Practice Questions

A recent law school graduate has applied for admission to the bar in her home jurisdiction. The application forms ask applicants to list all arrests and convictions for misdemeanors or felonies. The graduate had two minor convictions for underage drinking or possession of alcohol when she was in high school, eight years earlier, and her attorney told her at the time that the state would expunge her records when she turned 18. In addition, she had one arrest in college where a shop owner mistakenly thought she was a shoplifter who had visited the store the day before, but the district attorney had not pressed charges once it became obvious that this was a case of misidentification. On her bar application, the applicant did not report the convictions from high school or the arrest from college, because she thought the earlier convictions were no longer on her record, and she had cleared herself of all wrongdoing after the arrest, resulting in dropped charges. Nevertheless, the state bar discovered the convictions and arrest during its comprehensive criminal background check, which it conducts for all applicants. The state bar admissions board denied her application and filed a grievance against the applicant for making a false statement on her application. Did the applicant violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in this case? A. Yes, because she knowingly made a false statement of material fact on her application for admission to the state bar. B. Yes, but only regarding the convictions from high school, as the arrest was clearly a case of misidentification that did not result in formal criminal charges. C. No, because the applicant is not yet a lawyer, and the ethical rules governing lawyers did not yet apply to her during the application stage. D. No, because the earlier convictions occurred when she was a minor, and the state promised to expunge her records, and the arrest during college did not result in formal criminal charges.

A

A trial attorney knew he cannot have ex parte communications with the judge in his case, but he wanted to explain a point about the case to the judge without opposing counsel present. The attorney happened to attend an alumni reception at his law school, and one of his former classmates mentioned to him that she would be having lunch with the judge the next day. The attorney explained his case to his former classmate and asked her to explain a particular point to the judge privately during the lunch, and she agreed to do it as a favor. Could the attorney be subject to discipline in this case? A. Yes, because it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct through the acts of another. B. Yes, because the attorney knew that the classmate should not have lunch with a judge. C. No, because the attorney did not personally have ex parte contact with the judge, so there was no risk of manipulation or coercion. D. No, because the classmate consented to talk to the judge.

A

Big Firm represents hundreds of corporate clients out of a dozen offices in different states. The firm has no formal procedures in place to check for clients at the outset of representation for new clients, but the managing partner of the firm has an incredible memory and has never failed to spot a potential conflict of interest in the past. Attorney agrees to represent a new corporate client that owns many subsidiaries, and checks with the managing partner, who assured Attorney there are no potential conflicts. After the new corporate client had disclosed a substantial amount of confidential information, it emerged that some of its subsidiaries were directly adverse to other clients of Big Firm. Attorney was completely unaware of the potential conflicts at the time he agreed to the representation, despite asking the corporate client a few questions about the opposing parties in pending litigation it might have. Will Attorney be subject to discipline for not declining representation in this case? A. Yes, because ignorance caused by a failure to institute reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, will not excuse a lawyer's violation of the Rules regarding conflicts of interest. B. Yes, because there is a presumption that a company owning several subsidiaries will have at least one adverse interest to other clients of a Big Firm. C. No, as he was unaware of the conflict at the time, but now that the conflict is apparent, Attorney must withdraw from representation D. No, because Attorney reasonably relied upon the managing partner's prowess in identifying conflicts, given that the managing partner had never before made a mistake.

A (see MRPC 1.7)

Attorney recently earned her Juris Doctor degree from a prestigious law school and easily passed the state bar exam, gaining admission to the bar in her home state. She worked for three years for a legal aid clinic that provided free legal services for indigent clients. At the end of her third year at the clinic, Attorney decided to start her own firm, representing primarily low-income clients who were ineligible for free services at the legal aid clinic, but who also rarely could afford the fees of most attorneys. She sent a certified letter to most of the lawyers in her geographic area describing her experience and explaining that she was starting her own firm and intended to specialize in low-dollar consumer protection cases, simple divorces, adoptions, name changes, and landlord-tenant disputes. The letter concluded by offering to handle such cases for other lawyers if the other lawyers did not want to invest their time in such low-dollar matters. She did not notify the legal aid clinic that she planned to leave or that she had sent this letter. Were Attorney's actions proper? A. Yes, because Attorney's statements were not false or misleading and the letter was an appropriate announcement of the opening of her new firm and her intent to specialize in certain areas of law. B. Yes, because Attorney sent the letter only to other lawyers, so there was little risk of manipulation or abuse of unsophisticated clients. C. No, because Attorney failed to notify the legal aid clinic of her plans to open a new firm, or to send a letter to hundreds of lawyers that described her experience working at the clinic. D. No, because Attorney has never handled such fee-generating cases before, if her only work experience is at a legal aid clinic that provides services without charge to indigent clients.

A (see MRPC 7.1)

Attorney made an informal agreement with Physician that they would refer clients to each other when the situation seemed appropriate. They did not pay each other any money for referrals, but the relationship was explicitly reciprocal - Attorney referred patients who needed medical examinations to Physician, and when Physician had patients needing legal representation, he referred them to Attorney. The relationship was not explicitly exclusive - each was free to refer clients to others - but it happened that neither had similar reciprocal relationships with anyone else. They always inform their clients when making such referrals that they have a reciprocal relationship. Is such an arrangement proper? A. Yes, a lawyer may agree to refer clients to another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional, in return for the undertaking of that person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, as long as clients are aware of the arrangement and the relationship is not exclusive. B. Yes, because the agreement is informal, not a written contract. C. No, because a lawyer may not agree to refer clients to another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional, in return for the undertaking of that person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer. D. No, because the relationship described here is de facto exclusive, even if they have not agreed specifically to keep the relationship exclusive.

A (see MRPC 7.2(b)(4))

Attorney Kip regularly appears before Judge Rex, a trial court judge who is running for reelection in six months. Over the past year, Attorney Kip has noticed that Judge Rex has become increasingly ill-tempered on the bench. Not only is the judge abrupt and critical of the lawyers appearing before him, he is also rude and abusive to litigants. On more than one occasion Judge Rex has thrown his gavel across the courtroom in a fit of rage. Attorney Kip and his law partner discussed the possibility of reporting the judge to the appropriate disciplinary authority but are concerned that this would alienate the other judges to whom their cases are assigned. The attorneys ultimately chose not to inform any disciplinary authority, instead choosing to file for judicial substitution whenever they are assigned Judge Rex. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the attorney failed to inform the appropriate authorities about the judge's conduct. B. Yes, because by filing requests for substitution of the judge, the attorney undermined public confidence in the administration of justice. C. No, because the attorney has a duty to represent her clients zealously. D. No, because the judge is running for reelection and may not be reelected.

A (see MRPC 8.3(b)). Since the judge is clearly behaving inappropriately, the attorney has a duty to report it.

For many years, an attorney has served as outside counsel to a corporation. Shortly after a change in management, the attorney discovered what she reasonably believed to be a material misstatement in a document she had drafted that the attorney was about to file on the corporation's behalf with a government agency. The attorney advised the corporation's board of directors that filing the document was probably criminal. However, the board disagreed that there was any material misstatement and directed the attorney to proceed with the filing. When the attorney indicated her intention to resign, the corporation argued that a resignation at this time would send a signal that there was a problem with the filing. The corporation urged the attorney to continue the representation but offered to use in-house counsel to complete the work on the filing. Although she does not know for certain that filing the document is illegal, the attorney reasonably believes that it is. In any event, the attorney is personally uncomfortable with the representation and wants to withdraw. May the attorney withdraw from her representation of the corporation? A. Yes, because withdrawal is permitted but not required when a client insists on conduct that the lawyer reasonably believes, but does not know, will be criminal. B. Yes, because withdrawal is required when a client insists on conduct which the lawyer reasonably believes, but does not know, will be criminal. C. No, because the corporation is correct that withdrawal would breach confidentiality by sending a signal that the filing is problematic. D. No, because the attorney's withdrawal as outside counsel might affect the corporation's ability to complete the filing in a timely fashion.

A A lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent (see Rule 1.16(b)(2)). Here, since the attorney is unsure but reasonably believes there is a material misstatement in the document, she may withdraw.

An attorney, who was recently admitted to the bar, has been appointed by the court as counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony. After consulting with the defendant and attempting for two days to prepare the case for trial, the attorney became convinced that he lacked the knowledge and experience to represent the defendant effectively. Which of the following would be proper for the attorney? A. Request permission of the court to withdraw from representing the defendant. B. Request a two-week continuance to allow more time to prepare for trial. C. Explain the circumstances to the defendant, and if the defendant consents, proceed to represent the defendant to the best of his ability. D. Explain the circumstances to the defendant, and if the defendant his ability consents in writing, proceed to represent the defendant to the best of his ability.

A MRPC 1.1 requires a lawyer to give competent representation to a client. Here, since the attorney does not believe he can give competent representation, he should ask the court for permission to withdraw. B is incorrect, as there is no indication that two weeks is sufficient time to satisfy MRPC 1.1, Comment [2]. ("[a] lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through necessary study.") C and D are incorrect because a lawyer cannot represent a client if he or she is not competent to do so, even if the client consents to the representation. Remember, a client cannot absolve a lawyer from their duty to follow the Rules.

