1986 Duke L.J., the Lawyer as Informer, 491-547. 5. Some jurisdictions have not merely removed the mandatory aspect of the duty to inform, they have rejected a duty to report in toto. The New Mexico Supreme Court has created a reason process machinery for investigating and resolving reports of alleged ethical impropriety. Rules Governing Discipline, Rule 17-304. 20 Ariz. L. Rev. 509, note, The Lawyer's Duty to Report Professional Misconduct, n.13, p. 510.
Lawyers are naturally reluctant to inform on a fellow lawyer unless the facts are clear.
But, lawyers have neither the time nor the investigative resources to investigate, and to actually confront another attorney. Thus, when a lawyer possesses knowledge that creates a substantial basis for believing that a serious ethical violation has occurred, the lawyer has a duty to report that violation to the appropriate professional authority. By combing this requirement with a negation of a duty to confront the attorney or attorneys implicated, and the negation of a duty to independently investigate, we intend to remove any argument that subjective awareness, in fact, of probable falsity, may exist if confrontation or independent investigation has not occurred. To the contrary, Rule 16-803 merely requires the attorney to inform. The Disciplinary Board may also employ investigators.