Revised Rules

Print rule

Back to revised rule search

Back to search results
Keywords: Incompetent

<< Previous Rule
Next Rule >>


Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, counsel or assist a witness to hide or leave the jurisdiction for the purpose of being unavailable as a witness, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;

(c) knowingly disobey or advise a client or any other person to disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except a lawyer acting in good faith may take appropriate steps to test the validity of such an obligation;

(d) in pretrial procedure,

(1) make a frivolous discovery request,

(2) fail to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party, or

(3) fail to disclose evidence or information that the lawyer knew, or reasonably should have known, was subject to disclosure under applicable law, rules of procedure or evidence, or court opinions;

(e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, ask an irrelevant question that is intended to degrade a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant, or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or

(f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:

(1) the person is a relative or a managerial employee or other agent of a client; and

(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.


[1] The procedure of the adversary system contemplates that the evidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively by the contending parties. Fair competition in the adversary system is secured by prohibitions against destruction or concealment of evidence, improperly influencing witnesses, obstructive tactics in discovery procedure, and the like.

[2] Documents and other items of evidence are often essential to establish a claim or defense. Subject to evidentiary privileges, the right of an opposing party, including the government, to obtain evidence through discovery or subpoena is an important procedural right. The exercise of that right can be frustrated if relevant material is altered, concealed or destroyed. Applicable law in many jurisdictions makes it an offense to destroy material for the purpose of impairing its availability in a pending proceeding or one whose commencement can be foreseen. Falsifying evidence is also generally a criminal offense. Paragraph (a) applies to evidentiary material generally, including computerized information. Applicable law may permit a lawyer to take temporary possession of physical evidence of client crimes for the purpose of conducting a limited examination that will not alter or destroy material characteristics of the evidence. In such a case, applicable law may require the lawyer to turn the evidence over to the police or other prosecuting authority, depending on the circumstances.

[3] With regard to paragraph (b), it is not improper to pay a witness's expenses, including lost income, or to compensate an expert witness on terms permitted by law. The common law rule in most jurisdictions is that it is improper to pay an occurrence witness any fee for testifying and that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee.

[4] Rules of evidence and procedure are designed to lead to just decisions and are part of the framework of the law. Paragraph (c) permits a lawyer to take steps in good faith and within the framework of the law to test the validity of rules; however, the lawyer is not justified in consciously violating such rules and the lawyer should be diligent in the effort to guard against the unintentional violation of them. As examples, a lawyer should subscribe to or verify only those pleadings that the lawyer believes are in compliance with applicable law and rules; a lawyer should not make any prefatory statement before a tribunal in regard to the purported facts of the case on trial unless the lawyer believes that the statement will be supported by admissible evidence; a lawyer should not ask a witness a question solely for the purpose of harassing or embarrassing the witness; and a lawyer should not, by subterfuge, put before a jury matters which it cannot properly consider.

[5] Paragraph (d) makes it clear that a lawyer must be reasonably diligent in making inquiry of the client, or third party, about information or documents responsive to discovery requests or disclosure requirements arising from statutory law, rules of procedure, or caselaw. "Reasonably" is defined in Rule 0.1, Terminology, as meaning "conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer." Rule 0.1(i). When responding to a discovery request or disclosure requirement, a lawyer must act in good faith. The lawyer should impress upon the client the importance of making a thorough search of the client’s records and responding honestly. If the lawyer has reason to believe that a client has not been forthcoming, the lawyer may not rely solely upon the client’s assertion that the response is truthful or complete.

[6] To bring about just and informed decisions, evidentiary and procedural rules have been established by tribunals to permit the inclusion of relevant evidence and argument and the exclusion of all other considerations. The expression by a lawyer of a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, as to the credibility of a witness, as to the culpability of a civil litigant, and as to the guilt or innocence of an accused is not a proper subject for argument to the trier of fact and is prohibited by paragraph (e). However, a lawyer may argue, on an analysis of the evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to any of the foregoing matters.

[7] Paragraph (f) permits a lawyer to advise managerial employees of a client to refrain from giving information to another party because the statements of employees with managerial responsibility may be imputed to the client. See also Rule 4.2.

History Note: Statutory Authority G. 84-23

Adopted July 24, 1997

Amended March 1, 2003;
October 1, 2003; November 16, 2006


CPR 2. An attorney generally does not need the consent of the adverse party to talk to witnesses.

CPR 284. An attorney may seek alimony for a wife although he has evidence of the wife's adultery so long as he does not have to offer perjured testimony or other false evidence.

CPR 340. An attorney may represent a client with a malpractice claim even though the client has entered a contingent fee contract with a medical consultant for case evaluation, preparation and expert witness location, so long as the consultant does not present evidence and the compensation of the expert witness provided by the consultant is not contingent upon the outcome of the litigation.

RPC 225. The lawyer for a defendant in criminal and civil actions arising out of the same event may seek the cooperation of a crime victim on a plea agreement provided the settlement of the victim's civil claim against the defendant is not contingent upon the content of the testimony of the victim or the outcome of the case.

2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 15. Provided the agreement does not constitute the criminal offense of compounding a crime and is not otherwise illegal, and does not contemplate the fabrication, concealment, or destruction of evidence, a lawyer may participate in a settlement agreement of a civil claim that includes a non-reporting provision prohibiting the plaintiff from reporting the defendant's conduct to law enforcement authorities.