An attorney represented the plaintiff in a personal injury matter. The attorney had heard that the defendant in the matter was anxious to settle the case and reasonably believed that the defendant's lawyer had not informed the defendant about the attorney's recent offer of settlement. The attorney instructed her nonlawyer investigator to tell the defendant about the settlement offer so that the attorney could be sure that the defendant's lawyer did not force the case to trial merely to increase the defendant's lawyer's fee. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the defendant was represented by counsel. B. Yes, because the attorney was assisting the investigator in the unauthorized practice of law. C. No, because the investigator is not a lawyer. D. No, because the attorney reasonably believed that the defendant's lawyer was not keeping the defendant informed.

A Model Rule 4.2 prohibits a lawyer from communicating about a matter with a person known to be represented in the matter unless the person's lawyer consents to the communication or the communication is authorized by law. Under Rule 8.4(a), a lawyer may not violate the rules directly or through the acts of another. Here, the attorney used a nonlawyer agent to violate the anticontact rule.

An attorney represented a plaintiff in an action against a manufacturer of a drain cleaner. The plaintiff's complaint alleged that the manufacturer's product exploded in use and caused her serious and permanent injuries. The jury agreed and awarded the plaintiff $5,000,000 in actual damages and an additional $5,000,000 in punitive damages. The manufacturer paid the judgment. The attorney made this recovery the cornerstone of an aggressive television advertising campaign for his law practice. In those ads, a voice-over discussed the $10,000,000 recovery obtained in the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff praised the attorney's legal skills in an on-camera statement, saying that no one would work harder on a case than the attorney. The plaintiff prepared her on-camera statement in response to the attorney's request, but without any further involvement by the attorney, and she believed it to be entirely true. Is the attorney subject to discipline for using the television advertisement described above? A. Yes, because the advertisement is likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results the attorney will be able to achieve in other cases and is therefore misleading. B. Yes, because the attorney's advertisement contains a client testimonial. C. No, because the plaintiff prepared the entire statement without any involvement by the attorney. D. No, because the result obtained in the plaintiff's case was reported accurately, and the plaintiff believed that everything she said about the attorney was true.

A Model Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading statements in lawyer advertising. The Comments to the Rule note that an advertisement truthfully reporting a lawyer's achievement on behalf of a client may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results can be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client's case. An express and prominent disclaimer would be necessary to avoid such unjustified expectations here

Last week's newspaper announced that Attorney Picard was seriously considered for appointment to the bench by the state governor. Attorney Riker is aware that several years ago Picard was charged in another jurisdiction for suborning perjury, and more recently was divorced by his wife because of an adulterous affair. Riker is friendly with Picard and believes Picard would make a terrific judge. While he considered raising the charge of perjury and the affair with the newspaper, Attorney Riker decided that it was in everyone's best interest that he remain silent. Is Attorney Riker's silence proper? A. No, because he is obligated to disclose his knowledge of Picard's dishonesty. B. No, because he is required to disclose knowledge of adultery as it bears negatively on Picard's character. C. Yes, because both issues are of public record. D. Yes, because neither issue reflects Picard's fitness for service on the bench.

A Rule 8.3 imposes an affirmative duty on an attorney possessing unprivileged knowledge of ethical breaches giving rise to a substantial question as to another lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, to report such breaches to the appropriate authorities. Because Picard's perjury charge bears on his "honesty, trustworthiness or fitness" as a lawyer, Attorney Riker is required to disclose the charge to the state bar (see Rule 8.4(b)

Able, Baker, and Carter had been indicted for the armed robbery of a cashier at a grocery store. Together, Able and Baker met with an attorney and asked her to represent them. The attorney then interviewed Able and Baker separately. Each told the attorney that the robbery had been committed by Carter while Able and Baker sat in Carter's car outside the store. They each said that Carter had said he needed some cigarettes and that they knew nothing of his plan to rob the cashier. The attorney agreed to represent both Able and Baker. One week before the trial, Able told the attorney that he wanted to plea bargain and that he was prepared to testify that Baker had loaned Carter the gun Carter used in the robbery. Able also said that he and Baker had shared in the proceeds of the robbery with Carter. What is the proper course of action for the attorney to take? A. Request court approval to withdraw as the attorney for both Able and Baker. B. Continue to represent Baker and, with Able's consent and court approval, withdraw as Able's lawyer. C. Continue to represent Able and, with Baker's consent and court approval, withdraw as Baker's lawyer. D. Continue to represent Able and Baker, but not call Able as a witness.

A The attorney has a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7 and may not continue to represent both clients. If the attorney negotiates a plea bargain for Able, she will be prejudicing Baker, whereas if she fails to negotiate the plea bargain, she will be prejudicing Able. Under Rule 1.16(a)(1), the attorney must seek judicial permission to withdraw from the representation to avoid violating Rule 1.7.

A corporation has applied to a bank for a $900,000 loan to be secured by a lien on the corporation's inventory. The inventory, consisting of small items, constantly turns over. The security documents are complex and if improperly drawn they could result in an invalid lien. The bank has approved the loan on the condition that the corporation and the bank jointly retain an attorney to prepare the necessary security instruments and that the corporation pay the attorney's fees. Both the corporation and the bank gave informed consent in writing to the attorney's representation of both parties. This arrangement is customary in the city in which the attorney's law office and the bank are located. It is obvious to the attorney that he can adequately represent the interests of both the corporation and the bank. Is it proper for the attorney to prepare the security documents under these circumstances? A. Yes, because both the bank and the corporation have given their informed consent to the arrangement. B. Yes, because the arrangement is customary in the community. C. No, because the attorney's fees are being paid by the corporation, not the bank. D. No, because the corporation and the bank have differing interests.

A The attorney has a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7(a) arising out of the representation of two clients in the same transaction—the bank, which is the lender, and the corporation, which is the borrower. But Rule 1.7(b) allows the attorney to represent both clients with informed consent, confirmed in writing, because the attorney reasonably believes that he can competently and diligently represent them both.

Lawyer commenced a consensual sexual relationship with Paralegal, who at the time was a married man. Paralegal decided to seek a divorce, and Lawyer agreed to represent Paralegal in connection with the divorce. Throughout Lawyer's representation of Paralegal, their sexual relationship continued. Lawyer never sought Paralegals consent to any possible conflict of interest. Did Lawyer violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? A. Yes, because Lawyer represented Paralegal despite a conflict of interest to which Paralegal had not given informed consent. B. Yes, because Lawyer continued a preexisting sexual relationship with Paralegal during the representation. C. No, because the sexual relationship between Lawyer and Paralegal predated the commencement of the attorney-client relationship. D. No, because the sexual relationship between Lawyer and Paralegal was consensual

A There was a significant risk of a material limitation under Rule (9)(2) in Lawyer's representation of Paralegal. Lawyer had a personal interest in the continuance of the sexual relationship with her client. Lawyer's advice might have been compromised by the interest. For example, a lawyer without that conflict might advise a client to cease an extramarital affair during the pendency of divorce proceedings, or might even counsel a client to consider reconciliation with his wife. Lawyer should have considered whether the conflict was consentable under Rule 1.7(b)(1) and, if so, should have sought informed consent under Rule 1.7(b)(4).

A client hired Attorney Rita to represent her in a personal injury lawsuit in which the client is the plaintiff. After an initial consultation and two meetings to review the main evidence and to discuss the nature of the claims, Rita drafted the initial pleadings, served the opposing party, and filed the pleadings in the appropriate court. Rita did not allow the client to review the pleadings before filing them, and afterward, the client expresses disappointment that she did not have the opportunity to review the pleadings beforehand and make suggested edits, given that it is her case and that the attorney is working for her. Was it proper for Attorney Rita to draft the pleadings based on her conversations with the plaintiff and file the documents without first having the plaintiff review them? A. Yes, because a lawyer may take whatever actions the client has impliedly authorized as part of the representation. B. Yes, unless the client is an English teacher or a professional editor and might therefore have special expertise in proofreading texts for grammatical errors and stylistic problems. C. No, because a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to how to pursue these ends. D. No, because the attorney may have to spend time later revising the pleadings, which could affect the legal fees in the case, and such revisions may have been unnecessary if someone else had proofread the attorney's draft before filing it

A Under 1.2(a), a lawyer may take whatever actions the client has impliedly authorized as part of the representation. By hiring Rita to represent her in a personal injury claim, the client has impliedly authorized Rita to take necessary actions to carry out the representation, such as drafting pleadings and serving opposing counsel. Answers B, C, and D are wrong. While it is true that a lawyer shall abide by a client's objectives regarding the representation and shall consult with the client means to pursue those objectives [1.2(a)], a lawyer is impliedly authorized to take actions on their behalf (such as filing pleadings) without needing a client's review.

An attorney regularly appears before a trial court judge who is running for reelection in six months. Over the past year, the attorney has noticed that the judge has become increasingly ill-tempered on the bench. Not only is the judge abrupt and critical of lawyers appearing before him, he is also rude and abusive to litigants. On more than one occasion, the judge has thrown his gavel across the courtroom in a fit of temper. The judge's conduct on the bench is often the subject of discussion whenever a group of lawyers meets. Some lawyers are automatically filing requests for judicial substitution whenever a case in which they are to appear is assigned to the judge. The attorney discussed the matter with her law partners, who rarely make court appearances. The attorney's law partners suggested that she, too, file a request for judicial substitution whenever one of her cases is assigned to the judge. In addition, the attorney and her law partners discussed the possibility of reporting the judge to the appropriate disciplinary authority but are concerned that this would alienate the other judges to whom their cases are assigned. The attorney has reluctantly started filing for substitution of the judge in every one of her cases to which the judge is assigned, but she has taken no further action. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the attorney failed to inform the appropriate authorities about the judge's conduct. B. Yes, because, by filing automatic requests for substitution of the judge, the attorney undermined public confidence in the administration of justice. C. No, because the attorney has a duty to represent her clients zealously. D. No, because the judge is running for reelection and may not be reelected.

