of his case to his opponent); see also Maryland Ethics Op. 92-16 (1992) (counsel for the defendant who is not required to hand over incriminating documents that were inadvertently delivered to the client by a new police officer); New York County Ethics Op. 698 (the lawyer representing the applicant at the Social Security hearing is not required to disclose adverse medical information if no application is made, the by-laws do not require disclosure, and the information does not allow the lawyer to know that the client`s claim is false); Philadelphia Ethics Op. 93-6 (1993) (counsel for injured motorists who is not required to inform the defendant`s insurers that clients` medical bills were fraudulently inflated without the clients` knowledge by the medical service providers whom they submitted to the clients` insurers through no fault of their own); Rhode Island Ethics Op. 95-19 (1995) (Counsel who knows that the other party intends to make a judgment against the client does not have to voluntarily declare that the client has changed his address). Whether or not a violation of Rule 3.4(a) is ultimately established, the removal of part of a document may be considered misleading and punishable under other regulations. Z .B. In re Aitken, 787 N.W.2d 152, 26 Law. One.

Prof. Conduct 538 (Minn. 2010) (The falsification of the client`s signature did not “alter” the document, but involved dishonesty and false statements); see also In re Wilka, 638 N.W.2d 245, 18 Law. One. Prof. Conduct 66 (N.D. 2001) (counsel violated rule 3.3 by offering as evidence the client`s drug test report that the lawyer knew had been cut off to omit adverse results). A prosecutor cannot prevent a defence witness from testifying by threatening to charge him with perjury or by offering to treat the witness favorably for not testifying against the accused. See Drobney v. Comm`r of Internal Revenue, 113 F.3d 670 (Cir. 7, 1996) (Noting that if government counsel intimidated the defence witness by threatening to charge him with perjury, such conduct, in addition to a criminal violation, would constitute a serious ethical deficiency); In re Bonet, 29 P.3d 1242, 17 Law.

One. Prof. Conduct 555 (Wash. 2001) (The prosecutor violated Rule 3.4(b) and other rules when he proposed to drop the criminal complaint against the defense witness if the witness agreed to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and not make himself available to the defense in an ongoing trial). (c) knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a court, with the exception of an open refusal based on the assertion that there is no valid obligation; ▸Criminal defense lawyers have the same obligation not to prevent witnesses from speaking to the prosecutor. With respect to Stanford (criminal defense attorneys violated Rule 3.4(f) and other rules by requiring the victim of a crime to sign a “confidentiality agreement” that could prevent them from testifying in court); With regard to Alcantara, 676 A.2d 1030 (N.J. 1995) (counsel`s request that the client`s co-respondent not make statements in favour of the state violated Rule 3.4(f)). But see Hannon v. Superior Court, 564 P.2d 1203 (Cal.

1977) (Defence counsel is not guilty of suppressing evidence because he asked the defence witness to remain silent before trial). As a result, concealing or impeding access to information that must be disclosed under the Investigation Rules has been found to violate Rule 3.4(a). ==External links==Burkich-Burrell, 659 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1995); In re Dwight, 834 p.2d 382 (Kan. 1992); Mississippi Bar vs Mathis, 620 Sun. 2d 1213 (Miss. 1993); In re Herkenhoff, 866 p.2d 350 (N.M. . . .

. . .