Thanks to a reader..
This OED decision from January 8, 2014 disciplinary order is interesting. Briefly, a very senior patent attorney (with a low reg number) was suspended for filing a Rule 131 declaration antedating a prior art reference, and then failing to correct the prosecution record after the declarant admitted to the patent attorney, during prosecution, that the Rule 131 declaration was false. The patent that issued from that application was subsequently litigated and held to be unenforceable due to inequitable conduct predicated in part on a finding that the Rule 131 declaration was false.
Two thoughts: one, why would a reasonable practitioner continue to prosecute? For the fees? (If the client had given the practitioner an interest in the application, I can see the financial interest, but otherwise…?). Second, think of the costs that, I bet, are coming downstream: the accused infringer ought to move for fees under 285, and, if so, those fees ought (in my view under these allegations) be paid by the lawyer. So, back to the first thought: why?