Opinion ID: 416833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: failure to inform the court

Text: 14 Despite the preemptive effect that the settlement agreement has had on the present litigation, counsel for neither Douglas nor the DOL properly informed this court of its existence. In the original briefs filed before this court, for example, there is barely any mention of the settlement agreement. Douglas' brief completely ignores the settlement, probably because of ignorance about its substantive effect on the litigation. The DOL's brief mentions it in passing only twice, once as a mere citation in a footnote whose primary focus is the property settlement reached in 1969, and once in the text, at which point it is termed a property settlement that will survive the litigation. Even worse, the settlement came to the attention of the court only accidentally at oral argument when Douglas' counsel was about to conclude his statement. Until that last-minute reference, neither party mentioned the settlement agreement during thirty minutes of oral argument. 15 As officers of this court, counsel have an obligation to ensure that the tribunal is aware of significant events that may bear directly on the outcome of litigation. See, e.g., MODEL CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EC 7-20 (1981) (our adjudicative process requires an informed, impartial tribunal capable of administering justice promptly and efficiently). This is especially true for government attorneys, who have special responsibilities to both this court and the public at large. See, e.g., MODEL CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EC 7-14 (1981) ([a] government lawyer in a civil action ... has the responsibility to seek justice and to develop a full and fair record). As Chief Justice Burger has admonished in a similar situation: 16 It is disconcerting to this Court to learn of relevant and important developments in a case after the entire Court has come to the Bench to hear arguments. 17 ... [T]he Court should have been explicitly advised that changes had occurred. The only reference to changes in the law actually gives the impression that their effect is negligible. 18 This Court must rely on counsel to present issues fully and fairly, and counsel have a continuing duty to inform the Court of any development which may conceivably affect an outcome. 19 Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 390-91, 95 S.Ct. 533, 540, 42 L.Ed.2d 521 (1975) (Burger, C.J., concurring). Such duties of counsel are not lessened when they are challenging a legal determination by the lower court which they believe to be erroneous. It is one thing to argue that a settlement does not moot a particular case; it is quite another to promote an advisory opinion by disguising a settlement in order to hide it from the court's consideration.