Opinion ID: 1897736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Duty of Disclosure

Text: The third issue stands alone, and we shall dispose of it first. We agree with the general statement that a party may not couch a pleading in a manner that is likely to mislead the court, and there is no doubt that attorneys have clear duties and constraints under Rule 3.3. Neither precept, however, requires a party or an attorney to assert an adverse party's defense, much less to produce evidence in support of it, when the party disputes that defense. The closest that Rule 3.3 comes in that regard is the requirement, in § (d), that, [i]n an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. The proceedings in this case were not ex parte. Section 9-105(a)(1)(iii) and Rule 12-302(b)(3) require that the plaintiff, in the complaint, state the amount or sum claimed to be due less any credit recognized by the [plaintiff].  (Emphasis added.) They do not require the plaintiff to allege a credit or defense that it does not recognize as valid; that is for the owner or other interested party to assert. [6]