Reporter's Explanation of Changes
TEXT:
The Commission is not recommending any change in the Rule text.
COMMENT:
[1] These changes clarify that there is a duty to supplement an answer later found to be wrong. The point might already be comprehended within the black letter "correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter," but, to make the point clear, the new language has been added and paragraph (b) is cited as the source of the obligation. No change in substance is intended.
[3] This change reminds lawyers that bar admission and professional discipline are judicial proceedings subject to the requirements of Rules 1.6 and 3.3. Although Rule 1.6 does not require a lawyer to come forward with adverse evidence, in a limited number of cases, the requirements of Rule 3.3 may do so. No change in substance is intended.
Return to Report Home Page | Return to Ethics 2000 Home Page | Return to Center Home Page