A Under Model Rule 8.3, a lawyer who has actual knowledge that a judge has committed a violation of the rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to that person's fitness for judicial office must inform the appropriate authority. In this fact pattern, the judge has on more than one occasion thrown a gavel across the courtroom and has been critical of lawyers and rude to litigants. Such behavior crosses the line into conduct that raises a substantial question as to his ability to judge.

Lawyer was an assistant public defender and carried a very heavy caseload. As a matter of routine, Juge signed an order to appoint Lawyer to represent a defendant in a murder case. As a public defender, Lawyer was not afforded the opportunity to decline this appointment. Lawyer was thrilled at the appointment, because Lawyer very much wanted to be involved in the case. After his first appearance in the murder case, when Lawyer first grasped how much effort would be required in the case, Lawyer knew that he would be unable to give appropriate attention to all of his other cases if Lawyer remained involved in the murder case. Lawyer nevertheless did not seek to withdraw from the murder case. Did lawyer violate the model rules? A. Yes, because lawyer had a duty to seek to withdraw. B. Yes, because lawyer had good cause to seek to avoid the appointment. C. No, because lawyer as obligated to accept the court appearance D. No, because lawyer had the option but not the duty to seek to withdraw.

A Under Rule 1.6(a)(1) a lawyer must seek to withdraw if continuing the representation will result in a violation of the rules. Lawyer knew that continuing in the murder case would cause lawyer not to be able to give appropriate attention to his other cases. Lawyer owed a duty of diligence under tule 1.3 to all of those other clients. As comment 2 to rule 1.3 notes 'a lawyer workload must be controlled so that each matter can be handled competently."

Tony went to see Attorney Paulie, a solo practitioner, to discuss the possibility that Attorney Paulie would represent Tony in his divorce from Carmella. Attorney Paulie asked Tony to tell him just enough information to enable him to determine whether to represent Tony and not to reveal significant details of the dispute. Tony nevertheless revealed to Attorney Paulie information that could be significantly harmful to Tony in the divorce. Attorney Paulie ultimately declined to represent Tony. Carmella asked Attorney Paulie to represent her in her divorce from Tony. Tony would not consent to Attorney Paulie's representation of Carmella. Attorney Paulie, however, said that Tony had never officially been his client and decided to represent Carmella against Tony. Did Attorney Paulie violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? A. Yes, because Attorney Paulie learned information that could be significantly harmful to Tony. B. Yes because he met with Tony before he met with Carmella. C. No, because Attorney Paulie undertook reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent Tony. D. No, because Tony never became a client of Attorney Paulie.

A When Tony came to see Attorney Paulie, Tony was a prospective client. Under Rule 1.18(d)(1), the only way Attorney Paulie personally could represent Carmella against Tony, once Attorney Paulie was in possession of information that would be significantly harmful to Tony, would be to obtain informed consent from both parties. Tony refused to consent, and therefore, the Attorney Paulie could not represent Carmella against Tony.

Tony went to see Attorney Paulie, a solo practitioner, to discuss the possibility that Attorney Paulie would represent Tony in his divorce from Carmella. Attorney Paulie asked Tony to tell him just enough information to enable him to determine whether to represent Tony and not to reveal significant details of the dispute. Tony nevertheless revealed to Attorney Paulie information that could be significantly harmful to Tony in the divorce. Attorney Paulie ultimately declined to represent Tony. Carmella asked Attorney Paulie to represent her in her divorce from Tony. Tony would not consent to Attorney Paulie's representation of Carmella. Attorney Paulie nevertheless undertook to represent Carmella against Tony. Did Attorney Paulie violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? A. Yes, because Attorney Paulie learned information that could be significantly harmful to Tony. B. Yes, because Attorney Paulie undertook representation of Carmella against a former prospective client of Attorney Paulie. C. No, because Attorney Paulie undertook reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent Tony. D. No, because Tony never became a client of Attorney Paulie.

A When Tony came to see Attorney Paulie, Tony was a prospective client. Under Rule 1.18(d)(1), the only way Attorney Paulie personally could represent Carmella against Tony, once Attorney Paulie was in possession of information that would be significantly harmful to Tony, would be to obtain informed consent from both parties. Tony refused to consent, and therefore, the Attorney could not represent Carmella against Tony.

Attorney's brother is a physician. Attorney calls his brother and explains that his firm is not doing well, that he needs more cases, and asks his brother to use him as his lawyer for any medical malpractice actions he faces or any collection actions against patients who do not pay their bills. Attorney's brother finds this request annoying and makes no promises. Was it proper for Attorney to make such a telephone solicitation? A. Yes, because the recipient of the solicitation has a family relationship with the lawyer. B. Yes, because he merely asked his brother to use his services whenever a case should arise, without offering to represent him in a specific matter or for a specific fee. C. No, because the brother found the call annoying and the appropriateness of the solicitation is from the perspective of the recipient. D. No, because a lawyer shall not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain.

A (see MRPC 7.3)

Lawyer wanted to organize her practice in such a way as to maximize her profit. She decided to offer a one stop shop for clients who needed her estate planning services and who also needed the services of her brother, a certified financial planner who was not a lawyer. Lawyer set up the firm as a professional corporation. She and her brother were the only shareholders. The shareholder agreement specified that Lawyers brother would have no right to control or direct Lawyers judgment and that all fees from Lawyers estate planning services would be strictly segregated, accounted for, and not shared directly or indirectly with her brother. Did Lawyer violate the Model Rules? A. Yes, because Lawyer practice law with a professional corporate in which a nonlawyer owned an interest. B. Yes, because Lawyers firm offers nonlegal services C. No because lawyers' brother had not right to control or direct lawyers' judgement D. No because lawyer did not share her legal fees with a non-lawyer

A (see e 5.4(d)(1). Answer B is incorrect because law firms can offer nonlegal services under certain conditions (see comment [9] to 5.7)

An attorney entered into a written retainer agreement with a defendant in a criminal case. The defendant agreed in writing to transfer title to her automobile to the attorney if the attorney successfully prevented her from going to prison. Later, the charges against the defendant were dismissed. Is the attorney subject to discipline for entering into this retainer agreement? A. Yes, because the attorney agreed to a fee contingent on the outcome of a criminal case. B. Yes, because a lawyer may not acquire a proprietary interest in a client's property. C. No, because the charges against the defendant were dismissed. D. No, because the retainer agreement was in writing.

A Rule 1.5(d)(2) provides that a lawyer may not represent a defendant in a criminal case on a contingent fee basis. Here, the client's payment of a fee (title to an automobile) was contingent on a successful outcome in the criminal case.

An attorney discovers that a partner at his own firm has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to disclose adverse binding precedent to a tribunal, and by depositing client funds into his own bank account instead of a client trust account. Does the attorney have a duty to report the partner from his own firm to the state bar disciplinary authority? A. Yes, but he must make an anonymous complaint to the state bar. B. Yes, because a lawyer who knows of a violation of the Rules that raises serious questions about the other attorney's honesty must report it to the state disciplinary authority. C. No, because lawyers do not have to report violations or misconduct by their own superiors, as this would put the reporting attorney in a difficult position at his workplace. D. No, because a lawyer is not required to report violations, but instead is merely permitted to do so.

B

Norm completed his fitness questionnaire as part of the bar admission process. The questionnaire asked Norm to reveal in writing "the date, place and circumstances of all arrests." In college, Norm had been arrested for aggravated assault at a college party. Norm committed the aggravated assault (which was caught on video), but Norm was intoxicated at the time. Norm completed a court diversion program and was granted "first offender" status in his state, which meant that there was no adjudication of guilt. Norm took this to mean that the record of his arrest and charge would be expunged and no one would be able to discern that he had ever been arrested or charged. In response to the question on the bar questionnaire, Norm wrote: "None." Norm was admitted to the bar. Is Norm subject to discipline by the bar? A. Yes, because Norm committed aggravated assault, a criminal act that reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law. B. Yes, because Norm knowingly made a false statement of material fact in connection with his bar application. C. No, because Norm was not a member of the bar at the time he completed the questionnaire. D. No, because Norm was never adjudicated guilty.

B

The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct are: A. Binding on attorneys in all jurisdictions. B. Models which jurisdictions can accept, reject or modify. C. Binding only on members of the ABA. D. The only legal standards governing lawyer conduct.

B

An attorney regularly represents a certain client. When the client planned to leave on a world tour, she delivered to the attorney sufficient money to pay her property taxes when they became due. The attorney placed the money in his clients' trust account. When the tax payment date arrived, the attorney was in need of a temporary loan to close the purchase of a new personal residence. Because the penalty for late payment of taxes was only 2 percent while the rate for a personal loan was 6 percent, the attorney withdrew the client's funds from the clients' trust account to cover his personal check for the closing. The attorney was confident that the client would not object. Ten days later, after the receipt of a large fee previously earned, the attorney paid the client's property taxes and the 2 percent penalty, fully satisfying the client's tax obligation. After the client returned, the attorney told her what he had done, and the client approved the attorney's conduct. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the attorney failed to pay the client the 10 days of interest at the fair market rate. B. Yes, because the attorney used the client's funds for a personal purpose. C. No, because the client was not harmed and the attorney reasonably believed at the time he withdrew the money that the client would not object. D. No, because when the attorney told the client what he had done, the client approved his conduct.

