In that case how is the lawyer responsible when the client lacks the credit to comply?
He didn't do his due diligence and drafted an agreement that contained conditions he knew or should have known could not be fulfilled, putting his client in an untenable position. That's legal malpractice in my book. Under the RCP, lawyers have an obligation under Rule 3.3, candor towards the tribunal.
A lawyer can be held to violate those rules in many ways.....even where case law is concerned.
“In fact, long-standing ethical rules require that you disclose the existence of the case if your opponent does not. Rule 3.3(a)(2) of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer shall not knowingly “fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.”
"An example is Jewelpak Corp. v. United States, 297 F.3d 1326, 1333 & n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2002), in which counsel failed to discuss a prior opinion by the same court of appeals that had held that publication in the Federal Register was not required to extinguish a prior established and uniform practice. The court noted “dismay” over counsel’s failure to cite the earlier case, stating that “officers of our court have an unfailing duty to bring to our attention the most relevant precedent that bears on the case at hand—both good and bad—of which they are aware.” Failure to cite controlling precedent was noted by the same court two years earlier in Amoco Oil Co. v. United States, 234 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) as quoted here:
“This appeal is deficient in another respect. In its opening brief, appellant's counsel failed to cite, much less distinguish, clearly governing case law (viz., Carnival and Princess), with which counsel was intimately acquainted. Counsel for Amoco had in fact submitted an amicus brief in both the Carnival and Princess cases. In addition, the opinion in Carnival was issued forty days before the appellant's opening brief in this case was filed. By failing to cite controlling adverse authority, the conduct of appellant's counsel was inappropriate and potentially a violation of counsel's duty of candor toward the court. See Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 3.3(a)(3) ("A lawyer shall not knowingly ... fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel."). The appeal should wisely have been abandoned after this court's Carnival decision was handed down. At the very least, recognizing that an en banc rehearing or Supreme Court review was theoretically possible, although not likely, appellant's counsel could have either submitted a motion to stay the appeal, or included in its opening brief a frank citation of the Carnival decision along with plausible grounds for distinguishing the case. But ignoring such precedent and raising new issues in a reply brief are not acceptable.”