see also Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3 (describing attorney’s duty of candor to the tribunal); Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.1 (“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous ... ”). Simply put, once Mr. Lof-tus’s claim lost legal merit, Mr. deLone had a duty to withdraw the ease. As an officer of the court, Mr. deLone was not free to press on with a meritles review of an appellate court’s decision from the Supreme Court does not license an attorney to ignore the precedential value of that decision in other pending cases, as though it had no force or effect. See Ithaca College v. National Labor Relations Board, 623 F.2d 224 (2d Cir.1980)(<HOLDING>). In light of the factors cited by the Court
holding a plaintiff cannot avoid exhaustion simply because he or she asks for damages holding that decision cannot be ignored simply because review is being sought holding that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that effectively sought review of an indiana state courts decision holding that the commissioners decision cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence holding that we lack jurisdiction when the relief sought is a review of the consuls decision denying them application for a visa