Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): covered by the subpoena duces tecum issued on November 12, 2008, and there was no evidence showing Respondent was required to have filed his 2008 tax returns by November 25, 2008-the date the subpoena was returnable. Additionally, Respondent told the court at the hearing on August 19, 2009, that his 2008 tax returns had not been filed. 111 . The ABA adopted this comment in 2002. See Ellen J. Bennet et al., Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 326 (ABA Tth ed.2011). Although the Colorado Supreme Court adopted comment 1 on April 12, 2007, effective January 1, 2008, not all jurisdictions have adopted this comment. See id. 112 . Colo. RPC Scope T21. 113 . Colo. RPC 3.3 cmts. 1-2; see also Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Rhinehart, 827 N.W.2d 169, 176-77 (Iowa 2013) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Dobbs, 94 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an attorney who committed extrinsic fraud did not violate iowas analogue to colo rpc 33 because he engaged in fraud in his own dissolution proceeding rather than while representing a client (B) holding that where an agent is guilty of independent fraud for his benefit knowledge of the fraud is not imputed to the principal (C) holding that although a lawyer who violated the predecessor to colo rpc 18a did not have the conscious objective to deceive his client or to take advantage of her he was aware of the circumstances and the consequences of his conduct his mental state was therefore greater than one of negligence (D) holding that in the context of federal immigration law the amount of loss to the victim of fraud or deceit does not refer to an element of the fraud or deceit but rather refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed fraud or deceit (E) holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud
Output (English): holding that although a lawyer who violated the predecessor to colo rpc 18a did not have the conscious objective to deceive his client or to take advantage of her he was aware of the circumstances and the consequences of his conduct his mental state was therefore greater than one of negligence