skills/cite-check/references/ethics-and-jurisdictions.md

# Ethics and jurisdiction boundaries for `/cite-check`

## Status, scope, and labels

**Coverage date:** 2026-08-17. The sources below were retrieved on 2026-08-17. This is a representative, source-traceable baseline for cite-check risk triage, not an exhaustive survey and not jurisdiction-specific professional-responsibility advice.

Use this reference to help a lawyer check whether a citation-bearing statement may be unsupported, contradicted, misleading, or procedurally incomplete. It supports the lawyer's discharge of professional duties; it does not decide that counsel committed an ethics violation, predict discipline, or replace the tribunal's rules, controlling law, local practice, discovery orders, or the lawyer's own advice.

The labels in this reference keep evidence separate from judgment:

- **[Rule]** is a proposition stated in the cited rule text.
- **[Comment]** is a proposition stated in an official comment to an ABA Model Rule.
- **[Practice inference]** is a conservative operational implication drawn from the cited rules/comments; it must not be presented as a universal rule.
- **[Routing]** tells the worker to collect a missing jurisdiction, tribunal, posture, timing, audience, or local-rule input.
- **[Limit]** identifies a boundary, uncertainty, or question for the reviewing lawyer.

The product's operational objective is intentionally stricter than a disciplinary rule: it should flag an objectively unsupported, contradicted, stale, misquoted, or overbroad statement for lawyer review even when the record does not establish the lawyer's actual knowledge, materiality, intent, or other elements of a professional-conduct violation.

## Intake gates before applying a rule

1. Identify the tribunal and proceeding, including whether the communication is a filing, hearing, deposition, discovery response, negotiation, ordinary correspondence, or ex parte application.
2. Identify the governing jurisdiction and posture: the tribunal's adopted professional-conduct rules, choice-of-law provisions, binding authority, local rules/orders, and whether the issue is merits advocacy, preservation, discovery, evidence, or public communication.
3. Record the relevant as-of date and audience. A case can be controlling in one court, nonbinding persuasive authority elsewhere, superseded, vacated, limited, or factually distinguishable.
4. Separate the statement's type: fact, legal proposition, quotation, characterization/inference, procedural assertion, or omission/half-truth. Preserve the surrounding paragraph because context can change whether a statement is misleading.
5. Record what the lawyer allegedly knew and when, what the source actually supports, whether the proposition is material to the tribunal's decision, and whether an opponent, rule, order, or statute supplied the missing disclosure obligation.
6. If any gate is unknown, return a source request or lawyer-review outcome. Do not fill a jurisdictional gap with the ABA baseline and do not turn a cite-check flag into a disciplinary conclusion.

## ABA Model Rules baseline

The ABA Model Rules are a baseline, not automatically binding law. A jurisdiction may adopt a rule verbatim, modify its wording, add duties, or use a different numbering scheme. The baseline below uses the official ABA text and comments retrieved 2026-08-17.

