## Facts

- An attorney and his law partner jointly represented a mother seeking ex parte emergency temporary custody and relief from abuse regarding two minor children, while related custody litigation was pending in New Jersey.
- At the ex parte hearing, co-counsel made material representations about the status of the New Jersey case and the views and actions of the mother’s New Jersey counsel.
- The non-speaking attorney had firsthand knowledge of what New Jersey counsel actually said and did because he had communicated directly with her and conveyed that information to co-counsel in preparing the application.
- The co-counsel’s statements at the hearing were later shown to be inaccurate or incomplete in ways material to whether the Connecticut court should grant emergency relief.
- The non-speaking attorney did not correct the inaccurate statements or disclose contrary material facts during the ex parte proceeding.
- After the hearing, New Jersey counsel informed the Connecticut judge that certain statements made in the ex parte proceeding were false, prompting an attorney-misconduct inquiry.
- The trial judge found the non-speaking attorney violated Rules 3.3(a)(1) and 3.3(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and imposed a reprimand.
- The attorney sought review by writ of error, challenging the factual basis for the findings and asserting inadequate notice and due process; the Appellate Court dismissed the writ.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 3.3(a)(1) (false statement to a tribunal) can be violated by an attorney who, knowing a co-counsel’s material statement is false, fails to correct it when made in the attorney’s presence.
2. Whether Rule 3.3(d) requires an attorney in an ex parte proceeding to disclose all material facts known to the attorney—including adverse facts—and whether nondisclosure supports discipline.
3. Whether the reprimand should be set aside because the factual findings lacked record support or because the attorney lacked adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, leaving in place the dismissal of the writ of error and the reprimand.
- The court held that, in appropriate circumstances, Rule 3.3(a)(1) is violated when an attorney knowingly fails to correct a co-counsel’s material false statement made in the attorney’s presence, particularly when the statement concerns facts within the attorney’s firsthand knowledge.
- The court held the attorney violated Rule 3.3(d) by failing to disclose all material facts known to him in the ex parte custody proceeding, including facts that would bear on the court’s emergency jurisdiction and decision-making.
- The court rejected the attorney’s argument that he could not be disciplined because he did not personally make any false statement to the tribunal.
- The court found the trial court’s findings were supported by the record and that the misconduct proceedings provided sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 3.3(a)(1)’s duty of candor is not limited to the lawyer who speaks; an attorney may be responsible for a material misrepresentation when, with knowledge, the attorney fails to correct a co-counsel’s false statement made in the attorney’s presence during joint representation.
- In ex parte proceedings, Rule 3.3(d) imposes an affirmative duty to disclose all material facts known to counsel so the tribunal can make an informed decision, even if the facts are adverse to the client.
- Assigning speaking roles among co-counsel does not allocate away professional responsibility; each lawyer remains accountable for preventing the court from being misled by material inaccuracies tied to the lawyer’s knowledge.
- A reprimand for Rule 3.3 violations may be upheld where the record supports findings of knowledge, materiality, and omission, and where the attorney receives notice and an opportunity to respond in the misconduct proceeding.

## Conclusion

The court upheld discipline against an attorney who remained silent while co-counsel made material inaccuracies in an ex parte custody hearing, holding that knowing failure to correct co-counsel’s false statements and failure to disclose material adverse facts in ex parte proceedings can violate the duty of candor to the tribunal.


Daniels v. Alander, 844 A.2d 182 (Conn. 2004)