I think that you raise a great point. Determinations of how much information to provide to a client and/or the best way to express that information are important. These determinations, however, turn on many considerations such as the technical/legal savvy of a client, a client’s instructions/requests/preferences, prior dealings with a client, and one’s professional judgment. Consequently, the answers are going to be different for every client and whether a particular explanation of the duty of candor is “too technical” or provides “far too much” information may be difficult to ascertain without considering the circumstances of a specific representation. The same reasoning applies to whether one wishes to advise a client of potential fees before incurring them or of information that may be necessary to avoid having to file an RCE. After all, attorneys do not pay the government fees (we “advance them” as a courtesy to our clients) and do not provide statements (clients affirm whether such statements can properly be made after careful investigation). And, as for the accuracy of the paragraph, it is accurate for a very specific stage of prosecution and intentionally explains the prerequisites necessary for consideration of an IDS as a matter of right at this specific stage of prosecution. Of course, if an attorney believes that a client would benefit from an expanded explanation, that attorney should provide that explanation.