B (see 1.15). Client funds must be held for safekeeping in an account that is separate from the lawyer's funds and may be used only in accordance with the client's instructions, not for the lawyer's personal benefit. Further, the attorney was required to use the funds for the client's designated purpose, that is, for payment of the taxes when they became due, and for no other purpose.

When must a lawyer reject a potential client? A. When the client cannot currently provide enough facts to support her case. B. When the clients demands the lawyer engage in conduct that violates the Model Rules. C. When the client suggests an illegal course of conduct. D. When the client's cause is unpopular.

B (see MRPC 1.16, Comment [2]).

The Office of the Public Defender in a large urban center lacked the budget to hire the number of lawyers they needed. The number of indigent defendants who required representation always exceeded the capacity of the lawyers there. An attorney worked as a prosecutor for a few years to get experience, then became a public defender at this office. He soon found himself with an overload of cases, so it was impossible to provide full representation to each client. The attorney, like the other public defenders in the office, encouraged all his clients to accept a plea bargain, with rare exceptions. Going to trial on any one case meant turning away about two dozen indigent clients, most of whom could reach a plea agreement within an hour or two. The attorney reasoned that it was better for indigent criminal defendants to have a little representation rather than none. Besides, he knew that many of the defendants would lose if they went to trial. Given these facts, is the attorney violating his ethical duty of diligent representation to the clients by encouraging them to take plea bargains? A. Yes, every criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial, and lawyers should not advise them to waive this important right and accept a plea bargain instead. B. Yes, lawyers must control their workload so that each matter receives competent, diligent representation. C. No, there is a special exception to the workload-limit rules for public defenders, considering the pressing need for representation of indigent defendants. D. No, if most of the clients would indeed be worse off if they went to trial, then the attorney's minimal representation is better for them.

B (see MRPC 1.3 [Comment 2]: "A lawyer's workload must be controlled so that each matter can be handled competently.") Here, the attorney's workload is not controlled, leading to clients not receiving competent representation. This problem concerns Rule 1.3 and the diligent representation of clients. Rule 1.3 states that a "lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." Obviously, this is easier said than done, and both lawyers in private and public practice face staggering caseloads, but is is important to remember that the ethical duty of diligence remains.

An 80-year-old widow was hit by the defendant's car while she was crossing the street. As a result of the accident, she incurred $20,000 in hospital expenses, and undetermined damages for pain and suffering. The widow retained an attorney to represent her. The attorney, whose practice was extremely busy at the time, ultimately failed to commence an action against the defendant within the time allowed by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the widow's claim was time barred. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, but only if the statute of limitations expired within the last 30 days. B. Yes, because he neglected the widow's matter. C. No, and he is not subject to civil liability. D. No, but he is automatically liable to the widow for $20,000 as a matter of law.

B (see MRPC 1.3 mandating that "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.") Allowing the statute of limitations to expire, thereby precluding the client's claim, is not acting with "reasonable diligence and promptness" as required by this Rule.

Which of the following most accurately describes the Model Rules' treatment of in-person solicitations of prospective clients by lawyers and live telephone solicitations by lawyers? A. The Rules treat in-person solicitations as much more serious and likely to result in abuse than telephone solicitations. B. The Rules treat live telephone solicitations the same as in-person solicitations. C. The Rules treat live telephone solicitations the same as email solicitations. D. The Rules treat live telephone solicitations the same as a billboard, an Internet banner advertisement, a website, or a television commercial.

B (see MRPC 7.3)

A lawyer faced prosecution for failing to file tax returns over a five-year period. The attorney worked for a legal aid clinic and never charged clients any legal fees, as the clinic provided free representation to the indigent. The attorney received a modest salary from the legal aid clinic, the funds for which came from the state's IOLTA program and from a federal Legal Services Corporation (LSC) grant. Could the attorney face suspension of his license to practice law? A. Yes, because the lawyer's salary comes from a commingling of state IOLTA funds and federal LSC funds. B. Yes, because it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty. C. No, because the lawyer's illegal conduct did not pertain to his representation of any of his clients. D. No, because none of the lawyer's income derived from legal fees collected from clients.

B (see MRPC 8.4(b) & Comment 2)

An attorney was approached by a husband and a wife who had decided to dissolve their marriage. They had no children and had worked out a tentative mutual property settlement. They did not want to retain separate lawyers because they hoped to save money and believed that working with one attorney was more likely to result in a reasonably amicable dissolution. Before coming to the attorney, they had drafted and each had signed a written agreement not to run up the costs and increase the adversarial nature of the dissolution by retaining separate lawyers. The attorney believed that he was able to provide competent and diligent representation to both the husband and the wife. The attorney consulted with both independently concerning the implications of the common representation, including the advantages and risks involved and the effect on their respective attorney-client privileges. The attorney reduced the disclosures to writing in the form of a written retainer agreement and gave them each several days to consult independent legal counsel if they so desired. The husband and the wife each chose not to consult independent counsel. After six months of reasonably amicable negotiations, the wife announced that she had changed her mind about the representation and had decided to retain her own lawyer. However, after the husband and the attorney insisted that she was obligated to adhere to her prior written agreement, she reluctantly agreed to abide by it. The attorney was then able to draft a property settlement agreement satisfactory to both parties. Is the attorney subject to discipline for his conduct in the representation? A. Yes, because the attorney should not have undertaken to represent both the husband and the wife in the first place. B. Yes, because the attorney insisted that the wife not hire another lawyer. C. No, because both the husband and the wife initially consented to all aspects of the representation. D. No, because the husband and the wife independently made the agreement that neither would retain separate counsel.

B A client who has given consent to a potential conflict of interest may revoke the consent and may, like any other client, terminate the lawyer's representation at any time. It was improper for the attorney to insist that the wife adhere to her prior agreement in derogation of her absolute right to terminate the joint representation.

An attorney has been representing the client in a matter in litigation. During protracted pretrial proceedings, the client complained bitterly about the time and expense involved and insisted that the attorney take steps to terminate the pretrial proceedings. The attorney believes that doing so would jeopardize the client's interests and has so informed the client. The attorney believes that the case cannot be adequately prepared for trial without further pretrial proceedings that will require an additional six months' delay and involve further expense. The client insists that the attorney forgo any further pretrial proceedings and set the case for trial at the earliest available date. There are several other competent lawyers who are willing to undertake the representation. Is it proper for the attorney to ask leave of the court to withdraw? A. Yes, because a lawyer may discontinue representation in a civil case at any time before trial. B. Yes, because the client's conduct makes it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to represent the client effectively and competently. C. No, because the attorney must follow the client's instructions. D. No, because the client did not consent to the attorney's withdrawal.

B A lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if the client insists on taking action with which the lawyer had a fundamental disagreement or if the representation has been rendered "unreasonably difficult" by the client (see Model Rule 1.16(b)(6)). Here, the client's insistence on forgoing additional pretrial proceedings has made the representation unreasonably difficult. Importantly, the attorney believes he needs another six months to adequately represent the client's interests, a very significant amount of time, while the client is insisting that they go to trial as soon as possible.

Does a retainer fee differ from a payment in advance? A. No, both terms are used interchangeably to indicate payment for services yet to be rendered. B. Yes, a true retainer fee is money paid solely to ensure the availability of a lawyer, whereas an advance is a payment for services yet to be rendered. C. No, both terms are used interchangeably to indicate money paid solely to ensure the availability of a lawyer. D. Yes, a true retainer fee is money paid for services yet to be rendered, whereas an advance is solely to ensure the availability of a lawyer.

B A true retainer fee is money that is paid solely to ensure the availability of the lawyer, and the lawyer who is fired and withdraws generally need not refund the retainer fee. In contrast, when a lawyer requires advance payment for services yet to be rendered she must refund any unearned part of the advance if she is fired or withdraws.

The firm of Wilder & Kane ran a television ad that dramatized an auto accident, the hospitalization of one of the victims, and finally, the trial of the victim's case with attorney Kane arguing to the jury. The voice over begins by saying, "Trial is civilized warfare," but assures the viewer that Wilder & Kane are prepared to "make complicated medical facts clear to the jury" and strive for "victory in the courtroom." Kane is a personal injury attorney who believes that pretrial settlement of cases is almost always better for clients than facing the risks of trial. While Kane is an experienced litigator he has never tried a case to a jury. If trial is inevitable in a case, he refers it to a trial lawyer at a different firm in town. Does the firm's television spot violate any disciplinary rules? A. Yes, because it is too aggressive. B. Yes, because it is false or misleading. C. No, because attorneys have free speech to say what they want. D. No, because Kane is a competent attorney.

B Even though the advertisement never made an explicit false representation such as "Attorney Kane has tried 100 cases to juries" the dramatization of his closing argument suggests that he is a highly experienced trial lawyer. For this reason, the ad violates the prohibition on false or misleading communications (see MRPC 7.1).

