A lawyer represented a tobacco company in all of its regulatory matters. The tobacco company asked the lawyer to represent it in a congressional investigation of cigarette use by minors. The company provided the lawyer with a summary of a study performed by a communications professor that showed few tobacco advertisements affect audiences under the age of 21. The lawyer presented the summary of the study to Congress and argued in testimony not given under oath that tobacco companies took seriously their responsibility of not attracting underage smokers. Several weeks after presenting the testimony, the lawyer learned from a tobacco company insider that the company's summary of the professor's study mischaracterized the results. The complete study noted that several advertising campaigns sought to attract underage smokers. In fact, the lawyer learned that the company had internal memorandums that confirmed its desire to market to teenagers. The lawyer sent a letter to Congress retracting his testimony and submitting a complete version of the study. The lawyer apologized to Congress for presenting misleading information earlier.
Was the lawyer's correction of his testimony before the Congress required by the Model Rules?
A. Yes, because the lawyer learned that he had presented false and misleading information to Congress in a nonadjudicative proceeding.
B. Yes, because the lawyer did not testify under oath.
C. No, because the lawyer represented a client before Congress in a nonadjudicative proceeding, so the Model Rules do not require correction of the testimony.
D. No, because the Model Rules say that attorneys should not appear at all before legislative bodies investigating industry practices in nonadjudicative proceedings on behalf of paying clients.