Attоrney Alex represents Derek аnd Diаnа, a married cоuple jоintly charged with felony armed robbery. During trial preparation, Derek informs Alex that he intends to testify and will deny being at the scene, claiming he was home alone during the robbery. Diana plans to testify truthfully, admitting presence but denying participation in the crime. On trial day, after opening statements, Alex advises Derek that testifying falsely is both illegal and unethical. Alex explains that if Derek lies on the stand, Alex may have to take remedial measures, including attempting to have Derek correct the testimony or potentially disclosing the falsehood to the court. Diana testifies truthfully, admitting presence at the scene but denying involvement. When Derek takes the stand, he testifies under oath that he was home all night. Alex immediately recognizes this as perjury. Alex again counsels Derek to correct or clarify his testimony but Derek refuses. The prosecutor, Paula, is a first-year attorney who has not researched binding appellate authority unfavorable to her key legal argument regarding accomplice liability. She misses a key case which, if cited, would help convict the defendants. Alex is well aware of this case, but does not mention it. Paula also misses procedural deadlines, appears disorganized in filings, and makes several factual misstatements during argument, which she fails to correct. During a recess, Alex consults separately with Derek and Diana. Derek demands Alex maintain confidentiality regarding the false testimony and continue his defense without disclosure. Diana expresses concern about Derek’s false testimony and questions whether Alex can ethically continue to represent both of them given their conflicting interests. What professional responsibility issues are raised? Answer according to California and ABA, and note any difference if any.