Lawyer subscribed to and paid the usual fees of Lead Generator, Inc. (LGI), an independent marketing company that helped lawyers get clients. LGI advertised extensively online that it "matched" people who needed a lawyer with the "right" lawyer in that person's community. In fact, LGI sent the person who sought a lawyer contact information for any lawyers who paid LGI's fees in that community. LGI did not send contact information for any lawyer who did not pay LGI's fees, and LGI did not inform those who were looking for a lawyer that LGI sent the names only of lawyers who paid its fees. Did Lawyer violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? A. Yes, because Lawyer paid LGI for referrals. B. Yes, because LGI engaged in false and misleading advertising. C. No, because Lawyer did not engage in any false or misleading advertising. D. No, because Lawyer was permitted to pay the usual and customary charges associated with generating client leads.

B LGI falsely advertised that it matched potential clients with lawyers, and it did not reveal that the lawyers who received the leads had paid for that privilege. That is false and misleading (see Comment [5] to MRPC 7.2.) Lawyer is responsible under MRPC 8.4(a) for these violations of Rule 7.1, because the Lawyer is violating Rule 7.1 through the acts of LGI.

Client was injured at work and retained Lawyer. Lawyer and Client agreed that Lawyer would represent Client only in connection with Client's worker's compensation claim. The limit on the scope of the representation was reasonable, and Client gave informed consent to it. In the course of representing Client on the worker's compensation claim, Lawyer learned that Client's objective was to get as much money as possible for injuries Client sustained at work. While representing Client, Lawyer also learned of possible causes of action in tort that Client might pursue for the same injuries. Those claims were outside Lawyer's area of practice and expertise and outside the limited scope of Lawyer's representation of Client. Lawyer did not tell Client about those possible causes of action, because Lawyer did not feel comfortable with that area of practice and didn't want the Client to go to a different lawyer. Did Lawyer violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? A. Yes, because Lawyer limited the scope of his representation of the client. B. Yes, because Lawyer had a duty of communication to reveal information relating to the client's known objectives. C. No, because the information was not relevant to any matter within the limited scope of the representation. D. No, because the limit on the scope of representation was reasonable and the client gave informed consent.

B Lawyer had a duty under Rule 1.4(a)(2) to "reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished." Client's objective was to maximize their financial recovery, and Lawyer failed to inform Client about a way of doing that.

Lawyer has strong religious beliefs that include the belief that abortion is a sin in all circumstances. Lawyer's Firm is asked to represent Client, who is challenging new state law restrictions on the availability of abortion services. Firm asks Lawyer to represent Client in this matter. Lawyer considers her religious beliefs and thinks about what she would be called upon to accomplish for Client. Lawyer concludes that she could not provide competent and diligent representation to Client in this matter. Other lawyers in Firm do not share Lawyer's views on abortion and could render competent and diligent representation to Client. May Firm undertake the representation of Client? A. Yes, because personal religious beliefs do not create conflicts of interest. B. Yes, because Lawyer's conflict of interest will not be imputed to other lawyers in Firm. C. No, because Lawyer's conflict will be imputed to all other lawyers in Firm. D. No, because Lawyer's conflict is not consentable.

B Lawyer has a conflict of interest, but it is a conflict that arises from her personal interest in remaining faithful to her religious beliefs. There is nothing about her religious beliefs that creates a conflict of interest for other members of her firm. Rule 1.10(a)(1) contains an exception to the general rule that conflicts of interest are imputed among members of a law firm. That exception applies here, because "the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the disqualified lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm." Answer (A) is wrong because personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, can create conflicts. (C) is wrong because the conflict will not be imputed. The exception in Rule 1.10(a)(1) applies. Answer (D) is incorrect; the issue is not whether Lawyer could seek consent under these circumstances, she could not because of Rule 1.7(b)(1), but whether the firm can undertake the representation despite Lawyer's non consentable conflict. It can, because of Rule 1.10(a)(1). Answer (B) is right.

Lawyer worked for a firm for several years but decided to start her own firm. Because of the expense, and her faith in her own competence, Lawyer decided not to carry any malpractice insurance. She considered herself "self-insured," which simply meant that she would be personally responsible for the costs of defending any claims and for settling or paying any claims. Lawyer did not reveal to clients or prospective clients that she did not carry malpractice insurance. When one client asked if she was insured against malpractice, Lawyer responded, "yes," because Lawyer considered herself to be self-insured. Did Lawyer violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? A. No, because she had a plan to pay for defending or paying claims. B. Yes, because her "yes" was a false statement. C. No, because she didn't explicitly lie. D. Yes, she shouldn't have her own firm.

B Lawyer violated Rule 4.1 by making a false statement of material fact to the client who asked whether Lawyer was insured. Comment 1 to Rule 4.1 makes it clear that a lawyer can violate Rule 4.1(a) by making a misleading statement. Lawyer's statement that she was "insured" was misleading, because one would normally assume that this meant she had an insurance policy.

An attorney and a restaurant owner entered into a reciprocal referral arrangement. The attorney agreed to prominently display ads for the restaurant in her office, and to mention the restaurant to all of her clients who requested a recommendation of a nearby place to eat. In return, the owner agreed to prominently display ads for the attorney's firm in the restaurant and to recommend the attorney to any of his customers who indicated a need for the services provided by the attorney. The reciprocal referral agreement was not exclusive, and the clients and customers would be informed of the existence and nature of the agreement. Is the attorney subject to discipline for entering into this agreement? A. Yes, because she asked the owner to place ads for the firm in the restaurant. B. Yes, because the agreement provided something of value to the restaurant owner in return for recommending the attorney's services. C. No, because she did not pay the restaurant owner for the referrals. D. No, because the agreement is not exclusive, and the clients and customers will be informed of the existence and nature of the agreement.

B Model Rule 7.2(b) prohibits a lawyer from giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services. Subsection (4) of that rule provides for an exception for reciprocal referral agreements with other lawyers or with nonlawyer professionals. Because the restaurant owner is not a professional, however, this exception does not apply.

Attorney Aria represents Jaya, who is a defendant in a securities fraud prosecution. One day, Aria is interviewing Jaya about the allegations that she engaged in insider trading. Jaya, who is married, brings a man named Josh to the interview, and she reveals to Aria that she is having an affair with him. She further reveals that Josh provided her with some inside information. Josh is not a defendant in the case and is not represented by Aria. Jaya's statements about Josh are: A. Confidential and privileged. B. Confidential, but not privileged. C. Not confidential but privileged. D. Neither confidential nor privileged

B Rule 1.6 prohibits lawyers from revealing information relating to the representation of a client. The information is thus confidential. Privilege, on the other hand, only covers communications that the client reasonably believes were made in private between the client and lawyer for the purpose of seeking or delivering legal advice or legal services. As Jaya made these statements in the presence of Josh, she could not reasonably believe they were made in private.

After practicing for two years, Attorney Ben enrolled in an LL.M. program at a local law school, taking night classes. During his second semester, Attorney Ben faced academic discipline for plagiarism in a seminar paper; the school permitted him to graduate, but he received a failing grade in the class and had to make up the credits with another course. As the attorney already has a license to practice law in the jurisdiction, could he be subject to discipline if the state disciplinary authorities learned of the plagiarism? A. Yes, because it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty. B. Yes, because it is professional misconduct for an attorney to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. C. No, because the attorney already obtained admission to the bar, so his courses now have no bearing on his application for admission to the bar. D. No, because the incident does not pertain to his representation of a client, so the disciplinary rules do not apply.

B Under 8.4(c), it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." Plagiarism would qualify as dishonest, deceitful, and a misrepresentation of others' work as one's own. Thus, this type of conduct could subject Ben to discipline.

An attorney discovers that a partner at his own firm has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by depositing client funds into his own bank account to go on expensive vacations. Does the attorney have a duty to report the partner from his own firm to the state bar disciplinary authority? A. Yes, but he must make an anonymous complaint to the state bar. B. Yes, because a lawyer who knows of a violation of the Rules that raises serious questions about the other attorney's honesty must report it to the state disciplinary authority. C. No, because lawyers do not have to report violations or misconduct by their own superiors, as this would put the reporting attorney in a difficult position at his workplace. D. No, because a lawyer does not have to report violations, but instead is merely permitted to do so.

B Under MRPC 8.3(a), a "lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority." An attorney learning that a Partner is stealing client funds, a clear violation of the MRPC which raises substantial questions of the attorney's honesty, would be required to report the activity to a disciplinary authority.  

An attorney represents the plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are well-known public figures, and the lawsuit has attracted much publicity. The attorney has been billing the plaintiff at an agreed-upon hourly fee for his services. Recently the plaintiff suggested that, rather than paying hourly, she would like to assign the attorney the media rights to a book and movie based on her lawsuit as full payment of services rendered from that point until the end of the litigation. The attorney responded that he would consider it, but that the plaintiff should first seek independent advice as to whether such an arrangement would be in her best interest. The attorney knew that, in the unlikely event that the lawsuit was settled quickly, the media rights might be worth more than he would have earned on an hourly fee basis. Is the attorney subject to discipline if he agrees to the plaintiff's offer? A. Yes, because the attorney knew that, in the unlikely event that the lawsuit was settled quickly, the media rights might be worth more than he would have earned on an hourly fee basis. B. Yes, because the attorney has not concluded the representation of the plaintiff. C. No, because the defamation lawsuit is a civil and not a criminal matter. D. No, because the attorney recommended that the plaintiff first seek independent advice before entering into the arrangement.

B Under Rule 1.8(d), prior to the conclusion of a representation, a lawyer may not make an agreement with the client giving the lawyer media rights to an account based in substantial part on information relating to the representation.

