Does a lawyer or a law firm deserve to be given a free pass by the lower courts when the lawyer and the law firm make false statements of material facts—not of law—but of facts to not one but two tribunals?

QUESTION PRESENTED : The California Supreme Court chose not to review a civil appeal case number S256869—from the Second . Appellate District, Div. 2, of the California Court of Appeals—case number B287437—and thus the question presented now goes to the United States Supreme ; Court. : ; : Hamrick & Evans, LLP (“Respondent”) knowingly made false statements to the Superior Court and to the : Court of Appeals, in violation of Federal Rules of Professional Conduct 16-303 “Candor toward the tribunal,” “A. Duties: A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make ; a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal , 4... [or] (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be cor, © false” ; . «+. Does a lawyer or a law firm deserve.to be given a free pass by the lower courts when the lawyer and the ; : law firm make false statements of material facts—not | , of law—but of facts to not one but two tribunals? ; ; ii