Bill Scmalfeldt’s new attorney, Michael J. Sorich is a member of the The Illinois State Bar Association, which has a code of conduct for lawyers. Rule 3.3 is a doozy.
You can skip everything in dark green if you just remember this: Michael J. Sorich cannot tell a lie of fact in court documents. If he finds out there’s a lie being presented, he has to disclose the lie.
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
I’m not a lawyer, since the LSAT was really tough that year, but this seems to mean that anything in the Schmalfeldt lawsuit must be truthful. John Hoge has already found a whopper, but I’m pretty sure there are more:
The words quoted in the complaint are preceded by these—
Oh, and just an aside…by the above I do not mean to suggest in any way that
which means that the words TDFS claims are defamatory are not words that Krendler offers as being true.
I think it would be highly unlikely that any lawyer would be willing to risk Rule 11 sanctions by allowing a client to make such a false allegation.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says in part…
By the way, you can skip the green letters below if you just remember: Michael J. Sorich cannot tell a lie of fact in court documents. If he finds out there’s a lie being presented, he has to disclose the lie.
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;
One more thing: (They punish the law firm! You can skip this now.)
1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.