Yes that's one part of the ethics code. But so are also:
EC 1-5
A lawyer should maintain high standards of professional conduct and should encourage other lawyers to do likewise. A lawyer should be temperate and dignified, and should refrain from all illegal and morally reprehensible conduct. Because of the lawyer's position in society, even minor violations of law by a lawyer may tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession. Obedience to law exemplifies respect for law. To lawyers especially, respect for the law should be more than a platitude.
EC 1-7
A lawyer should avoid bias and condescension toward, and treat with dignity and respect, all parties, witnesses, lawyers, court employees, and other persons involved in the legal process.
DR 1-101 [1200.2] Maintaining Integrity and Competence of the Legal Profession.
A. A lawyer is subject to discipline if the lawyer has made a materially false statement in, or has deliberately failed to disclose a material fact requested in connection with, the lawyer's application for admission to the bar.
She lied about the little girl and mounted a defense that would have broken her if it'd gone to court.
The victim, then a twelve year old girl, was raped by two adult men. She had had no sexual experience before the assault. She spent five days in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over ten years in therapy. At first, she failed a polygraph test administered to her by police, because she didn’t understand a sex-related question posed to her. Once that question was explained, she passed the test. The victim then positively identified her two attackers through one-way glass, and they were arrested. A medical examination was consistent with rape, and police recovered a pair of men’s undershorts containing biological evidence at the scene of the crime.
One of the rapists was Thomas Alfred Taylor, whom Mrs. Clinton agreed to defend after being asked to do so by the prosecutor. Taylor had specifically requested a female attorney. It was Mrs. Clinton’s first criminal defense case. The punishment for first-degree rape was a minimum of five years imprisonment and a maximum of life. Ultimately, just as trial was to begin, Taylor pled guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful fondling of a child under the age of fourteen. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, with four of those years suspended and additional credit for two months’ served before trial. The second rapist was not prosecuted.
As part of her defense, Mrs. Clinton moved that the child victim be forced to submit to a detailed psychiatric evaluation. Mrs. Clinton’s motion justified the request as follows: a) “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing;” b) “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way;” and, finally, c) “I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences, and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant, are even more prone to such behavior.”
The victim vehemently denies ever having accused anyone else of assaulting or raping her in the past. “I know she [Mrs. Clinton] was lying,” the victim said in the interview. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.” Mrs. Clinton “…wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not,” the rape victim says. “Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.”
Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Ethics of a Rape Defense
This is far from the last ethics violation of her career. As late as December last year she was caught doing favors for her Goldman Sach employed son-in-law:
The emails do not show whether Clinton or other State Department officials met with Siklas or anyone else from the deep-sea mining firm, Neptune Minerals, but FACT alleges that the exchange appears to show Clinton gave preferential treatment to her son-in-law. Siklas was also an employee at Goldman Sachs at the time, TIME notes, and members of the New York investment banking firm were among the top donors to Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.
http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-ethics-investigation-son-in-law-marc-mezvinksy-favor