The majority shareholder of Corleone Collection Agency, Inc. is Lawyer Corleone. When the agency's collection efforts have not been successful, Lawyer Corleone has told the agency's manager, Sarducci, to write a letter on Lawyer Corleone's legal letterhead. The letter states that the matter has been referred to Lawyer Corleone and that a lawsuit will be filed in five days if payment is not received. Corleone does not personally review each letter before Sarducci signs and sends it. .Can Lawyer Corleone be disciplined for his conduct? A. Yes, because Lawyer Corleone may not appear to threaten suit to gain advantage in a civil case. B. Yes, because Corleone Collection Agency, through Sarducci, is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. C. Yes, because the letter is a blatant threat. D. No, because Sarducci is authorized to act as Lawyer Corleone's agent.

B Under Rule 5.5, a lawyer may have disciplinary problems with the unauthorized practice rules, either by practicing in a state where she is not admitted or by helping a lay person like Sarducci engage in unauthorized practice such as writing a threatening letter on a lawyer's letterhead.

An attorney who graduated law school two years ago is struggling to develop a personal injury practice. To assist in this effort, the attorney hired a marketing firm to prepare a website featuring flashy photos of the attorney addressing a jury, arguing before a judge, and shaking hands with very satisfied looking clients. The website includes a disclaimer stating that results will vary depending on the particular legal and factual circumstances. The attorney has never actually appeared in court. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the information was prepared by a marketing firm, rather than the attorney. B. Yes, because the website implied that the attorney had appeared in court when in fact the attorney had not. C. No, because the attorney marketing efforts constitute protected commercial speech under the first Amendment. D. No, because the website contained an express disclaimer about the results a client could expect.

B the website photos implied the attorney had experience appearing in court. This is false or misleading, per MPRC 7.1, (false and misleading communication in advertising; also drawing from facts of Matter of Zang)

A probate attorney prepares several wills for a client. Two weeks after preparing the last of such wills for that client, the client's sole beneficiary died. The attorney has found out about the death of the sole beneficiary. However, the attorney has not made subsequent contact with the client. Which of the following is true? A. It is improper for the attorney to contact the client; the attorney must wait for the client to contact him first. B. It is proper for the attorney to contact the client regarding changing the will, and the attorney should, in fact, make such contact. C. The attorney will be disciplined for his failure to contact the client. D. None of the above.

B there is an exception to the rule barring solicitation of clients when the solicitation concerns a former client (see Rule 7.3(a)(2)). When a client is to be prejudiced, as is the case here (because the will needs to be changed, since the sole beneficiary is now deceased), the best course of conduct is for the attorney to initiate contact with that former client (on the related matter) (see Rule 1.3).

Attorney Mark represented his Client, Doctor Grey, who had been fired by her hospital. Doctor Grey sued the hospital and alleged that her termination was wrongful. Attorney Mark consulted with Doctor Grey about how many depositions to take. They agreed that Mark would take the deposition of every member of the Hospital's staff without having to consult with Doctor Grey about each one. Once Grey saw how much this strategy cost and how much it antagonized members of the staff, she told Mark not to take any more depositions of staff members without talking to her first. Mark continued to take the depositions of the staff members. Did Attorney Mark violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? A. Yes, because Lawyer did not consult with Client about the cost of each deposition of a staff member. B. Yes, because Client revoked Lawyer's authority to take the depositions of all the staff members without consultation. C. No, because Client gave Lawyer the authority to take the depositions of the staff members without consultation. D. No, because Lawyer had the professional discretion to decide how many depositions to take.

B (see MRPC 1.2)

Attorney Mia was retained to represent her client in defense of an action brought against the client by a plaintiff. In order to obtain ample time for settlement negotiations, Mia immediately requested and obtained from opposing counsel a stipulation extending the client's time to answer the complaint until 10 days after receipt of written demand from the plaintiff's attorney. Four months later, no settlement had been reached, and on May 1, the plaintiff's attorney wrote to Attorney Mia demanding that an answer be filed within 10 days. When no answer was filed by May 15, the plaintiff's attorney had a default judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. Attorney Mia was away on a two-month vacation when the plaintiff's attorney's letter was received at Mia's. When Mia returned to work on June 15, she promptly moved to have the default set aside and her motion was granted. Is Attorney Mia subject to discipline? A. Yes, because she did not make restitution to the client for any loss sustained by the client. B. Yes, because she did not make provision for the handling of her pending cases while she was away. C. No, because the default judgment was set aside so her client was not harmed. D. No, because she did not know that the plaintiff's attorney had demanded that an answer be filed within 10 days.

B (see MRPC 1.3). Diligence under MRPC 1.3 means that if the attorney is away for a long time or suffers from an injury or disability that causes an attorney to potentially neglect client matters, the lawyer must make some provision for dealing with ongoing matters. Here, Mia violated the Rules by failing to do so. A is incorrect. The issue here is not potential restitution. The bigger issue is that the attorney went away for two months without making provisions for her ongoing cases. This clearly violates the Rules regarding an attorney's diligence. C is incorrect. This is the classic 'no harm, no foul' answer choice. While the default judgement was set aside, there was no guarantee that a court would do so.

An attorney discovers that another lawyer has been stealing clients' funds, but he cannot prove it, as he learned about it from another party who was involved and who has since disappeared. He has some evidence, but not enough to prove that the other lawyer stole the clients' funds. When he confronted the other lawyer, the other lawyer admitted it privately but said he would deny it if there was any attempt to expose the matter. Does the attorney who knows about the violation, but could probably never prove it, have a duty to report the violation to the state disciplinary authority? A. Yes, because it does not matter how serious the misconduct is, it merely matters that there is some evidence of misconduct. B. Yes, because the duty to report misconduct depends upon the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware. C. No, because if the lawyer cannot prove the misconduct with a preponderance of evidence, he does not have "knowledge" of the misconduct for purposes of the Rules of Professional Conduct. D. No, because the duty to report depends on the quantum of proof of which the lawyer is aware, not the seriousness of the possible offense.

B (see Rule 8.3 Cmt. 3)

Attorney Fred committed several acts of violence against his wife and eventually was arrested and charged with domestic violence. None of the violent acts that Fred committed related in any way to Fred's practice of law. Fred was permitted to enter a diversion program for people accused of domestic violence. The program required Fred to attend counseling and to complete an anger management course. Fred successfully completed the diversion program, and as a result, the charges against Fred were dropped. Fred was not convicted of any crimes. Did Fred commit misconduct under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? A. Yes, because Fred was arrested for violent criminal conduct. B. Yes, because Fred's violent criminal acts reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law. C. No, because Fred's violent criminal acts did not occur in connection with his practice of law. D. No, because Fred was not convicted of any crime.

B Under MRPC 8.4(b) it is misconduct to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." Not every criminal act falls into that category, but violent offenses do (see MRPC 8.4 [Comment 2]).  

Lawyer Albert was licensed to practice in the State of California. He often works in association with Bonnie on a temporary basis regarding legal matters in the State of Texas. Bonnie is also licensed to practice in Texas. Albert was recently disbarred in California. Bonnie recently asked Albert to help her with a case in Texas. Albert agreed, and they won the case. Assuming Texas follows the Model Rules, is Albert subject to discipline? A. No, because he is licensed in Texas. B. Yes, because he was disbarred in California. C. No, because he worked in association with Bonnie, who is licensed in Texas. D. Yes, but only if the case was in relation to a case he worked on in California before he was disbarred.

B since Albert was disbarred in California, he cannot practice temporarily in Texas. Under Rule 5.5, Unauthorized Practice of Law, a lawyer may practice temporarily in another state as long as he or she is not disbarred. Rule 5.5(c). Albert is disbarred so he is not permitted to practice in any other jurisdiction, including Texas.

A lawyer learns that his boss, who is also an attorney, is embezzling funds. Because the lawyer fears for his job, he does nothing. The lawyer's silence is: A. Proper. B. Proper if he asks the boss to do the right thing and turn himself in. C. In violation of the rules of professional responsibility. D. In good faith, thus, excusable.

C

What will the consequences be if a court finds that an attorney's fee, agreed to between the client and the attorney, is unreasonably high? A. The court will enforce the contract and take no action against the attorney because the fee was agreed to. B. The court will enforce the contract because it was agreed to, but the attorney will be subject to discipline for violation of an ethics rule. C. The court will not enforce the contract for the fee and the attorney will be subject to discipline. D. The court will not enforce the contract for the fee, but the attorney will not be subject to discipline because the contract was agreed to by the client.

C (see MRPC 1.5). Even if the attorney and client agreed, many clients are inexperienced with attorney's fees, thus, in fee disputes, courts strain to give the benefit of doubt to the client.

Before Lawyer Lee represented Client Carlina in her divorce case, they had dated for six months after she separated from her wife. Before and after the lawyer-client relationship began, their relationship had included sexual relations. To prepare for custody hearings in her case, they spent even more hours together looking at medical and school records for Carlina's two children who are ages four and seven. As the time for the important custody hearing approaches, what should Lee do? A. Lee is subject to discipline for having had sexual relations with a client. B. Lee is subject to discipline, unless Carlina signed a consent form at the beginning of their lawyer-client relationship. C. Lee should consider withdrawing from her representation of Carlina, because her ability to represent Carlina is materially limited by their ongoing romantic relationship. D. Lee is not subject to discipline, because her sexual relationship with Carlina predated his representation.

