Opinion ID: 2096988
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Count 13: Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1); [11] Candor toward a tribunal.

Text: ¶ 25 In a March 24, 2004, letter to the judge in L.G.'s third lawsuit, Attorney Nunnery wrote he had been: [c]onferring with my client regarding this matter. I have not been able to discuss the merits of the dismissal. I think it may be appropriate simply just to put an indefinite stay on this matter. I hope to have a decision to the court in ten days on a dismissal. The referee stated L.G. testified credibly he had not conferred with Attorney Nunnery about a possible dismissal and, in fact, L.G. believed the case was still continuing. The referee found that the March 24, 2004, letter violated the duty of candor toward a tribunal.