Tishberg represented a client in two separate and unrelated cases, each of which ultimately gave rise to appeals to the District Court. The first case was a car accident. Tishberg represented the client under an oral fee agreement that was not reduced to a letter signed by the client, in breach of SCR 20:1.5(c). In violation of SCR 20:1.3, Tishberg failed to present a list of witnesses in accordance with the court order, for which he made no statement and which had a negative impact on the client`s ability to prove. Tishberg did not respond to the defendants` requests for admission in violation of SCR 20:3.4 (d). The customer`s complaint was ultimately dismissed and the unfavourable insurer prevailed against his renewed appeal. To a large extent, such a request flouts the role of a lawyer as a “judicial officer” with “a special responsibility for the quality of justice”. 13 Model Rule 3.4 (f) provides that `[a] lawyer shall not. . . . When lawyers attempt to impede voluntary cooperation, they disrupt the proper functioning of the adversary system by making informal witness hearings, an essential tool for case preparation, unavailable to their opponents and by forcing them to resort to more expensive and often less effective and less effective means of gathering evidence. `16 Where a defence lawyer requires that a settlement contain a language which would prohibit the applicant from sharing relevant factual information with other public persons or bodies prosecuting or investigating the same defendant or preventing the applicant`s lawyer from disclosing factual information about the case to potential clients in public recordings, the lawyer shall engage in conduct: prohibited by type 3.4 (f) and/or 5.6 rules.