Court Opinion

ID: 9759540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:19:36.741544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:02.739415
License: Public Domain

Justice LaVECCHIA,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the Court’s opinion to the extent that it holds that the type of conduct exhibited by respondent violates the professional duty of candor and good faith to the tribunal that is required by RPC 3.3(a)(5). That conclusion is consistent with the letter and spirit of the RPC and its application in past cases, including criminal matters. My disagreement is with the determination not to find an ethical violation and not to impose any discipline in this matter.
We are not concerned here with the outer limits of an attorney’s duty to inform the tribunal about factual information to which his client may testify, or not. Nor does this matter involve a question of privilege about which the Court concerned itself in the recent amendment clarifying RPC 3.3(a)(5). This case involves respondent’s intentional withholding of publicly available information from the tribunal, knowing that the tribunal would be misled thereby. Indeed, respondent’s testimony at his disciplinary hearing reveals that he intended to capitalize on the fruits of his conduct through a later claim of Double Jeopardy, a claim made *259available as a consequence of his omission of critical information in his exchange with the court. Ante at 252-53, 850 A2d at 488-89.
I respectfully dissent. I would impose a reprimand for respondent’s sharp practice before Judge Lake in violation of RPC 3.3(a)(5).
For affirmance in part/modify in part — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LONG, VERNIERO, ZAZZALI, ALBIN and WALLACE — 6.
For concurrence in part!dissenting in part — Justice LaVECCHIA — 1.