伦理意见323
作为公务的一部分，受雇于政府机构的靠谱的滚球平台所作的虚假陈述
Lawyers employed by government agencies who act in a non-representational official capacity in a manner they reasonably believe to be authorized by law do not violate 规则8.4 if, 在他们工作的过程中, 他们作出虚假陈述，其合理目的是促进其履行公务.
适用的规则
- 规则8.4(行为)
调查
委员会收到了一份关于规则8规定的靠谱的滚球平台义务问题的调查.4(c). We are asked to determine whether attorneys who are employed by a national intelligence agency violate the 职业行为准则 if they engage in 欺诈, 欺骗, 或在其非代表性的公务过程中失实陈述.
讨论
规则8.《靠谱的滚球平台》第4(c)条规定，靠谱的滚球平台“从事涉及欺诈的行为”属于职业不端行为, 欺骗, 或歪曲.” This prohibition applies to attorneys in whatever capacity they are acting—it is not limited to conduct occurring during the representation of a client and is, 因此, 表面上适用于靠谱的滚球平台在非代表情况下的行为. 看到 ABA正式Op. No. 336(1974)(靠谱的滚球平台在任何时候都必须遵守适用的纪律规则).1
禁止虚假陈述将会, 因此, facially apply to attorneys conducting certain activities that are part of their official duties as officers or employees of the United States when the attorneys are employed in an intelligence or 国家安全 capacity. 因此, 尽管询问者特别询问了情报官员在法律授权下以官方身份行事时所作的虚假陈述, the principles enunciated in this opinion are equally applicable to other governmental officers who are attorneys and whose duties require the making of misrepresentations 法律授权 as part of their official duties.
这些雇员可以, 有时, 被要求在代表美国执行公务时采取欺诈行为, 法律授权. 这很容易, 例如, 想象一下，为中央情报局工作的靠谱的滚球平台可能需要他们个人的秘密工作和伪造身份, 就业状况, 或者对美国的忠诚. 我们面临的问题是，这样的虚假陈述是否违反了规则8.4 .反欺骗禁令.2
基于三个原因，我们得出结论，规则8.4不禁止上述性质的行为.
首先，我们的结论是以我们对规则8的目的的理解为前提的.4被采纳. 禁止从事“涉及不诚实”的行为, 欺诈, 欺骗, 或虚假陈述”, 在我们看来, 只允许对靠谱的滚球平台是否适合从事法律工作提出质疑的行为. 对第8条规则的评论.4 discuss why the current version discarded earlier references to a prohibition on conduct involving “moral turpitude” (as the conduct that had been proscribed was referred to in our former Code of 教授essional Responsibility). 评论[1]解释了这个有点古老的公式，
可以被解释为包括一些涉及个人道德问题的罪行吗, 比如通奸和类似的罪行, 与适合从事法律工作没有特别的联系. 尽管靠谱的滚球平台对整个刑法负有个人责任, 靠谱的滚球平台只应对那些表明缺乏与法律实践相关的特征的罪行承担专业责任.
D.C. 规则8.4、评论[1]; 参见In re White, 815 P.2d 1257(或. (结论认为，该规则适用于违反刑法的行为，如果它“对靠谱的滚球平台的诚实产生不利影响”, 在其他方面是否值得信赖或是否适合担任靠谱的滚球平台”).
因此, 在摒弃“道德败坏”的表述，代之以现行的反欺诈表述, 哥伦比亚特区上诉法院表示，它打算限制规则8的范围.表明靠谱的滚球平台缺乏靠谱的滚球平台资格所要求的品格的行为. 正如评论所阐述的那样, 这可能包括“暴力”, 不诚实, 违反信任, 或者严重干涉司法的.” D.C. 规则8.4、评论[1].3 但, 很明显, 例如，它并不包括所有的欺骗行为, 靠谱的滚球平台不应因犯通奸罪而受到专业处分, 或者谎称靠谱的滚球平台没空参加社交活动.
