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; or (3) offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.
Rule 3.3 imposes a duty of candor on attorneys toward courts, arbitrators, and other tribunals. Attorneys cannot make false statements of fact or law to a tribunal, cannot cite cases that do not exist (a now-frequent AI-related violation), must disclose directly adverse controlling authority, and cannot offer evidence they know to be false. The rise of AI-generated legal research has created a new category of Rule 3.3 violations: attorneys citing cases hallucinated by AI tools that do not exist in any legal database. Sanctions for AI-related candor violations have been severe and widely publicized.
Rule 3.3 violations are treated with particular seriousness because they strike at the integrity of the judicial system itself. Courts have imposed fines, dismissals, referrals to disciplinary authorities, and public sanctions. The AI-related candor violations have resulted in fines ranging from $1,000 to over $10,000, along with referrals to state bars. Pre-AI candor violations involving deliberate misrepresentation to courts have resulted in suspensions and disbarment.
If you believe your attorney violated Rule 3.3 — Candor Toward the Tribunal — you may have grounds for a bar complaint. Our guide explains the process.
The Ethics Reporter investigates attorney misconduct and judicial corruption. Help us keep this work free and independent.
Donate to Support Our Work