### Rules and comments that control the baseline

| Source | Baseline proposition | Operational boundary |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ABA Model Rule 1.3; Comment [1] | **[Rule/Comment]** A lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and promptness. The comment describes commitment, dedication, and zeal in advocacy, but says the lawyer is not bound to press every possible advantage and need not use offensive tactics. | Advocacy is not a duty to make every conceivable point. A missed deadline or neglected matter is different from a strategic choice not to press a weak point. |
| ABA Model Rule 3.1; Comments [1]-[2] | **[Rule]** A lawyer may not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue, without a nonfrivolous basis in law and fact, including a good-faith argument to extend, modify, or reverse existing law. **[Comment]** A position is not frivolous merely because facts are not fully substantiated before discovery or the lawyer expects discovery to develop evidence; the lawyer must inform themself about the facts and law and be able to make a good-faith argument. | Do not flag an ordinary discovery-dependent contention as an ethics breach merely because proof is incomplete at pleading. Flag an unsupported assertion presented as established fact, a knowingly unwarranted legal position, or a filing whose only purpose is delay/harassment. |
| ABA Model Rule 3.3(a)(1)-(2); Comments [2]-[4] | **[Rule]** A lawyer must not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made by the lawyer, or fail to disclose known legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction directly adverse to the client's position when opposing counsel has not disclosed it. **[Comment]** The advocate need not give a disinterested exposition of the law, but must recognize pertinent authority and must not allow the tribunal to be misled. | A directly adverse, known, controlling authority is a distinct flag from a merely unfavorable or nonbinding case. Check the tribunal and the authority's status before classifying it. |
| ABA Model Rule 3.3(a)(3), (b)-(d); Comments [8], [10], [12], [14] | **[Rule]** A lawyer must not offer evidence known to be false; on learning that material evidence is false, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary. In an ex parte proceeding, the lawyer must disclose material facts known to the lawyer that are necessary for an informed decision, whether adverse or not. **[Comment]** Knowledge may be inferred from circumstances; a reasonable belief that evidence is false is not itself the same as knowledge, but an obvious falsehood cannot be ignored. | Preserve the difference between suspicion, objective contradiction, reasonable belief, and actual knowledge. An objective contradiction can warrant a product flag without proving the Rule 3.3 knowledge threshold. |
| ABA Model Rule 3.4(a), (e); Comments [1]-[2] | **[Rule]** A lawyer must not unlawfully obstruct access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal potentially evidentiary material; in trial the lawyer must not allude to irrelevant matters or matters not reasonably believed supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge except as a witness, or state a personal opinion on specified issues. **[Comment]** Discovery and subpoena rights are important procedural rights; applicable law can make destruction intended to impair availability an offense. | Preservation, production, privilege, admissibility, and sanctions are controlled by applicable procedural law, rules, orders, and facts. Rule 3.4 is not a universal instruction to volunteer every adverse fact. |
| ABA Model Rule 4.1; Comments [1]-[3] | **[Rule]** In representing a client, a lawyer must not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person, or fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a client's crime or fraud, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. **[Comment]** A lawyer generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts; a partially true but misleading statement or material omission can be the equivalent of an affirmative false statement. Negotiation estimates, value, and settlement intentions are ordinarily not statements of material fact under accepted conventions, subject to applicable law. | No universal duty to volunteer all adverse facts follows from Rule 4.1. Analyze whether a statement was factual, material, knowingly false, a half-truth, or an omission necessary to avoid assisting crime/fraud, and check other disclosure duties. |

For the knowledge terminology, ABA Model Rule 1.0(f) defines “knowingly,” “known,” or “knows” as actual knowledge of the fact in question, while allowing knowledge to be inferred from circumstances. Rule 1.0(m) defines a “tribunal.” The Model Rules do not turn every objectively weak or contradicted assertion into proof of actual knowledge, materiality, intent, or a disciplinary violation.

### ABA civil-litigation synthesis

- **[Comment] Advocacy is partisan but bounded.** Rule 3.3 Comment [2] recognizes persuasive advocacy rather than an impartial exposition of law; Rules 1.3 Comment [1] and 3.1 preserve lawful, ethical, good-faith advocacy. A brief may select and emphasize favorable authority and facts, distinguish adverse authority, and preserve an issue without misstating the record or law.
- **[Rule/Comment] Objective falsity is a cite-check risk, not an adjudication.** A case cited for a holding it does not contain, an overruled decision presented as current, a repealed statute presented as operative, or a quotation altered to reverse its meaning should be flagged. Rule 3.3 Comment [2] and Comment [4] support the distinction between permissible advocacy and misleading legal argument.
- **[Rule] Controlling adverse authority is narrower than any adverse fact or case.** The trigger is known legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction that is directly adverse and not disclosed by opposing counsel. The authority's binding status, issue, posture, and directness must be checked; a persuasive out-of-jurisdiction case or a distinguishable holding is not automatically within the trigger.
- **[Rule/Comment] Omissions are context-dependent.** Rule 4.1 Comment [1] says the lawyer generally need not inform an opposing party of relevant facts, but a partially true material statement or omission can mislead. Ex parte applications, discovery obligations, court orders, controlling-authority duties, and laws against fraud can create different disclosure consequences.
- **[Rule/Comment] Preservation is procedural.** Rule 3.4 and its comments support preserving potentially relevant evidence and respecting discovery/subpoena rights, but the concrete trigger, scope, privilege treatment, and sanctions come from the governing procedural law and tribunal orders. The worker should not infer a universal preservation duty from a missing fact in a brief alone.
- **[Practice inference] Rebuttal is not an infinite issue list.** A civil advocate should materially engage the opponent's principal arguments and preserve material responses required by the tribunal, but a missing response to every unraised or peripheral counterpoint is ordinarily a strategic judgment for the lawyer to assess, not an automatic Rule 3.3 or 4.1 violation.

