For years American attorneys and judges have debated a lawyer's role when a client says he plans to commit perjury at trial. In Nix v. Whiteside a defense attorney persuaded his client not to present what the attorney believed to be perjured testimony at trial. In admonishing his client, the attorney pointed out that he might be allowed to withdraw as counsel and impeach any untruthful testimony offered by the client at trial. The Supreme Court of Iowa and the Federal district court held that the lawyer's approach was constitutional, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated by the attorney's action. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the facts of Nix v. Whiteside did not prevent the State of Iowa from imposing criminal sanctions against the defendant Whiteside. The article discusses the ethical and constitutional issues that arise in the client perjury dilemma, pointing out that ethical rules governing attorney behavior arise from State and not Federal constitutional law and that States can determine their own solutions to the problem. The impact of the Whiteside case on attorney-client relations is also discussed. 161 footnotes.