Source: https://lalegalethics.org/louisiana-rules-of-professional-conduct/article-3-advocate/rule-3-4-fairness-to-opposing-party-and-counsel/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:12:57+00:00

Document:
The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted this rule on January 20, 2004. It became effective on March 1, 2004, and has not been amended since. This rule is identical to ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4 (2002).
 With regard to paragraph (b), it is not improper to pay a witness’s expenses or to compensate an expert witness on terms permitted by law. The common law rule in most jurisdictions is that it is improper to pay an occurrence witness any fee for testifying and that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee.
A lawyer may not take part in unlawfully altering, destroying or concealing documentary or other evidence that is potentially relevant to a matter. See La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 3.4(a) (2004); see also Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 118 (2000). Likewise, a lawyer may not assist a witness in testifying falsely. See id. § 120(1)(a). Nevertheless, it is permissible for a lawyer to “interview a witness for the purpose of preparing the witness to testify.” Id. § 116(1); see also State v. Morgan, 315 So. 2d 632, 635 (La. 1975). The line between permissible witness preparation, and impermissible witness “education” is sometimes difficult to draw.
In Reynolds v. Bordelon, 172 So. 3d 607, 609 (La. 2015), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that Louisiana does not recognize a cause of action for negligent destruction of evidence. Other remedies exist, however. As to parties to litigation, negligent spoliation can be redressed through the imposition of discovery sanctions and through an adverse evidentiary presumption. As to nonparties to litigation, those who fear destruction can enter into contracts to preserve evidence or seek court orders to preserve evidence. Id.
See NYCLA Ethics Op. No. 745 (Jul. 2, 2013); see also Op. No. 14-1, Professional Ethics of the Florida Bar (Jun. 25, 2015, approved Oct. 16, 2015); N.C. Formal Ethics Opinion 5 (July 25, 2014). This is good advice. Rule 1.1, which requires a lawyer to be competent, suggests that a lawyer not only can, but should, advise his client about the possible case-related consequences of social-media postings. A client needs to know that the other side may be watching.
Rule 4.1 and Rule 3.3 would prohibit a lawyer from advising a client to post false images or information on a social media site for purposes of manufacturing favorable evidence (for example, by encouraging a personal injury client to post a sad picture of herself in a wheelchair when she was neither sad nor wheelchair-bound).
Rule 3.4(a) prohibits a lawyer from counseling a person, including a client, (1) to engage in spoliation of evidence, 1 (2) to “unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence,” or (3) to “unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.” A picture of a personal injury plaintiff jumping on a trampoline is a document “having potential evidentiary value” in a case in which the plaintiff claims that she cannot walk. Therefore, a lawyer clearly could not advise the plaintiff to destroy all extant copies of the photograph. But advising a client to remove a photo from Facebook is not advice “to destroy” or “to conceal” it. Such advice is equivalent to advising a client to remove—but not to destroy—an embarrassing picture posted on a billboard. In short, advising a client to take down a Facebook photo and to preserve it for production in the course of discovery2 should not run afoul of the rules.
Likewise, a lawyer may not assist a witness in testifying flasely. See id. § 120(1)(a). Nevertheless, it is permissible for a lawyer to “interview a witness for the purpose of preparing the witness to testify.” Id. § 116(1); see also State v. Morgan, 472 So. 2d 934 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985). The line between permissible witness preparation, and impermissible witness “education” is sometimes difficult to draw.
A lawyer may not take part in unlawfully obstructing another party’s access to documentary or other evidence that is potentially relevant to a matter. See La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.4(a) (2004); Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 118(2) (2000) (stating that lawyer cannot obstruct access to evidence in violation of court order or obstruction of justice statute). Likewise, a lawyer may not request that a person other than a client refrain from talking with an opponent or an opponent’s lawyer unless: (1) that person is a relative, employee or other agent of the client, and (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person’s interests will not thereby be adversely affected. See La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 3.4(f) (2004); see also Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 116 (2000); In re Hall, 184 So. 3d 1279 (La. 2016) (defendant violated Rule 3.4(b) by giving detox shampoo to client before hair-follicle drug test).
Paragraph (b) prohibits lawyers from offering “an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law.” Given this language, a lawyer must “look outside the rule to ascertain which inducements are prohibited by law and therefore unethical.” See ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Cond. § 61:718 (2007). Louisiana law expressly prohibits only one type of “inducement”—a bribe. “Bribery” is the “giving or offering to give, directly or indirectly, anything of apparent present or prospective value” to any “[w]itness, or person about to be called as a witness, upon a trial or other proceeding” if the payment is made “with the intent to influence his conduct . . . .” See La. Rev. Stat. § 14:118(A)(1)(d); see also 18 U.S.C.A. § 201.