2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 7. A criminal defense lawyer or a prosecutor may not interview a child who is the alleged victim in a criminal case alleging physical or sexual abuse if the child is younger than the age of maturity as determined by the General Assembly for the purpose of an in-custody interrogation (currently age fourteen) unless the lawyer has the consent of a non-accused
parent or guardian or a court order allows the lawyer to seek an interview with the child without such consent; a lawyer may interview a child who is this
age or older without such consent or authorization provided the lawyer complies with Rule 4.3, reasonably determines that the child is sufficiently mature to understand the lawyer’s role and purpose, and avoids any conduct designed to coerce or intimidate the child.


Interjection of Personal Opinion. - Counsel may not, by argument or cross-examination, place before the jury Incompetent and prejudicial matters by injecting his own knowledge, beliefs and personal opinions not supported by the evidence. State v. Locklear , 294 N.C. 210, 241 S.E.2d 65 (1978).

Interjection of Unsupported Knowledge and Belief. - Counsel may not, by agreement or cross-examination, place before the jury Incompetent and prejudicial matters by injecting his own knowledge, beliefs and personal opinions not supported by the evidence. State v. Locklear, 294 N.C. 210, 241 S.E.2d 65 (1978).

Preparation of Witness. - It is not improper for an attorney to prepare his witness for trial, to explain the applicable law in any given situation and to go over before trial the attorney's questions and the witness' answers so that the witness will be ready for his appearance in court, will be more at ease because he knows what to expect, and will give his testimony in the most effective manner he can. Such preparation is the mark of a good trial lawyer, and is to be commended because it promotes more efficient administration of justice and saves court time. Nothing improper occurs so long as the attorney prepares the witness to give the witness' testimony at trial and not the testimony that the attorney has placed in the witness' mouth or false or perjured testimony. State v. McCormick , 298 N.C. 788, 259 S.E.2d 880 (1979).

Informing a potential witness to plead the U.S. Const., Amend. V or to stay away from court unless subpoenaed is not unethical. Certainly no rule prevents an attorney from informing a potential witness of his legal rights. North Carolina State Bar v. Graves , 50 N.C. App. 450, 274 S.E.2d 396 (1981).

Ethical transgressions by trial counsel do not always constitute legal error. State v. Sanders , 303 N.C. 608, 281 S.E.2d 7, cert. denied , 454 U.S. 973, 102 S. Ct. 523, 70 L. Ed. 2d. 392 (1981).

Argument Containing Personal Belief. - The defendant contended on appeal that the prosecutor's argument to the jury contained the prosecutor's personal belief as to the defendant's guilt in violation of the Code. The court held that the statements could be interpreted in several ways, but that even if the prosecutor's argument had contained such a statement, the violation did not entitle the defendant to a new trial. State v. Sanders , 303 N.C. 608, 281 S.E.2d 7, cert. denied , 454 U.S. 973, 102 S. Ct. 523, 70 L. Ed. 2d 392 (1981).

Argument That Testifying Officers Could Be Prosecuted If They Lied. - A prosecutor who, in closing, made arguments based on matters outside the record by suggesting that the officers who testified against the defendant could be prosecuted for perjury and fired from their jobs, and lose their pensions if they lied, placed the jurors in the moral dilemma of either convicting the defendant or, in the alternative, causing the officers to suffer the grievous penalties suggested by the prosecutor. The argument was, therefore, improper and the defendant was entitled to a new trial. State v. Potter , 69 N.C. App. 199, 316 S.E.2d 359, disc. rev. denied , 312 N.C. 624, 323 S.E.2d 925 (1984).

Failure to Inform Court of Opposing Party's Address. - An attorney clearly engaged in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation when, in a divorce action, she failed to inform the court of a letter which contained the opposing party's return address, while at the same time presenting to the court an affidavit she had drafted in which her client swore that her husband's whereabouts were unknown and could not with due diligence be ascertained. North Carolina State Bar v. Wilson, 74 N.C. App. 777, 330 S.E.2d 280 (1985).

Interference with Prosecuting Witness. - Immediately prior to trial, the defense attorney negotiated an agreement between the prosecuting witness and the accused which called for his client to pay for damages to the witness' car and the witness' hospital bills in return for a promise not to press charges. He also told the witness she could leave the courthouse because her testimony would not be needed. The defendant attorney's efforts on behalf of his client went far beyond representing the client "zealously within the bounds of the law" and constituted a direct attempt to interfere with a State's witness who was under subpoena to testify in a named case. State v. Rogers , 68 N.C. App. 358, 315 S.E.2d 492, cert. denied , 311 N.C. 767, 319 S.E.2d 284 (1984), appeal dismissed , 469 U.S. 1101, 105 S. Ct. 769, 83 L. Ed. 2d 766 (1985).

Prosecutor's questioning of capital murder defendant's mother about locks placed on the outside of defendant's bedroom door was highly prejudicial and of no probative value; however, such error was harmless where the question of defendant's guilt was strong, the trial court properly sustained defendant's objections to the questions, and the mother testified that she was not afraid of her son. State v. Payne, 328 N.C. 377, 402 S.E.2d 582 (1991).


Back to revised rule search

217 E. Edenton Street (27601) • PO Box 25908 • Raleigh, NC 27611-5908 • 919.828.4620
Copyright North Carolina State Bar. All rights reserved.