Suppose you're a lawyer in US bankruptcy court and your client is ordered to transfer overseas assets. You believe that under the local law of the foreign jurisdiction, compliance with the US court's order would be unenforceable, if not illegal. You discuss with your client the legal options that might be available overseas to effectively thwart the US court's order. At what point, if any, are such discussions an unethical flouting of the court's order?
This new opinion doesn't raise that issue neatly, because it appears that the US lawyer used deception in her lawyering. But this kind of question is fascinating; it explores the tension between the roles of advocate and officer of the court. The opinion also shows how a lawyer might begin such an analysis with arguably legitimate motives and then slowly inch toward an indefensible position during repeated interactions with the client. Although the opinion is 40 pages long, folks who like legal ethics issues will find reading it rewarding.