Understanding Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal, and How It Can Help Your Family Court Case While the exact language may vary slightly by jurisdiction, the core principles are consistent across all states:
Key Duties Under Rule 3.3 in Most States:
1. No false statements of fact or law to a court.
An attorney or GAL must not lie to the court, period. That includes:
• Making up facts that aren’t true
• Misrepresenting what happened in a case
• Distorting or misquoting laws or court rulings to mislead the judge
• Repeating known false statements made by others, without correcting them
This rule requires complete honesty, not just in what is said, but in how it’s said and what is left implied.
Example of a Violation :
A GAL says in court that a parent is “refusing therapy,” when in reality, the parent has been asking for therapy repeatedly, but the GAL or the other parent has delayed starting it. This would be a false statement of fact, and if done knowingly, it’s unethical and possibly sanctionable.
2. Duty to correct any false statements previously made.
Once a lawyer or GAL realizes they’ve made a false statement, whether it was a mistake, misunderstanding, or intentional, they have an ongoing duty to correct it.
This means they must:
• Tell the court they were wrong
• Clarify the truth, even if it hurts their case
• Update or retract prior statements that are now known to be untrue
Failing to do this is a continuing violation of ethical duties and can mislead the court and violate due process.
3. No concealment of material facts that are necessary to avoid misleading the court.
This prohibits attorneys and GALs from hiding or omitting key facts that are necessary for the court to make a fair and informed decision.
Even if the facts aren’t directly asked about, if leaving them out would cause the court to reach a false or incomplete understanding, then not sharing them is considered misconduct.
It’s not just about avoiding lies, it’s about avoiding misleading the court through silence.
Example:
If a GAL knows a therapist is not licensed in the state they were practicing in but fails to tell the judge, the court may assume the therapist is legitimate. That omission misleads the court, even if no one directly asked about the license.
4. Duty to disclose legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction that is directly adverse to the client’s position.
This refers to an attorney’s ethical duty to be honest with the court, even when it hurts their own client’s case.
If a lawyer knows there is legal precedent (a court ruling or statute) in the same jurisdiction that hurts their client’s argument, they must tell the court about it, even if the opposing side doesn’t.
Why? Because attorneys have a duty of candor to the tribunal (court) that overrides the goal of simply “winning.”
Real-World Example 1:
An attorney is arguing that a child should not be forced to attend reunification therapy.
But in a recent case in the same state, an appellate court ruled that reunification therapy is in the child’s best interest even when the child is resistant.
If that attorney knows about this ruling and doesn’t tell the judge, it’s a violation of Rule 3.3.
Real-World Example 2:
A GAL argues that the court should defer all parenting decisions to the child’s therapist.
But there’s a law in that state that says: “Mental health professionals cannot have final say over custodial or visitation decisions.”
The GAL must disclose that law to the judge, even if it undercuts their argument.
5. Ongoing duty, these obligations apply throughout the entire case, not just during active court appearances.
Candor Toward the Tribunal is an ethical requirement for lawyers in every state. It applies to guardians ad litem, attorneys, and any legal officer acting in a court-appointed or advocacy role.
Most people don’t realize that every attorney, including guardians ad litem (GALs), is held to a strict legal and ethical standard known as Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal. This rule exists in every U.S. state and is part of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
At its core, it means that any attorney appearing before a judge is legally obligated to tell the truth, correct false statements, and avoid misleading the court, whether intentionally or by omission.
If your GAL, opposing counsel, or even your own attorney makes false claims, withholds material facts, or fails to correct a known misrepresentation during a custody case, they may be in violation of Rule 3.3. This isn’t just a technicality, it’s a serious breach of professional conduct. When these professionals sway the court with dishonesty, it doesn’t just hurt you, it can have devastating effects on your child’s wellbeing and the integrity of the court process.
How can you use this in your case?
Start by documenting every false or misleading statement made in court filings, hearings, or conversations with the judge. Collect emails, transcripts, reports, or correspondence where these contradictions or lies can be shown. If you can prove that an attorney or GAL knowingly presented false facts, misrepresented findings, or omitted crucial context that harmed your case, you can file a formal complaint with the state’s bar association or judicial conduct board. Be specific, cite Rule 3.3 and outline how their actions violated it.
This rule also requires attorneys to disclose legal authority that goes against their case if it’s controlling law in that jurisdiction. If your attorney or the GAL ignored case law that favors your parental rights, or failed to present it when obligated, that’s another ethical failure under Rule 3.3. They aren’t allowed to play games with the law, they must be truthful, balanced, and fair in front of a judge.
Don’t let the title “GAL” or “officer of the court” intimidate you. These roles carry immense power, but that power comes with responsibility. If your rights were violated by dishonest tactics in family court, you can and should hold those responsible accountable. Educating yourself about rules like 3.3 is one of the most effective ways to fight back, not with emotion, but with evidence, law, and truth.
コメント