## Representative jurisdiction matrix

**Coverage:** The ABA baseline and California rules were retrieved 2026-08-17. The New York Part 1200 text was retrieved 2026-08-17, but the NYCRR document states **“Current through May 31, 2021.”** New York coverage is therefore limited to that stated currency date; check later New York State Register issues and the New York Department of State before relying on the New York entry for a current matter. New York and California were selected because both are major U.S. litigation jurisdictions with rule texts that materially track the ABA architecture while exposing meaningful wording differences: New York expressly identifies “controlling legal authority,” “knowingly asserts material factual statements,” and argument based on analysis of evidence; California separately states diligence and candor thresholds and expressly addresses discovery-rule violations in a comment. This is not an exhaustive survey.

| Issue | ABA baseline | New York (22 NYCRR Part 1200) | California (California Rules of Professional Conduct) | Routing and limit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| False law/fact statement to tribunal | **[Rule]** Rule 3.3(a)(1) prohibits a knowingly false statement of fact or law and requires correction of a false statement of material fact or law previously made by the lawyer. Rule 1.0(f) uses actual knowledge, inferable from circumstances. | **[Rule]** Rule 3.3(a)(1) uses materially the same language. Rule 3.1(b)(3) separately treats knowingly asserting material factual statements that are false as frivolous. Rule 1.0(k) uses actual knowledge inferable from circumstances. | **[Rule]** Rule 3.3(a)(1) uses materially the same language. Rule 1.0.1(f) uses actual knowledge inferable from circumstances. | **[Practice inference]** Flag mismatched support, but do not assert the lawyer knew the statement was false without evidence. Check whether the sentence is fact, law, inference, or advocacy. |
| Candor to tribunal and false evidence | **[Rule]** Rule 3.3(a)(3), (b)-(d) covers known false evidence, reasonable remedial measures, related criminal/fraudulent conduct, continuing duty through conclusion, and ex parte material facts. | **[Rule]** Rule 3.3(a)(3) covers offering or using known false evidence; Rule 3.3(b)-(d) covers remedial measures, disclosure notwithstanding Rule 1.6, and ex parte material facts. Rule 3.3(f) also addresses local custom, courtesy, procedural/evidentiary rules, and disruption. | **[Rule]** Rule 3.3(a)(3), (b)-(d) covers known false evidence, reasonable remedial measures subject to California confidentiality law, continuing duty, and ex parte material facts. | **[Limit]** A source contradiction is not enough to decide knowledge or remedial duty. Identify the proceeding and confidentiality/procedure rules and escalate to the lawyer. |
| Directly adverse controlling authority | **[Rule]** Rule 3.3(a)(2) requires disclosure of known legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction directly adverse to the client when opposing counsel has not disclosed it. Comment [4] says the advocate need not give an impartial exposition but must recognize pertinent authority. | **[Rule]** Rule 3.3(a)(2) says “controlling legal authority” known to be directly adverse and not disclosed by opposing counsel. | **[Rule]** Rule 3.3(a)(2) says legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to be directly adverse and not disclosed by opposing counsel. Comment [3] recognizes that a determinative federal statute/case or binding Supreme Court decision can be controlling even when outside the tribunal's state. | **[Routing]** Verify court hierarchy, choice of law, precedential status, overruling/vacatur, issue, and whether the authority is truly direct. A nonbinding adverse case is not automatically this duty. |