C Although a lawyer is subject to discipline for having a sexual relationship with a client, she may not be subject to discipline if a consensual sexual relationship already existed prior to the beginning of the lawyer-client relationship (see MRPC 1.8(j)). Because of her extended relationship with Carlina, Lee's independent professional judgment may have become impaired. Thus, in the words of Rule 1.7, Lee should seriously consider whether to withdraw from representing Carlina, because Lee's ability to represent her is materially limited by their romantic relationship.

An attorney, Dahlia, is skilled in trying personal injury cases. The attorney accepted the representation of a plaintiff in a personal injury case on a contingent fee basis. While preparing the case for trial, the attorney realized that the direct examination and cross-examination of the medical experts would involve medical issues with which the attorney was not familiar and, as a consequence, the attorney might not be able to represent the plaintiff competently. Without informing the plaintiff, Dahlia consulted another attorney, Dale, who is also a medical doctor and a recognized specialist in the care and treatment of injuries of the type sustained by the plaintiff. The two attorneys agreed that Dale would participate in the trial to the limited extent of conducting the direct examination and cross-examination of the medical experts and that the attorneys would divide the fee in proportion to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by each. Upon conclusion of the matter, Dahlia provided the plaintiff with a written statement explaining the relevant fees. Was the arrangement between the two attorneys proper? A. Yes, because the fee to be paid by the plaintiff was not increased by reason of Dale's association. B. Yes, because the fee would be divided in proportion to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by each. C. No, because the plaintiff was not advised of the association of Dale. D. No, because, upon conclusion of the matter, Dahlia provided the plaintiff with a written statement setting forth the method of determining both the fee and the division of the fee with the other attorney.

C Although an attorney can retain or contract with other lawyers outside the lawyer' own firm to assign in the provision of legal service, "the lawyer should ordinarily obtain informed consent from the client." (see MRPC 1.1, Comment [6]) Imagine being a client and suddenly finding out some strange lawyer you had no say in choosing was working on your case. While an attorney has the right to make decisions in many aspects of a representation, in the case of bringing in another attorney, the attorney must ask for client consent.  

A company's president telephoned his city's best-known employment attorney and asked her to represent the company in a dispute that had just arisen with the company's chief financial officer. The attorney, who had never previously represented the company, agreed. At the president's insistence, she immediately commenced the representation. A few days later, during a meeting with the president, the attorney first revealed the amount of her customary hourly fee and then explained that the company would also be responsible for reimbursing her expenses. The president responded that her fee was higher than he had expected but that he would be happy for the company to pay it, given her excellent work to date. Although the attorney intended to follow up with a confirming letter, she never did so. For several more months, she assisted the company in resolving its employment dispute. Afterward, she sent the company a bill accurately reflecting her hourly fee and expenses, which were reasonable. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because she did not disclose the basis of her fee before commencing the representation. B. Yes, because she did not confirm her fee agreement in writing. C. No, because she disclosed the basis of her fee within a reasonable time after commencing the representation. D. No, because she was not required to advise the client of her customary hourly fee, unless requested to do so.

C As required by the Model Rules, the lawyer disclosed the basis of the fee within a reasonable time after commencing the representation (see Rule 1.5)

Lawyer Kuric works for a law firm as an associate lawyer. In the real estate section of the firm, Kuric works for Partner Williams and Partner Clark. Paralegal Delk work for all three of the lawyers in the real estate section. When Paralegal Delk sits in on client interviews, he has difficulty controlling his inclination toward being a gossip about what he hears. Within a day of client interviews, everyone in the law firm knows about the real estate client's business and legal issues. Although she works for the two partners in a medium sized law firm, Lawyer Kuric is worried about whether Paralegal Delk's gossipy nature could get the firm into trouble if he tells his friends at other law firms about the firm's client's cases. Which of the following best describes Lawyer Kuric's ethical situation? A. Lawyer Kuric is not subject to discipline for not having already discussed ethical aspects of his employment with Paralegal Delk. B. Lawyer Kuric is not subject to discipline, because she is an employee of the law firm just like the paralegal employees C. Lawyer Kuric is already subject to discipline for failing to discuss the ethical aspects of his employment with Paralegal Delk. D. Lawyer Kuric is subject to discipline for any improper disclosure of confidential information by Paralegal Delk, even if she had already discussed the ethical aspects of his employment with him."

C Because a lawyer has a duty to instruct her nonlawyer employees about the ethical aspects of their employment, she must exercise "reasonable care" to prevent them from violating confidentiality norms (see Rule 5.3, Comment 1). The essence of the disciplinary violation is Lawyer Kuric's failure to supervise Paralegal Delk, even if Paralegal Delk improperly discloses no confidential information.

Clarence is a member of only the New Jersey Bar. After a powerful hurricane extensively damaged property and injured people on the Gulf Coast, Clarence relocated his New Jersey law practice to Mississippi for the winter months. Clarence closed his New Jersey office for six months and notified all of his clients where they could reach him and that he would return to his Newark office on June 1. When he left New Jersey in late November, he had no clients or cases in Mississippi. Beginning December 1, Clarence opened a law office in a trailer on the Gulf of Mexico beach just off a main highway. Is Clarence subject to discipline? A. Yes, a lawyer who is not licensed in a jurisdiction can never maintain an office there or hold himself out as practicing in that state. B. Yes, because Clarence has never been admitted to practice anywhere outside of New Jersey. C. Yes, unless Clarence is practicing in Mississippi temporarily and associates himself with a lawyer admitted to practice in Mississippi who actively participates in Clarence's cases. D. Yes, unless Clarence has a national license to practice law."

C Being admitted to practice in one state does not automatically entitle a lawyer to practice in another state where he has not been admitted. Each state has its own rules for admission to practice, and failure to comply with them constitutes unauthorized practice in the state. A lawyer cannot open a law office in a state where he is not admitted (see Rule 5.5(b)). Under certain circumstances, a lawyer can offer temporary legal services in another jurisdiction from where he is admitted. He may associate himself with local counsel who actively participates in any representation of his clients (see Rule 5.5(c)(1)).

An attorney represented a defendant who was facing criminal charges for violating a newly enacted statute. The statute that made certain activities that had previously been minor misdemeanors into felonies. The district attorney handling the case spoke to the defendant's attorney, explaining that this was an important test case of a new statute, so the D.A.'s office was seeking the maximum penalty. The state did, however, offer a reduced sentence if the defendant would plead guilty, but this would still carry three years of jail time. Outraged, the attorney shouted that this had always been a misdemeanor charge in the past, which carried no jail time at all, and ended the conversation abruptly at that point. Without mentioning the conversation to the defendant, the attorney drafted an impassioned motion to dismiss the charges and filed it with the court. The attorney had a reasonable belief that his motion could be successful, though it was far from certain. The judge agreed with the attorney and granted the motion, dismissing all the charges against the attorney's client. Were the attorney's actions permissible under the Model Rules? A. Yes, the dismissal of the charges in this case meant that the client was far better off than if he had considered the plea bargain offered by the prosecutor. B. Yes, the attorney would still have a chance to tell the client about the proffered plea if the judge had not granted the motion to dismiss. C. No, a defense lawyer who receives a proffered plea bargain in a criminal case must promptly inform the client of its substance, unless the client has previously told the lawyer to accept or to reject the offer. D. No, the attorney should have given more consideration to the serious public policy reasons for the legislature enacting the new statute.

C By failing to inform the defendant of the plea bargain offered by the District Attorney, the Attorney would be subject to discipline under Rule 1.4. Under 1.4(1)(a), a lawyer "shall promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules." Here, the Attorney received a proffered plea bargain from prosecutors and failed to promptly inform their client, thus failing their obligations under Rule 1.4.

Wanda orally promised her nephew that, when she died, she would leave her house to him if he cared for her for the rest of her life. However, just prior to her death, Wanda executed a will leaving the house to her friend Gina. The will also name Gina as executor. Upon her death, Wanda had a sizable estate valued at $500,000, including her house. The attorney for the estate had witnessed the oral promise made by Wanda to her nephew. The attorney's research determined that the oral contract was unenforceable due to the Statute of Frauds. The attorney feels badly for the nephew and believes that asserting the Statute of Frauds would be unfair. What is the proper action for the attorney to take? A. To not advise Gina of the Statute of Frauds defense and to proceed with distributing the estate. B. To withdraw from representation of the estate because the attorney could then testify as to the existence of the oral contract. C. To advise Gina of the Statute of Frauds defense and to await her instructions. D. To say nothing and, as an equitable officer of the court, refrain from asserting the Statute of Frauds defense to the nephew's claim.

C It is for the client to decide whether to waive the right to plead an affirmative defense. Rule 1.2(a) states that "a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, and... ;shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued." Clearly, the attorney does not have implied authority to waive a valuable and critical affirmative defense that otherwise may terminate the litigation.

Lawyer represented Client against Client's partners in a case to dissolve a partnership. Client was angry with his partners and resentful of the cost and distraction that resulted from the need to be involved in litigation with them. Lawyer sent written interrogatories to counsel who represented the partners. Just before the responses to the interrogatories were due, opposing counsel asked Lawyer for a 15-day extension for submitting responses. The extension did not affect any other deadlines or scheduled events in the case. Without consulting with Client, Lawyer agreed to the extension. Client was angry when Client found out that Lawyer had accommodated opposing counsel and threatened to file a grievant against Lawyer. Did lawyer violate the model rules? A. Yes, because Lawyer violated Lawyers duty of diligence by agreeing to the delay. B. Yes, because Lawyer did not consult with Client about the postponement. C. No, because Lawyer was permitted to agree to reasonable requests for postponements that did not prejudice Client. D. No, because decisions about the means of achieving Clients objects belonged to Lawyer.

