Damn straight there was. When I was depositioned the defense’s attorney asked me “do you have any computer printouts?” I very gleefully replied “lots of ‘em!” And unlike the other employee, I wasn’t the least bit hesitant to admit that I had been sneaking them out the door in my lunch box for over a year. 
But isn’t it the job of the defense attorney to obstruct that search for the truth if the truth is that is client is guilty as sin? Not by knowingly lying, of course, but by doing his damnedest to make sure the truth doesn’t come out, or if it does, to cast as much doubt on it as he can?
The example that the OP gives is 1) perjury, 2) most likely obstruction of justice 3) witness coaching and 4) yes you can lead in examination in chief if it has been agreed with opposing counsel, not uncommon in complex fraud cases.
His job is to 1) establish that there is reasonable doubt about the assertions the prosecution is making regarding the facts, 2) make certain that any evidence entered by the prosecution was obtained in a constitutionally valid fashion, and 3) protect his client from improper procedure on the part of the prosecution or the courts, so that, if his client is convicted, it results from due process of law. He is NOT there to mislead the court.
Because the lawyer is required to become familiar with the entire case, and is not to suborn perjury. If the client’s story just doesn’t hold up in the context of the rest of the evidence, the lawyer has to have a chat with the client about the contradictions between the client’s story and the rest of the evidence.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the witness under discussion here is not the client of the attorney, correct?
Right—neither of us were this attorney’s client. She represented the bank in its action against the company that defrauded it. We worked for the company being sued, and we were merely subpoenaed as witnesses. We had both been keeping meticulous records showing exactly how the books were being cooked. That aside, what say everybody else on the actual question in my OP? Kimmy_Gibbler gave her opinion, what say everybody else? Does everybody agree that she did something that would get herself colossally reamed or not? And what would happen of if it were brought to the State Bar of California’s attention right now, eight years after the fact?
Under the circumstances, I decline to offer an opinion on the underlying issue. However, as a general rule, if an attorney suborns perjury, and that can be proven, they will have a tough time remaining licensed to practice law.