| Misleading omission / half-truth | **[Rule/Comment]** Rule 4.1(b) is limited to a material disclosure necessary to avoid assisting client crime/fraud (subject to Rule 1.6); Comment [1] says no general affirmative duty to inform an opposing party, but a partial truth or material omission can be equivalent to a false statement. Rule 3.3(d) is broader in ex parte proceedings. | **[Rule]** Rule 4.1 prohibits knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a third person but does not reproduce ABA Rule 4.1(b)'s express omission paragraph. Rules 3.3(d), 3.4(a)(3), fraud law, discovery rules, and court orders may impose disclosure duties. | **[Rule/Comment]** Rule 4.1(a)-(b) tracks the ABA structure, with a California confidentiality-law carve-out; Comment [1] expressly says no general affirmative duty to inform an opposing party and treats partial truth/material omission as potentially misleading. | **[Limit]** Do not infer from New York's shorter Rule 4.1 that omissions are always permissible, or from ABA/California Rule 4.1 that every omission is prohibited. Identify the separate legal source of a disclosure duty. |
| Advocacy and argumentative characterization | **[Comment]** Rules 1.3 Comment [1], 3.1 Comment [2], and 3.3 Comment [2] permit commitment, persuasive force, good-faith legal development, and selective advocacy without a duty to press every advantage or give an impartial exposition. | **[Rule]** Rule 3.4(d)(3) bars personal opinions on the justness of a cause, credibility, or culpability, but expressly permits arguing “upon analysis of the evidence” for a position or conclusion. Rule 1.2(e) permits waiving a right or position when the client is not prejudiced. | **[Rule/Comment]** Rules 1.3(b), 3.1(a)(2), 3.3, 3.4(g), and 4.1 Comment [2] preserve advocacy while separating supported argument from fact, personal knowledge, and material factual misstatement. | **[Practice inference]** Label inferential language as argument, state the factual/legal premises accurately, and avoid turning a distinguishable holding into a categorical rule. Whether a characterization is fair depends on context and the tribunal. |
| Preservation, discovery, and adverse facts | **[Rule/Comment]** Rule 3.4(a) and Comment [1] protect access to evidence and prohibit unlawful alteration, destruction, or concealment; Comment [2] recognizes discovery/subpoena rights. Rule 3.1 Comment [2] allows good-faith contentions whose evidence is expected through discovery. | **[Rule]** Rule 3.4(a)(1), (a)(3)-(5), and (c) cover evidence the lawyer/client must reveal or produce, concealment required by law, false evidence, and tribunal rules/rulings; Rule 3.3 covers false or directly adverse authority. | **[Rule/Comment]** Rule 3.4(a)-(b), (f) covers obstruction, unlawful alteration/destruction/concealment, suppression of evidence legally required to be revealed or produced, and tribunal obligations; Comment [2] says a civil/criminal discovery violation alone does not itself establish a Rule 3.4 violation. | **[Routing]** Apply the actual preservation hold, discovery order, privilege, sanctions, and local rules. A civil lawyer generally need not volunteer every adverse fact in an adversarial brief outside those duties, but cannot use a half-truth or conceal what law/order requires. |
| False statement to non-tribunal third person | **[Rule]** Rule 4.1(a) prohibits a knowingly false statement of material fact or law; Rule 4.1(b) addresses crime/fraud-avoidance disclosure subject to confidentiality. | **[Rule]** Rule 4.1 prohibits a knowingly false statement of fact or law to a third person. | **[Rule]** Rule 4.1 prohibits a knowingly false statement of material fact or law and a material omission necessary to avoid assisting client crime/fraud, subject to California confidentiality law. | **[Practice inference]** Negotiation positions, estimates, and argument require context; do not classify every advocacy statement as a factual representation. |