Louisiana decisional law contains no per se prohibition against payments to fact witnesses. The few reported decisions that address the issue reflect judicial disapproval only when the payment is made with improper motive. For example, the Louisiana Supreme Court disbarred a lawyer for paying a bribe to a witness with the intent to influence the witness’s testimony. See In re Hingle, 717 So. 2d 636 (La. 1998). Likewise, the Louisiana Supreme Court disbarred a lawyer who made a payment to a witness for the purpose of inducing him “to provide false and misleading information.” See La. State Bar Assoc. v. Thierry, 573 So. 2d 1099, 1103 (La. 1991). The Louisiana Supreme Court suspended a lawyer, in part, because he made a payment to a fact witness whose cooperation was contingent on the payment. See In re Bruno, 956 So. 2d 577, 578-79 (La. 2007).
there is no reason to draw a distinction between (a) compensating a witness for time spent in actually attending a deposition or a trial and (b) compensating the witness for time spent in pretrial interviews with the lawyer in preparation for testifying, so long as the lawyer makes it clear to the witness that the payment is not being made for the substance (or efficacy) of the witness’s testimony or as an inducement to “tell the truth.” The Committee is further of the view that the witness may also be compensated for time spent in reviewing and researching records that are germane to his or her testimony, provided, of course, that such compensation is not barred by local law.
Id.; see also W. V. Legal Ethics Op. 2017-01 (May 22, 2017) (“[C]ompensating a fact witness for time spent preparing for testimony and being interviewed is permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct. This is only allowed if the compensation is reasonable and not based upon the outcome of the litigation. The agreement to pay compensation should be in writing and disclosed to the opposing side.”).
the amount of the payment is not contingent on the witness’s testimony.
As to expert witnesses, a lawyer can lawfully pay a reasonable, noncontingent witness fee. See Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 117(1) (2000).
Paragraph (c) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules or rulings of a tribunal, unless the lawyer does so openly and because the lawyer contends that no “valid obligation exists.” See La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 3.4(c) (2004); see also Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 105 (2000). For example, a lawyer may be found to have violated this rule. Also, a lawyer can violate this rule by failing to cooperate with ODC requests. See In re Bark, 72 So. 3d 853, 856 (La. 2011) (disciplining lawyer for failure to appear for sworn statement and to provide financial records for trust accounts after promising to do so under oath pursuant to ODC investigation). Nor may a lawyer advise a client to disobey such an obligation.
As an analogue to Rule 3.1 (which prohibits lawyers from making frivolous claims and contentions), paragraph (d) of this rule prohibits lawyers from making “a frivolous discovery request,” or from failing “to make [a] reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request.” La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 3.4(d) (2004); Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 110(3) (2000). During trial, a lawyer may not “allude to any matter” that is irrelevant or will not be supported by the evidence. See La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 3.4(e) (2004); see also State v. Brisibi, No. 2011 KA 1517, 2012 WL 1012305, at *1-2 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2012) (finding that prosecuting lawyer who improperly referred to voicemails not admitted into evidence during cross-examination violated 3.4). Furthermore, during trial a lawyer must not inject himself or herself personally into the merits of the case by asserting personal knowledge of facts, or by stating an opinion regarding various aspects of the case, unless the lawyer is a witness. See La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 3.4(e) (2004); see also Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 107 (2000). For example, it is improper for a prosecutor to state at trial that he “expected” a witness “to tell the truth.” See State v. Floyd, 544 So. 2d 616, 619 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989).
Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving a lawyer’s abuse of the legal process: disbarment, when the lawyer knowingly violates a court rule with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, or when the lawyer intentionally tampers with a witness, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes significant or potentially significant interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding; suspension, when the lawyer knows that he is violating a court rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding; reprimand, when the lawyer negligently fails to comply with a court rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or other party, or causes interference or potential interference with a court proceeding; and, admonition, when the lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in complying with a court rule, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no actual or potential interference with a legal proceeding. See ABA Stds. for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions std. 6.2 (1992) (Abuse of Legal Process); id. stds. 6.21-6.24; id. std. 6.31 (Intentional Witness Tampering).

References: § 118
 § 120
 § 116
 v. 
 v. 
 § 120
 § 116
 v. 
 § 118
 § 116
 § 61
 § 14
 § 201
 v. 
 V. 
 § 117
 § 105
 § 110
 v. 
 § 107
 v.