Why should lawyers be prohibited from presenting a false case?

If possible, please list some helpful resources or casesWhy should lawyers be prohibited from presenting a false case?
Lawyers are considered as (first and foremost) officers of the court(s) in which they have rights of audience. You will find that in any legal text book. Their job is to present the view their client wishes to take in a particular case including any evidence and to argue from the evidence and from the law and legal precedents (previous similar cases) why their client's view is better than that of their opponent - or accuser in a criminal case.





To present a false case must involve either knowingly presenting false evidence or knowingly using irrelevant law or precedents or both.





In the first circumstance the lawyer is not acting as a supporter of the court - they are siding with the client against the system they are pledged to support. In the second circumstance one would hope that either the other side or the court itself would spot the irrelevance but it will still be wasting time better spent in presenting the client's arguments or combatting those of the other side.Why should lawyers be prohibited from presenting a false case?
All I would add to the first answer is this. In a criminal case if a client instructs his lawyer that he is not guilty and wishes to plead thus, the lawyer must use his best skills to present the client's case. If, however, the client says 'I am guilty but I want to plead not guilty', then the lawyer must cease to act, for to proceed would be to mislead the Court.