### Knowledge, materiality, and the product's stricter flagging goal

| Question | Source-grounded treatment |
| --- | --- |
| What does “knowingly/known” mean? | **[Rule]** ABA Rule 1.0(f), NY Rule 1.0(k), and California Rule 1.0.1(f) use actual knowledge, with knowledge inferable from circumstances. “Reasonably should know” is not interchangeable with “knows”; where a jurisdiction uses that separate phrase, cite that rule rather than importing it. |
| What is “material”? | **[Rule]** The cited rules use materiality as a qualifier in specified places, including correction of a false statement, false evidence, ex parte facts, and third-person statements. The rules do not make every inaccurate detail material. **[Practice inference]** Assess whether the proposition could affect the tribunal's or recipient's decision in context; state the basis and uncertainty rather than inventing a numeric threshold. |
| What is the operational flag? | **[Practice inference]** Flag objective source mismatch, contradiction, missing controlling authority, misleading context, unsupported quotation, wrong procedural premise, or preservation/discovery uncertainty for lawyer review. The flag is deliberately conservative and can be appropriate even when actual knowledge, intent, materiality, or governing-law elements are unresolved. |
| Who decides an ethics question? | **[Limit]** The reviewing lawyer, tribunal, disciplinary authority, or other authorized decision-maker applies the governing jurisdiction's rule to the complete facts. The skill reports evidence and source/candor risk; it does not adjudicate professional responsibility. |

## Worked civil-litigation examples

### 1. Known controlling adverse case not cited by the opponent

**Facts.** In a New York state-court brief, counsel relies on a proposition about the governing statute. A binding New York Court of Appeals decision squarely rejects that proposition, counsel knows the decision, and the opposing brief does not cite it.

**Assessment.** **[Rule]** NY Rule 3.3(a)(2) expressly requires disclosure of controlling legal authority known to the lawyer to be directly adverse and not disclosed by opposing counsel. ABA Rule 3.3(a)(2) and California Rule 3.3(a)(2) contain the same core trigger. The worker should verify the court hierarchy, current status, issue, and directness; then flag the omission with the exact case and pinpoint. Counsel can disclose the case and argue why it should be distinguished, limited, reconsidered, or why a higher/binding authority controls. The report must not say that counsel committed an ethics violation; it should say that the facts present a source/candor risk under the identified rule if the premises are confirmed.

### 2. Permissible characterization without overstating authority

**Facts.** A brief says, “The court should distinguish *Doe* because *Doe* addressed a different statute, involved a summary-judgment record, and did not decide the pleading question presented here.” The cited passages support those differences. The brief does not say that *Doe* held the opposite rule or conceal a binding case on the same issue.

**Assessment.** **[Comment/Rule]** ABA Rule 3.3 Comment [2] permits persuasive, party-sided advocacy rather than an impartial exposition; NY Rule 3.4(d)(3) permits argument for a position or conclusion upon analysis of the evidence. This is ordinarily permissible argumentative characterization, subject to the tribunal's rules and the actual opinion. If the brief instead says “*Doe* held there is never a duty,” while the holding was limited to a different statute and posture, flag an objective overstatement/mismatch. The output should distinguish “argument” from “holding,” quote the relevant text, and ask counsel to check adverse authority and context.

### 3. Missing rebuttal as a judgment call, not automatically an ethics breach

**Facts.** A civil motion addresses the elements and the opponent's principal argument but does not answer a peripheral counterpoint that the opponent did not raise and that is not required by a briefing rule or order.

**Assessment.** **[Practice inference]** Rules 1.3 and 3.3 do not require an advocate to press every possible advantage or provide an impartial exposition of every counterargument. The omission may be a strategic, word-limit, preservation, or materiality judgment. Ask counsel whether the point is material, likely to be raised by the tribunal, required for preservation, or covered by a local rule/order. Do not label it an ethics violation merely because a rebuttal could have been added. If the brief uses a partial truth that would mislead, omits known controlling authority, violates a disclosure/order, or makes a material false statement, route it to the applicable rule instead.

