From a quick glance your article is really about your professional obligations when you know a client intends to perjure themselves and present false testimony to the tribunal.
That is different from when you have evidence which implicates your client (and is what Oagre posted about and was the situation in the Bernardo Case).
This is not always simple, for instance if you have obtained the physical evidence through protected client communications although you must turn it over, you must also protect your client's identity and not reveal statements made by the client or their agent. However, you have a duty not to reveal incriminating evidence which you have merely observed as a result of a client communication. For instance the location of a getaway car or the body of a victim.
See a U.S. case below dealing with this issue.
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.d...iew=view.do&viewParam_name=HitchvArizona.html
This can become morally heavy territory there was a case several years ago in I believe New York State, where the client (who was imprisoned) reveled to counsel information which exonerated another prisoner, but refused to allow them to disclose it even after his death. They finally decided to do so, but faced being disbarred as a result.
