Agree.
"(c) A lawyer shall not assist or counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. A lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel and represent a client in connection with the making of a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
(d) When a lawyer has confidential information clearly establishing that a client is likely to commit a criminal or fraudulent act that is likely to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, the lawyer shall promptly make reasonable efforts under the circumstances to dissuade the client from committing the crime or fraud.
(e) When a lawyer has confidential information clearly establishing that the lawyer's client has committed a criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyers services have been used, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts under the circumstances to persuade the client to take corrective action.
(f) When a lawyer knows that a client expects representation not permitted by the rules of professional conduct or other law, the lawyer shall consult with the client regarding the relevant limitations on the lawyer's conduct."
I'm not a lawyer... so... it will be interesting to see what others think of this...
I would guess that the proscription against assisting a client engage in fraud... is likely one that will be further modified by the nature of the compensation arrangement that exists... as in, it being an issue when a lawyer is being paid by a mechanism that requires, for the compensation to occur, that there must be a successful result delivered in some criminal or fraudulent enterprise being undertaken... as one in which the lawyer is, by virtue of a common interest with the client in the product of some fraud, necessarily also entrained as an active participant in and beneficiary of the fraudulent effort?
Given the shared interest they'd crafted, Williamson couldn't provide advise to Daic without that advice and Daics actions having a very direct impact on Williamsons own interest. The actions taken in the effort related to and following the fraudulent "2009 agreement" including the effort to take the patents and sell them... would require a fairly extreme degree of cupidity for the lawyer to think the lawyer was acting within the rules.
So, in addressing that sort of a question in discovery... the nature of the relationships and the payment schemes that existed, along with the nature of advice provided "to others" that was also clearly connected to self interest, would all be relevant, but the lawyer would be likely to make a claim of lawyer-client privilege in refusing to fully answer questions, even with there being a problem with how his own interest in compensation was connected to the advice he provided ?
Was the advice given that "it isn't, or I won't know if it is, criminal or fraudulent... if you do it and succeed and thus don't get caught" ?
Did Daic know his actions were criminal or fraudulent and not care ? Did Williamson know that and tell him that they were... but, participate anyway in serially taking steps advancing a fraudulent scheme that would benefit himself, because doing so was in his financial self interest ? Or, did Williamson advocate the effort in perpetrating a fraud without telling Daic that that was what would result from the actions he was being advised to take ?
Since the lawyer is a defendant, and since this is a civil and not a criminal action, what are the rules re the lawyer-client privilege... where the rules of procedure and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct intersect with the self interest of and the accusations of wrong doing made against the lawyer, and his representation of and responsibility to a client ? If you try to depose Williamson to address the nature of his responsibility for and the effort he made in enabling the frauds in his own interest... he will refuse to answer since he would compromise his client, Daic, by doing so ?
If what they did "wasn't a fraud" then there isn't a problem.
If what they did "was a fraud"... then you can't unscramble the egg in the resulting conflicts of interest the court would have entrained and enabled.
Is a presumption of innocence regarding accusations made against the lawyer, given the potential a conflict of interest exists, sufficient as a safe guard both of the lawyers' client's rights, the lawyers own self interest, the rights of the plaintiffs, AND as a safe guard of the integrity of the court, the law, and the legal process, as well as of the legal profession ?
Hmmm.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