### 4. Discovery-dependent contention and preservation

**Facts.** A complaint pleads a good-faith theory supported by known facts but identifies additional proof expected from discovery. Separately, a party has received a litigation hold and an attorney proposes deleting messages that may be relevant because they appear unfavorable.

**Assessment.** **[Comment/Rule]** ABA Rule 3.1 Comment [2] says a contention is not frivolous merely because facts are not fully substantiated before discovery. The hold/preservation issue is different: ABA Rule 3.4(a), NY Rule 3.4(a), and California Rule 3.4(a)-(b) require checking applicable discovery duties, orders, and laws before altering, destroying, concealing, or suppressing material. Flag the proposed deletion and request the governing hold/order and privilege analysis; do not infer from the pleading example that unfavorable evidence must be volunteered in the brief.

### 5. Ex parte omission versus ordinary adversarial selectivity

**Facts.** An ex parte temporary-relief application omits a material fact necessary for the judge to assess the requested relief. In an ordinary noticed motion, counsel emphasizes favorable facts and does not include every unfavorable fact that the opponent can present.

**Assessment.** **[Rule]** ABA Rule 3.3(d), NY Rule 3.3(d), and California Rule 3.3(d) impose special ex parte disclosure duties for material facts needed for an informed decision, whether adverse or not. **[Comment/Rule]** In ordinary adversarial proceedings, ABA Rule 4.1 Comment [1] generally does not require volunteering every relevant fact, but a half-truth, a controlling-authority omission, a discovery/order violation, or a material misstatement can change the analysis. Route both situations through the tribunal/posture gate rather than applying a single “disclose everything” rule.

## Non-U.S., unlisted, and local-rule boundary

The matrix covers only the ABA baseline, New York through the NYCRR source's stated May 31, 2021 currency date, and California sources retrieved 2026-08-17. It does not establish the law of another U.S. state, a federal circuit/district, a tribal court, an arbitral forum, England and Wales, Canada, the EU, or any other non-U.S. jurisdiction. For an unlisted or non-U.S. matter, or for a New York matter requiring post-May-31-2021 currency, request the applicable official professional-conduct rules, tribunal rules/orders, choice-of-law rule, and current authority; return **needs lawyer review / source required** until supplied and verified. Never infer that the ABA's “controlling jurisdiction” language or either state matrix entry applies universally.

The rule texts and comments also do not resolve every practice question. Local filing conventions, preservation and discovery law, privilege, sanctions, appellate preservation, tribunal-specific authority, client confidentiality, and a jurisdiction's disciplinary interpretations can change the result. Treat professional-practice observations in this reference as **[Practice inference]**, make the controlling source visible, and escalate uncertainty to the lawyer.

## Primary source register and retrieval record

The official ABA pages below are the primary source for the Model Rules and comments. Direct ABA and New York requests were Cloudflare-protected in this environment; a text reader returned the page text while preserving the official URL as its source. The California current-rules page and PDF were reachable directly. The citations remain to the official publishers, not to the reader. This verifies source identity and the text available at retrieval time; it is not authenticated Westlaw or comprehensive currentness research. The retrieval date is not a claim that every source was current on that date: the New York document itself states that it is current through May 31, 2021, and later NYS Register updates must be checked.

### ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

- ABA, [Model Rules table of contents](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/), retrieved 2026-08-17. Use it to confirm canonical rule URLs and navigation.
- ABA Model Rule 1.0(f), (m), [Terminology](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_0_terminology/), retrieved 2026-08-17. Pinpoints: “knowingly/known/knows” and “tribunal.”
- ABA Model Rule 1.3, [Diligence](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_3_diligence/), retrieved 2026-08-17; [Comment to Rule 1.3](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_3_diligence/comment_on_rule_1_3/), retrieved 2026-08-17. Pinpoints: Rule text; Comments [1]-[4].
- ABA Model Rule 3.1, [Meritorious Claims and Contentions](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_1_meritorious_claims_contentions/), retrieved 2026-08-17; [Comment to Rule 3.1](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_1_meritorious_claims_contentions/comment_on_rule_3_1/), retrieved 2026-08-17. Pinpoints: Rule text; Comments [1]-[3], especially Comment [2].
- ABA Model Rule 3.3, [Candor Toward the Tribunal](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/), retrieved 2026-08-17; [Comment to Rule 3.3](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/comment_on_rule_3_3/), retrieved 2026-08-17. Pinpoints: Rule 3.3(a)(1)-(3), (b)-(d); Comments [2]-[4], [8], [10], [12], [14].
- ABA Model Rule 3.4, [Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_4_fairness_to_opposing_party_counsel/), retrieved 2026-08-17; [Comment to Rule 3.4](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_4_fairness_to_opposing_party_counsel/comment_on_rule_3_4/), retrieved 2026-08-17. Pinpoints: Rule 3.4(a), (e); Comments [1]-[2].
- ABA Model Rule 4.1, [Truthfulness in Statements to Others](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others/), retrieved 2026-08-17; [Comment to Rule 4.1](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others/comment_on_rule_4_1/), retrieved 2026-08-17. Pinpoints: Rule 4.1(a)-(b); Comments [1]-[3].

### New York

- New York State Department of State, [NYCRR index](https://govt.westlaw.com/nycrr/Index), retrieved 2026-08-17. The index identifies the New York State Department of State as the agency that manages NYCRR and says the electronic version is maintained by Thomson Reuters under contract. It also warns that the electronic text is unofficial, that its date reflects the most recent official supplement, and that later New York State Register updates must be checked.
- New York State Department of State / NYCRR, [22 CRR-NY 1200, Rules of Professional Conduct](https://govt.westlaw.com/nycrr/Document/I7544f8911a4a11deab58fec8fbeb48b1?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)), retrieved 2026-08-17; the document states **“Current through May 31, 2021.”** Use rule labels rather than page numbers: Rule 1.0(k), (q)-(s), (w) (knowledge, reasonable standards, and tribunal); Rule 1.3(a)-(c) (diligence and neglect); Rule 3.1(a)-(b)(1)-(3) (non-frivolous basis and knowingly false material factual assertions); Rule 3.3(a)-(f) (candor, adverse authority, false evidence, ex parte facts, and procedure); Rule 3.4(a)-(e) (evidence, tribunal rules, and argument); and Rule 4.1 (truthfulness to third persons). Before treating this as current New York law, check post-May-31-2021 New York State Register amendments and the New York Department of State's official materials. The rule text controls if a source's surrounding commentary conflicts.

### California

- State Bar of California, [Current Rules of Professional Conduct](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Current-Rules), retrieved 2026-08-17.
- State Bar of California, [2026 Current Rules of Professional Conduct PDF](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct.pdf), retrieved 2026-08-17. Pinpoints: Rule 1.0.1(f), (h)-(i) (p. 3); Rule 1.3(a)-(b) (pp. 5-6); Rule 3.1(a)-(b) (p. 33); Rule 3.3(a)-(d), Comments [1]-[8] (pp. 34-36); Rule 3.4(a)-(g), Comment [2] (pp. 35-36); Rule 4.1(a)-(b), Comments [1]-[3] (p. 41). The PDF is titled **2026 Current Rules**; Rule 1.0 states the rules are binding for California lawyers and comments provide interpretive guidance.

## Operationalization checklist

For each flagged unit, preserve: (1) exact statement and surrounding context; (2) source excerpt and pinpoint; (3) tribunal, jurisdiction, posture, audience, and as-of date; (4) statement type; (5) source-status finding; (6) knowledge/materiality questions without assuming answers; (7) applicable rule and whether the authority is binding or persuasive; (8) any discovery, preservation, privilege, local-rule, or ex parte issue; (9) a distinct status such as unsupported, mismatch, misleading-context risk, source inaccessible, or coverage insufficient; and (10) a lawyer-review question. End with the reminder that the report is a source/candor risk assessment, not a disciplinary adjudication.