Opinion ID: 2071076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: COUNT V: SCR 20:3.4(b)

Text: ¶ 67. The disciplinary complaint alleged that Arthur violated SCR 20:3.4(b), which provides that a lawyer shall not falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law. ¶ 68. This allegation stems from Thomas Zupfer's claim that Arthur instructed him to lie about an illness in order to avoid appearing at a properly noticed deposition. As previously noted, Zupfer was the log buyer and timber broker that Arthur engaged in 1995, around the time he was parting company with Statewide and the Keefes. ¶ 69. During these disciplinary proceedings, Zupfer testified that Arthur was his lawyer and that Arthur had told him to call in sick on December 4, 1995, to avoid having to attend a deposition. Arthur vigorously disputes this charge. He challenges the existence of an attorney-client relationship between the two, noting that Zupfer earlier denied having an attorney-client relationship with Arthur. He asserts, further, that Zupfer was not a credible witness. ¶ 70. This finding turned almost exclusively on the referee's credibility assessment. The referee noted that Mary Kathleen Arthur appeared as counsel of record for Zupfer and/or his corporation from April 1995 through December 1995. Ultimately, the referee decided that Arthur had advised Zupfer to claim he was ill and later to testify I don't remember in response to deposition questions about his relationship and dealings with Arthur. ¶ 71. We see no reason to disturb the referee's credibility determination with respect to this incident, and these findings certainly support the conclusion that Arthur violated SCR 20:3.4(b).