Attorney Conduct Code

Rules of Professional Conduct – in part

*Red line notations or alleged violation committed in my case by attorneys – You be the Judge.

*Special Note: Fraud Elements (in part)

(1) A deliberate failure to disclose material facts

(2) by one who had;

Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client: or (these attorneys represented my 1/6 spendthrift beneficiary interest while filing suit against me personally)

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a) a lawyer may represent a client if;

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is prohibited by law;

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and

(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Rule 3.4 Fairness to opposing party and counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully later, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act: (these attorneys disregarded entirely my bench books of evidence accepted without contest into evidence).

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law.

(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;

(e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or

Rule 3.7 Lawyer as Witness

(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless: (Trustees attorney Glenn Marcantel was both trial lawyer and testified as a main witness on contested issues – as a matter of transcribed court records)

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;

(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or

(3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.

(b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer’s firm in likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9.

Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in statements to others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly;

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6

Rule 8.2 Judicial and Legal Officials

(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity…

Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a question as to the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of the applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a question as to the judge’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness for office shall inform the Judiciary Commission. Complaints concerning the conduct of federal judges shall be filed with the appropriate federal authorities in accordance with federal laws and rules governing federal judicial conduct and disability.

Rule 8.4 Misconduct

(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so through the acts of another.

(b) Engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana, in a disciplinary proceeding in Re: Thomas W. Ahlder No. 98-B-2742 reviewed whether said attorney knowingly made false statements of material fact or law to a third party, violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, engaged in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or misrepresentation. The Court reviewed whether said attorney engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Rule 8.5 Disciplinary authority

(a) Disciplinary Authority: A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs…..

(2)…the rules of the jurisdiction shall apply to the lawyers conduct…

Many web sites have complained unethical lawyers lie routinely in court, misrepresenting written law and material facts, escalating damages and conflict. Misconduct often fostering criminal acts.

The Code of Conduct very specifically prohibits this kind of misbehavior, but courts and reviewing disciplinary boards are lineate – sadly – effectively disposing of blind justice, contributing to the downfall of public trust in derailing the justice system.


Leave a Comment