基于对规则8的理解.4, in our judgment the category of conduct proscribed by the Rule does not include misrepresentations made in the course of official conduct as an employee of an agency of the United States if the attorney reasonably believes that the conduct in question is authorized by law. An attorney’s professional competence and ability are not called into question by service in our intelligence or 国家安全 agencies in conformance with legal authorization, 使用有效的秘密手段来实现合法的国家安全目标也不会受到质疑. Cf. 苹果公司. v. 国际收藏家协会, 15 F. 增刊. 2d 456, 476 (D.N.J. 1998) (concluding that investigator’s and tester’s misrepresentation of identity is not a misrepresentation of “such gravity as to raise questions as to a person’s fitness to be a lawyer”). 因此，我们不相信规则8.(c)旨在达到合法, 官方授权行为, 即使这种行为有欺骗的成分.
第二个, 我们在这方面的结论得到《靠谱的滚球平台》类似规定及其在这一管辖范围内的解释的支持. 规则4.第2条禁止靠谱的滚球平台与由靠谱的滚球平台代表的对方进行某些通信. 本司法管辖区已将本规则解释为允许合法的执法活动. 因此，我们的评注说:
This Rule is not intended to enlarge or restrict the law enforcement activities of the United States or the District of Columbia which are authorized and permissible under the Constitution and the laws of the United States or the District of Columbia. 规则4的“法律授权”附带条款.第2(a)条旨在允许根据本法有效的政府行为.
规则4.评论[8].4
The Virginia Standing Committee on 法律道德 recently recognized the parallel between law enforcement and intelligence activity in an opinion that is consistent with our views. 在弗吉尼亚州. 法律伦理意见1738 (2000), the Virginia Standing Committee considered whether the ethical rule prohibiting non-consensual tape recording then in effect in Virginia applied to law enforcement undercover activities. 弗吉尼亚常务委员会的结论是没有. 在弗吉尼亚州. 法律伦理意见1765 (2003), the Virginia Standing Committee then considered whether the policies animating the exception for law enforcement undercover activities expressed in Opinion 1738 also authorized the use of non-consensual tape recording and other covert activities by attorneys working for a federal intelligence agency. 类比其先前关于执法卧底活动的决定, 委员会一致认为，秘密情报活动也服务于“重要的和司法认可的社会政策”.” Accordingly Opinion 1765 concluded that “when an attorney employed by the federal government uses lawful methods such as the use of ‘alias identities’ and non-consensual tape-recording, 作为他的情报或秘密活动的一部分, those methods cannot be seen as reflecting adversely on his fitness to practice law; 因此 such conduct will not violate the prohibition in 规则8.4(c).“这一推理对本委员会同样具有说服力.
可以肯定的是，规则8.第4条没有像第4条那样的“法律授权”附带条件.2, 而且没有这样的条款授权在情报中欺骗, 国家安全, 或其他外国代表性内容可能被解释为表明不允许这种行为. 尽管如此, 我们同意弗吉尼亚的观点，即对执法活动的处理对于如何正确处理情报活动具有指导意义. 更好的结构是查看规则4的注释[8].2 as expressing a general approval of lawful undercover activity by government agents and the failure to mention the myriad ways in which the issue might arise simply reflects the drafters’ focus on the more immediate issue of law enforcement activity that was before them. We do not think that the Court of Appeals intended to authorize legitimate law enforcement undercover activity while proscribing covert activity in aid of our 国家安全; we would not impute so illogical an intent to the drafters absent far stronger evidence.
第三，“《靠谱的滚球平台》是理性准则. 应参照法律代理的目的和法律本身来解释这些规定.” D.C. 规则，范围，注释[1]. Some activities conducted on behalf of the United States necessarily involve circumstances where disclosure of one’s identity or purpose would be inappropriate – and, 事实上, 潜在的危险. 我们不认为《靠谱的足球滚球平台》要求靠谱的滚球平台在个人安全或遵守法律之间做出选择, 一方面，一方面,5 另一方面是维持他们的靠谱的滚球平台执照. 看到 犹他州靠谱的滚球平台道德咨询委员会Op. No. 02-05 (2002) (relying on “rule of reasons” provision to conclude that government attorneys’ “lawful participation in a lawful government operation” does not violate 规则8.(4)如果秘密或隐蔽行动的“成功推进”需要欺骗).
