False. Although tribunal is a defined term, see ER 1.0(l), “it also applies when the lawyer is representing a client in an ancillary proceeding conducted pursuant to the tribunal’s adjudicative authority, such as a deposition.” See cmt 1 to ER 3.3.

Yes. Knowledge is a defined term. See ER 1.0(f). If you had actual knowledge of the false statement at the time you made it, your motivation is not relevant. You must correct the false statement if it was material, pursuant to ER 3.3(a)(1).

Knowledge means “actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.” You have an obligation to competently represent the client, which includes doing due diligence into “facts” your client tells you. Generally speaking, you should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony in favor of the client. But you cannot “ignore an obvious falsehood.” See cmt 8.  See also EO 20-0007, citing State Bar Op. 93-10 at p. 4,  “attorney’s ‘knowledge’ of client’s false testimony is ‘ordinarily based on the client’s own admissions to the attorney’.”

No. ER 3.3(a)(1) requires attorneys to “correct false statements of material fact or law”. The fact that you are no longer driving, but appearing via Zoom, is not material to the fact that you are still unavailable for the hearing due to the funeral.

No.  ER 3.3(a)(3) states in part, “A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.” Further, cmt 5 notes “paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, regardless of the client’s wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer’s obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence.” See also cmts 8-9.

If you don’t “know” whether evidence you offered through the witness was false, you cannot take remedial action without the client’s informed consent. But see cmt 8. A lawyer “cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.”

It depends.  ER 3.3(a)(2) requires lawyers disclose “legal authority” in the “controlling jurisdiction” “known” to the lawyer to be directly adverse if not disclosed by the opposing counsel.  You would need to make a legal determination as to whether the memorandum decision, not for publication, constitutes “legal authority” in the jurisdiction.  You might consider getting the client’s informed consent to file supplemental briefs on the new memorandum decision to distinguish it from your facts.

Yes. Failure to update the court is a misrepresentation by omission. You would be concealing material information about which you have knowledge. You must cease the negotiations and notify the court and opposing counsel of the death of the client.

Ghostwriting is permitted in Arizona. See EO 06-03. But review the local rules to determine if/when disclosure is required by the tribunal. Communicate with the client about the expectations or requirements of disclosure to the tribunal and/or opposing party before executing the limited scope agreement.

No. ER 3.3(a)(3) requires you to take “reasonable remedial measures”, including disclosing ER 1.6 confidential information to the extent reasonably necessary to remove the tainted evidence from the court.  Withdrawing alone would not have the effect of removing the tainted evidence from the court. 

EO 20-0007 at p. 5, cautions that “disclosures made pursuant to ER 3.3 should be narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to undo the effect of the tainted evidence.” You should first seek to persuade the client, confidentially, to cooperate in withdrawing the false evidence without disclosing the misconduct to the court. If the client will not provide informed consent, the lawyer should move to withdraw the evidence without the client’s informed consent, again, without revealing any client misconduct.  See also comments 10-11.

Yes. The duties under ER 3.3(a) and (b) continue to “the conclusion of the proceeding.” Comment 13 notes that “[a] proceeding has concluded within the meaning of this Rule when a final judgment in the proceeding has been affirmed on appeal or the time for review has passed.” If the client has new counsel, communicate with the client through new counsel.  See  EO 20-0007, quoting the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 120, cmt h. (2000)(“If a lawyer is discharged by a client or withdraws . . . the lawyer’s obligations [of candor to the tribunal] under this Section are not thereby terminated. In such an instance, a reasonable remedial measure may consist of disclosing the matter to successor counsel.”).  The opinion continues “[a]lthough this would not relieve Attorney of Attorney’s own ethical obligations to the tribunal under ER 3.3, the combined efforts of former and successor counsel in private remonstrance with Client may persuade Client to consent to withdrawal of the false evidence.”