The court states “The trial court also found that counsel exceeded the bounds of zealous advocacy by accusing the witnesses for the defense of ‘prevarication’ and making this a theme for his entire case despite having no evidence of cover-up.”

This sentence is illogical. A person may prevaricate without engaging in a cover-up. Prevarication as applied to witness may simply refer to equivocation, quibbling or even tergiversation.

It seems to me that the appellate court just didn’t know what “prevarication” was. Thinking it met “lying” or “cover-up”, they wrongly sanctioned counsel for his use of that word.