ABA Journal and Thomsen Reuters are carrying news that Paul Daugerdas will get a new trial because one of the jurors lied and concealed her history as a disciplined lawyer. As many of our readers will know, Daugerdas was the Jenkins & Gilchrist tax partner who sold pre-written tax opinions as part of what the IRS claimed was tax fraud. The firm folded in the wake of the affair.
But according to the story, one of the convicted defendants will not get a new trial, because his lawyers suspected the juror's fraud and didn't act upon it. I'm speculating, but did the lawyers favor having a disciplined lawyer on the jury or did they perhaps want to keep the issue in their back pocket, to be used if there was a conviction? In any case, wouldn't 3.3(c) require a lawyer to reveal fraud on the court even if the lawyer and her client had nothing to do with the fraud?