Is Attorney Ackerman subject to discipline?
A. Yes, because Attorney Ackerman knowingly used false testimony.
B. Yes, if Dennis committed a felony when he obtained the driver’s license under an assumed name.
C. No, because Attorney Ackerman’s knowledge of Dennis’ true name was obtained during the course of representation.
D. No, unless Dennis’ true name is an issue in the proceeding.
Answer:A
Is Attorney Ackerman subject to discipline?
A. Yes, because Attorney Ackerman knowingly used false testimony. B. Yes, if Dennis committed a felony when he obtained the driver’s license under an assumed name. C. No, because Attorney Ackerman’s knowledge of Dennis’ true name was obtained during the course of representation. D. No, unless Dennis’ true name is an issue in the proceeding.
Explanation: Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits a lawyer from “knowingly. . . offer[ing] evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.” By calling Dennis to testify and soliciting the false testimony about his name, Ackerman was offering evidence that he knew to be false. The real question is what the attorney should do next. But, in MPRE world, all that exists is the fact pattern given. So answer based on what you’ve been told. “C” is not correct because candor to the court trumps the duty of confidentiality. “B” is also incorrect; even if Dennis committed a felony when he used the assumed name, that is a past act and Ackerman did not assist in that crime. So, even under B, confidentiality would apply BUT FOR the fact that the lawyer is offering the false evidence to a tribunal. “D” is incorrect; the materiality of the evidence is not relevant. Accordingly, the correct answer is “A.”