Unethical lawyers? What next?

[T]he lawyers who defended Donald Trump at his bank fraud trial have found themselves in a precarious position: open to accusations that they violated professional ethics for remaining silent while their witness lied in court.

  Daily Beast

Are we supposed to believe this is a first?

Attorneys put their bar licenses at risk if they sit idly by while they know that their witnesses present false testimony under oath.

[...]

“The lawyers could face bar discipline if they knew that this testimony was false and did nothing,” said Rebecca Roiphe, who teaches at New York Law School.

Has that actually ever happened?

New York’s rules of professional conduct command that “a lawyer shall not… knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.” But it also goes further, ordering that a lawyer who knows their client has “engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.”

[...]

As such, Weisselberg’s recent confession presents a unique and personal threat to Trump’s hired legal guns, who have already gained an unseemly reputation over their willingness to defend their client’s hate-fueled attacks on public officials, attack judges on his behalf, and play delay games by pitting court calendars against each other.

[...]

On Monday, Weisselberg admitted to lying twice in depositions with the New York Attorney General’s investigators and a third time in Engoron’s courtroom during the trial on Oct. 10—committing a crime when he tried to disavow his role in helping Trump triple the size of his three-floor apartment at Trump Tower on financial papers.

[...]

The question, then, is whether Trump’s lawyers knew Weisselberg was lying when he did it.

[...]

[Inculpatory] electronic communications were cited as evidence in Engoron’s 92-page order against Trump and Weisselberg—meaning they were part of discovery in the bank fraud case. Those documents would have been reviewed by Trump’s legal team during the case.

[...]

“They should have known,” said Daniel L. Feldman, who teaches ethics at the City University of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

“There are two alternatives: Either they did not engage in due diligence—itself a violation of lawyers’ ethics—or they knew. What are the alternatives? They didn’t read the documents? I mean, come on."

[...]

Legal scholars told The Daily Beast that Engoron, his law clerk, the DA, the AG, the still-unnamed judge who will oversee Weisselberg’s sentencing in April, or any member of the public could file a complaint against Trump’s lawyers to the professional disciplinarians.

But can they prove it?

“In a lawyer disciplinary case in New York, the standard of proof is lower than most jurisdictions. It’s just the preponderance of the evidence,” said Hal R. Lieberman, who once led the First Department’s disciplinary committee as its chief counsel and co-wrote a book about the topic.

That means the lawyers in charge of investigating this don’t have to prove any professional misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. [...] If they’re 51 percent sure something is wrong, they’ve got a case.

[...]

“In the old days, there used to be this idea that the attorney's only obligation is to represent the client. Over the years, that has changed. As the attorney is an officer of the court, the attorney also has an obligation to the public,” Feldman said.

In that lens, Engoron’s warning last month that Trump’s lawyers provide answers “as officers of the court” takes on new meaning. So does their initial response to Engoron’s email, in which they refused to provide answers.

[...]

Even if Trump’s lawyers could successfully defend themselves from professional repercussions, just having to put up a defense could be a big problem for Trump and his attorneys.

The former president’s legal calendar is already full of court dates and deadlines, and Trump’s lawyers—many of whom are working on multiple cases for him—wouldn’t have much time to deal with these complaints without it affecting their own schedules and ability to defend themselves.

Hey! More reason to delay Trump's trials.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.