What did Orange County's 1994 opinion say about a prosecutor withholding known facts at an administrative hearing?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A deputy attorney general prosecuting a medical-license revocation hearing truthfully told the administrative law judge that defense counsel had not contacted him about an absence. He also knew from another source that counsel and the doctor were appearing for arraignment elsewhere that hour. The judge noted a default and revoked the license.
The opinion answers two questions. It concludes that California's State Bar has authority to discipline elected prosecutors and deputies for professional misconduct. It also concludes that a public prosecutor's duty to pursue and present truth takes precedence over the prosecutor's loyalty to the People of California. It reasons from California's then applicable tribunal-candor rule and judicial descriptions of a prosecutor's distinct duty.
The committee expressly leaves open the analogous question for defense counsel when a court asks about facts affecting a client.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994, before California's 2018 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Bar's official rules page says the new rules became effective November 1, 2018. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.
Common questions
Q: Could California discipline an elected prosecutor or deputy for professional misconduct?
A: The committee answered yes and cited California Supreme Court decisions involving public attorneys.
Q: Did client loyalty excuse the prosecutor from presenting known facts?
A: The opinion said the public prosecutor's duty to pursue and present truth transcended responsibility to pursue the interests of the state client.
Q: Did the committee decide the same question for defense counsel?
A: No. It expressly did not analyze the analogous situation in which defense counsel is questioned about facts affecting a client.
Background and rules framework
The opinion quotes former California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-310 on loyalty and 5-200 on truthful dealings with a tribunal, along with California Business and Professions Code section 6068. It uses California cases concerning prosecutor discipline and candor to resolve the stated issues.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-310 and 5-200
Statutes:
- California Business and Professions Code section 6068
Cases:
- Price v. Superior Court (1982) 30 Cal.3d 537, public attorney discipline
- In re Barnes (1978) 281 Ore 375, prosecutor's omission in a warrant application
See also
Source
- Landing page: Orange County Bar ethics opinions
- Original PDF: Formal Opinion 94-003
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1994. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace