isn't the entire premise of this article flawed? the feigned indignity at their clients lying...when it's pretty much required for them to receive any semblance of effective defense:
There is a kernel of an exception that is almost not worth mentioning. The Rules of Professional
Conduct 3.3 obligates me with the duty of candor. I am not allowed to present evidence that I “know”
is false, which encompasses witness testimony. Some jurisdictions make exceptions to this rule for
defendants testifying in their criminal trial (correctly, IMO) but not all. So assuming that a
client truthfully confesses to me, assuming we go to trial, assuming they decide to testify, and
assuming I “know” they’re going to lie, then yes, this could indeed spawn a very awkward situation
where I’m forced to withdraw in the middle of proceedings.
