Ethics Opinion 219

Conflict of Ethical Obligations

* [NOTE: See how Opinion 219 has been substantively affected by the amendments to the D.C. 2007年2月1日生效的《澳博app》

如果具有法律效力的联邦法庭规定要求披露欺诈行为，并且首先给予客户合理的机会调查和追究对该规定提出的任何善意质疑，则澳博app不排除在代理客户在联邦法庭或其他人面前所犯的欺诈行为.

Applicable Rules

• Rule 1.6(d)(2)(A) (Confidentiality of Information)
• Rule 3.3(d) (Candor Toward the Tribunal)
• Rule 4.1(b) (Truthfulness in Statements to Others)

Inquiry
A regulation of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 37 C.F.R. § 10.85(b) (1), provides:

A practitioner who receives information clearly establishing that . . . [a] client has, in the course of the representation, 对某人或法庭实施欺诈的，应立即要求委托人改正, and if the client refuses or is unable to do so, 执业人员应当向受影响的人或法庭揭露欺诈行为.¹

本调查旨在就如何使本条例的要求与哥伦比亚特区澳博app协会成员的道德义务相协调寻求指导.

Discussion
The comments to Rule 8.目前生效的《澳博app》第5条涉及不同司法管辖区不一致的道德要求之间的冲突所产生的问题, 包括澳博app协会规则和联邦法庭规则之间的冲突. However, there can be no such problem in the absence of a true conflict. That is the circumstance here.

Rule 3.3(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct states:

澳博app在收到明确证明法庭发生欺诈行为的资料后，应及时向法庭披露欺诈行为，除非履行这一义务需要披露受规则1保护的资料.在这种情况下，澳博app应当及时要求委托人纠正欺诈行为.²

See also Rule 4.1(b)(除非规则1禁止披露，否则在为避免协助客户的犯罪或欺诈行为而必要时，明知未向第三人披露重大事实。.6). Rule 1.6, in turn, 一般要求澳博app为澳博app的委托人保守机密和秘密, which Rule 1.第6(b)条将其定义为包括“在专业关系中获得的……如果泄露会令人尴尬的信息”, or would be likely to be detrimental, to the client.因为这个定义包含了客户在代理过程中存在欺诈行为, a member of the D.C. 即使客户拒绝纠正，澳博app事务所通常也不会披露此类欺诈行为.³

There is an important exception, however. Rule 1.6(d)(2)(A)允许澳博app在“法律或法院命令要求”时披露客户的机密和秘密." In the Committee's view, 就此而言，“法律”包括具有法律效力的联邦法规. That is the normal understanding of the term. See, e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 295-96 (1979). Moreover, 对规则的评论表明，“法律”属于有关条款的含义, Rule 1.6(d)(2)(B), includes such regulations.⁴

Accordingly, 我们的结论是，如果客户拒绝按照联邦法庭的规定纠正欺诈行为，要求披露具有法律效力的信息, the lawyer could make the disclosure without contravening Rule 1.6 or Rules 3.3(d) or 4.1(b).

The question remains whether 37 C.F.R. § 10.85(b)(1) constitutes such a regulation. Although this is a question of law beyond the purview of the Committee, 我们认为，在根据该条例作出任何披露之前，澳博app应通知客户，并为客户提供合理的机会，以调查和追究对该条例的任何善意质疑. See 第214号意见(澳博app可以遵守执行国税局传票的最终司法命令，而不寻求对该命令进行上诉审查，只要客户被告知并有合理的机会独立寻求审查).

Inquiry No. 89-3-12
Adopted July 17, 1991

1. According to the inquiry, 专利商标局对此的解释是，欺诈包括不遵守第37条C.F.R. § 1.56(a), 发明人及其澳博app有义务向专利局披露他们所知道的对审查申请很重要的信息."
2. 就本意见而言，我们假定专利商标局构成本规则意义上的“法庭”. According to paragraph [12] of the Terminology section of the Rules, "tribunal" "denotes a court, regulatory agency, commission, 以及法律授权作出司法或准司法性质决定的任何其他机构或个人, based on information presented before it, regardless of the degree of formality or informality of the proceedings."
3. 在这种情况下，如果欺诈仍在继续，澳博app将被要求退出代理，否则将涉及澳博app的协助. See Rules 1.2(e), 1.16(a)(1), 3.3(a)(2); Opinion 153. See also Rule 1.16(b)(1)和(2)关于澳博app合理地相信(但不知道)欺诈行为已经发生或欺诈行为没有继续进行时的许可撤回, but has previously involved the lawyer's services.
4. Rule 1.6(d)(2)(B)“在法律允许或授权的情况下”允许政府澳博app披露客户机密和秘密." Comment [34] to Rule 1.第6条规定，政府澳博app根据本项进行的披露“可以得到法律的授权或要求”, executive order or regulation, 取决于授权实体的宪法或法定权力."