基于上述几个理由，我们深信第8条的反欺骗条款.不禁止靠谱的滚球平台歪曲其身份, employment or even allegiance to the United States if such misrepresentations are made in support of covert activity on behalf of the United States and are duly authorized by law.6
最后，我们强调这种意见的范围很窄. 它仅适用于雇员(以非代表身份行事)在公务行为过程中所作的虚假陈述, 看到上 n.1)合理地相信适用法律授权该虚假陈述. 政府机构雇佣的靠谱的滚球平台不允许做虚假陈述. 当提供真实答案的反补贴法律义务适用时，它也不授权虚假陈述. 因此, 例如, 禁止在美国法庭或国会宣誓后作伪证, 参见艾布拉姆斯, 689 A.2d 6 (D.C. (1997)(全院)，尽管有任何反补贴情报或国家安全理由. 和, 当然, 这一意见不允许出于非官方原因进行欺骗, 或者靠谱的滚球平台做不到的地方, 客观地, 有合理的信念，适用法律授权的行为.
有了这些限制, our conclusion is as follows: Lawyers employed by government agencies who act in a non-representational official capacity in a manner they reasonably believe to be authorized by law do not violate 规则8.4 if, 在他们工作的过程中, 他们作出虚假陈述，其合理目的是促进其履行公务.
调查没有.: 01-11-25
通过:2004年3月29日
出版日期:2004年3月30日
1. 这一意见只适用于以非代表身份行事的靠谱的滚球平台的行为. 它没有处理规则4下可能适用的要求.1(与客户端通信)，或规则4.3(打交道, 代表客户, (无代表政党), 在其他事物之外, 禁止靠谱的滚球平台在代表客户的过程中对第三方作出虚假的重大事实陈述.”
2. 规则8.第4(c)条禁止靠谱的滚球平台从事“涉及不诚实”的行为, 欺诈, 欺骗, 或歪曲.当然，“欺诈”是由《靠谱的滚球平台》单独定义的. 看到维.C. 教授规则. 行为，术语(将“欺诈”和“欺诈”定义为“有欺骗目的的行为”). 为方便起见，我们参考规则8.4(c)作为反欺诈条款, 同时认识到禁令的范围可能取决于对四项相关禁令中每一项的含义的仔细分析.
3. 2003年3月, 弗吉尼亚州最高法院通过修改弗吉尼亚州版本的规则8明确了这一联系.4(c)禁止“不诚实”, 欺诈, 对靠谱的滚球平台的执业资格产生不利影响的欺骗或虚假陈述.” Va. R. 教授. 气孔导度. 8.4(c).
4. 其他一些司法管辖区将这一规定解释为排除执法人员, 按照靠谱的滚球平台的指示行事的, 从隐蔽隐蔽, 针对由靠谱的滚球平台代理的个人的秘密行动. Cf. 加迪，8便士.3d 966(或. 2000)，驳回，或. 1 - 102 (D)博士 & Or. 正式的Op. 2003-173.
5. 在某些情况下, 联邦法律明确禁止披露与秘密特工身份有关的信息, 例如. 看,e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 421.
6. 本委员会缺乏准确识别的专门知识, 例如, 哪些秘密活动是法律授权的. 此外, 这样的列举将超出我们的章程, 通常将我们的意见限制在对哥伦比亚特区职业行为规则的解释上. 我们强调, 然而, that for conduct to come within the safe-harbor of this opinion the lawyer must reasonably believe that the conduct in question was both authorized by law and reasonably intended to further the attorney’s official duties.
