Opinion ID: 901122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The Clayborne Complaint

Text: [¶ 33.] During a criminal trial Eicher moved to dismiss the proceeding because the State failed to produce the original videotapes purporting to show his client taking money. Eicher claimed that the tapes provided exculpatory evidence and his ability to cross examine witnesses was impaired by the loss of the tapes. Eicher did not tell the court that he had a copy of the videotapes until Clayborne confronted him with this fact. [¶ 34.] While Eicher did not directly lie to the trial court, he intentionally misled the court concerning the availability of what he claimed was essential evidence. Clearly, the requirement of candor towards the tribunal goes beyond simply telling a portion of the truth. In re Discipline of Wilka, 2001 SD 148, ¶ 15, 638 N.W.2d 245, 249. It requires every attorney to be fully honest and forthright. We cannot overemphasize the importance of attorneys in this state being absolutely fair with the court. Every court ... has the right to rely upon an attorney to assist it in ascertaining the truth of the case before it. Therefore, candor and fairness should characterize the conduct of an attorney at the beginning, during, and at the close of litigation. [ Matter of Discipline of] Schmidt, 491 N.W.2d [754] at 755 (citing H. Drinker, Legal Ethics 74 (1953)). There is no allowance for interpretation. Id. [¶ 35.] Eicher's professional obligation to represent his client does not exonerate him in this situation. [T]here is a line that even the zealous advocate cannot cross. Wilka, 2001 SD 148 at ¶ 16, 638 N.W.2d at 249. It is absolutely necessary that each member of the bar comprehends the great responsibility that every person who has the privilege to practice law must strive for: to be a person of unquestionable integrity as he or she deals with the rights of people before the bar. A practitioner of the legal profession does not have the liberty to flirt with the idea that the end justifies the means, or any other rationalization that would excuse less than complete honesty in the practice of the profession. Certainly, our Rules of Professional Conduct allow no such flirtation. Matter of Discipline of Mines, 523 N.W.2d 424, 427 (S.D.1994). See also SDCL 16-18-19: It is the duty of an attorney and counselor at law to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and never to seek to mislead the judges by any artifice or false statement of fact or law. Eicher intentionally misled the court and crosse[d] the line into improper and unprofessional conduct. Wilka, 2001 SD 148 at ¶ 16, 638 N.W.2d at 249. [6]