I recently had the privilege of working with two judges on different CLE programs, both dealing with the issue of candor to the tribunal. It's a sticky, tricky subject — both for the bench and the bar.

The immediate thought most lawyers have when asked about the topic is citing adverse authority. That's probably because our law school professors drummed it into our heads that judges need our help to get all the law on a topic so that they can make correct decisions. For my money, that part of the rule is probably outdated.

I doubt any judge deciding any matter of any significance—in either state or federal court—needs the lawyers to do the research for him or her. Yes, the parties' briefs are a good place to start, but with the advent of computer-assisted legal research, it's pretty easy for a diligent judge to quickly test the bona fides of any argument and to figure out what the proper rule to apply is. I think the trickier stuff deals with informing the court of stuff that it is not likely to discover but which might be important to know.