C Lawyer owed client a duty of diligence under Rule 1.3, to "act with reasonable diligence ad promptness in representing a client." However, Comment 3 to Rule 1.3 provides specifically that "a lawyers duty to act with reasonable promptness, however, does not preclude the lawyer from agreeing to a reasonable request for a postponement that will not prejudice the lawyer's client." That is all the Lawyer did in this situation.

An attorney who a sole practitioner limits his practice to personal injury cases. He regularly places advertisements in local newspapers, stating that his practice is limited to personal injury cases, including medical malpractice. After seeing one of the attorney's ads, a man approached the attorney for representation in a medical malpractice case. After a 30-minute interview, the attorney told the man that he was too busy to take his case because it appeared quite complicated. He further offered to refer the man to another lawyer who regularly practiced in the field. He reminded the man that he should see another lawyer promptly before the statute of limitations expired and he lost his right to sue. Although the attorney did not charge the man for the interview, the man was upset at wasting 30 minutes of his time. The man did not contact another lawyer until eight months later, when he learned that the statute of limitations on his claim had expired six months after his interview with the attorney. In fact, the man had a meritorious medical malpractice claim. Is the attorney subject to civil liability? A. Yes, because the attorney falsely advertised his availability for medical malpractice cases. B. Yes, because the attorney did not advise the man as to the date the statute of limitations would expire. C. No, because the attorney did not violate any duty owed to the man. D. No, because the attorney offered to refer the man to another medical malpractice lawyer.

C The attorney talked to the prospective client, declined the representation, gave the man another lawyer's name, and urged him to contact that lawyer on a timely basis. Under Model Rule 1.18, the attorney did not owe the man any other duty.

An associate of a law firm met with a woman who had a potential personal injury claim against a supermarket. At that meeting, the associate asked the woman to provide the name of the supermarket before she disclosed any further information about the incident. When the woman told the associate the name of the supermarket, the associate recognized that his law firm was representing the supermarket in various litigation matters. As a result, the associate declined to discuss the matter further and declined the representation. He did not disclose the woman's potential claim against the supermarket to any other lawyers in his firm. Several months later, a lawyer in a different firm filed a lawsuit against the supermarket on behalf of the woman. When the supermarket contacted a partner in the associate's law firm about defending it in the lawsuit, the partner circulated a conflict of interest questionnaire. The associate responded by disclosing that the woman had initially consulted him about representing her in a claim against the supermarket and that he had obtained no other information regarding the incident. Without implementing any measures to screen the associate from participation in the matter, the partner entered an appearance on behalf of the supermarket. Is the partner subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the woman was a prospective client of the associate in the same matter, and the associate's conflict was imputed to the partner. B. Yes, because the partner did not timely screen the associate from any participation in the matter. C. No, because the associate did not obtain any information from the woman that could be significantly harmful to her in the pending lawsuit, and therefore there was no conflict of interest. D. No, because, although the associate had a conflict of interest, the conflict was not imputed to the partner.

C The facts indicate that the associate limited the information that the associate obtained in the initial interview with the prospective client (the woman) to the name of the supermarket. Model Rule 1.18(c) prohibits a lawyer from representing a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in a matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to the prospective client in that matter. Because the associate did not obtain any significantly harmful information related to the woman's prospective engagement, the partner is not prevented from representing the supermarket.

An attorney represents a client who is a defendant in a negligence action. The state where the action is pending recognizes the defense of comparative negligence and has retained the complete defense of assumption of risk. The attorney believes that, while the client was negligent, the plaintiff was partially at fault and may have voluntarily assumed the risk involved. However, he also believes that asserting the defense of assumption of risk is a problematic trial tactic: if the jury does not accept the theory, it might hold that the plaintiff was free from any fault. This might cause the jury to render a much larger verdict than it would if it found some negligence by the plaintiff. Is it proper for the attorney to refrain from pleading the assumption of risk as a defense? A. Yes, if the attorney determines that it is in the client's best interest not to plead that defense. B. Yes, because the attorney is responsible for the determination of tactics to be employed at the trial. C. No, unless the client concurs in the attorney's decision after being fully advised. D. No, if a good faith argument can be made that the defense is applicable under the facts.

C The lawyer has a duty to fully inform the client of all alternatives in the case. Rule 1.2(a) requires the lawyer to "consult with the client as to the means by which [the client's objectives] are to be pursued."; Under Rule 1.2(a), certain decisions are for the client to make, but the client may expressly or impliedly delegate that authority to the lawyer.; Here, the facts do not indicate that the attorney has advised the client of his reasoning.; Without the client's consent, the attorney may not waive or refrain from asserting the valid defense of assumption of the risk. ;Thus, choice (C) is the best answer. ; While the attorney may be looking out for client's best interest at every stage, this fact, even coupled with his control over trial tactics, does not negate the attorney's duty to consult with the client before dropping this powerful defense.

An attorney served two four-year terms as the state's governor immediately prior to reopening his law office in the state. The attorney printed and mailed an announcement of his return to private practice to members of the bar, previous clients, and personal friends whom he had never represented. The printed announcement stated that the attorney had reopened his law office, gave his address and telephone number, and added that he had been the state's governor for the past eight years. Is the attorney subject to discipline for the announcement? A. Yes, because the mailing included persons who had not been his clients. B. Yes, because his service as governor is unrelated to his ability as a lawyer. C. No, because the information in the announcement was true. D. No, because all of the information was already in the public domain.

C The mailing is an advertisement. Model Rule 7.1, which covers lawyer advertising, forbids only false or misleading communications, and this communication was neither false nor misleading.

An attorney tells his firm he will not attend any continuing legal education courses because they are expensive, and the state does not require the attorney to do it. However, he assures his colleagues that he will keep up to date on legal topics by studying on his own. Is the attorney's action proper? A. No, because an attorney doesn't have to keep up to date on legal topics. B. No, because the attorney cannot maintain competence without attending continuing legal education courses. C. Yes, because the attorney will independently undertake continuing study and education in the law. D. Yes, because the state does not offer free continuing legal education courses.

C To maintain the Rules' required level of knowledge, competence, and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law (see MRPC 1.1). Independent study is just as valid as continuing legal education courses in maintaining the attorney's competence. CLE courses are not the only way a lawyer can maintain his/her competence.

An attorney is employed by a client who is a fugitive from justice under indictment for armed robbery. The attorney, after thorough legal research and investigation of the facts furnished by the client, reasonably believes the indictment is fatally defective and should be dismissed as a matter of law. The attorney advised the client of his opinion and urged the client to surrender. The client told the attorney that she would not surrender. The attorney informed the district attorney that he represented the client and that he had counseled her to surrender but that she refused to follow his advice. The attorney has not advised his client on how to avoid arrest and prosecution and does not know where she is hiding. Is the attorney subject to discipline if he continues to represent the client? A. Yes, because the client is engaging in continuing illegal conduct. B. Yes, because the client refused to accept the attorney's advice and surrender. C. No, because the attorney is not counseling the client to avoid arrest and prosecution. D. No, because the attorney reasonably believes the indictment is defective.

C Under Rule 1.2(d), a lawyer may not knowingly counsel or assist a client in illegal conduct, but in this case, the lawyer has not done so. Answer option A is incorrect. Although it is true that the client is engaging in continuing illegal conduct, the client is nevertheless entitled to the advice of a lawyer. So long as the lawyer does not knowingly counsel or assist the client in the illegal conduct (Model Rule 1.2(d)), the lawyer may continue to represent the client.

A local abortion clinic hires the McCorvey Law Firm to represent it in an enforcement action brought by a state health agency. The action pertains to alleged health code violations at the clinic. The firm's principle partner, Norma McCorvey, has very strong, outspoken political beliefs against abortion, and cannot set aside her personal convictions to provide representation to the clinic in the matter. An associate at the firm, however, supports the clinic's mission, and offers to represent the clinic instead of Attorney McCorvey. If McCorvey agrees to let the associate represent the clinic, would it be proper for the associate to do so, despite the partner's strong convictions that the clinic should be shut down? A. No, because the named partner at the firm has a material limitation that creates a conflict of interest that would be imputed to the rest of the lawyers at the firm. B. No, because the lawyers at the firm hold opposing political beliefs on a matter that is material to the representation, and this disagreement creates a conflict of interest for the firm as an entity. C. Yes, because even though Attorney McCorvey could not effectively represent the client due to her political beliefs, this would not materially limit the representation by the associate at the firm. D. Yes, because Attorney McCorvey's political beliefs are not relevant in the decision about whether to provide representation, given that the opposing party is a state health agency enforcing the health code, and the underlying constitutional issues surrounding abortion will probably not affect the case.

C (MRPC 1.10)

Abel consulted Attorney Isaac for advice about bringing an adverse possession action to quiet title to Blackacre. Abel disclosed all of the facts of and potential problems with his claim but did not disclose the name of the holder of the record title. Attorney Isaac informed Able that she would consider the matter and then advise Abel. By searching the land records, Attorney Isaac learned that Cain, a long-standing client of Isaac, was the holder of record title to Blackacre. Attorney Isaac immediately advised Abel that she would not represent him. Abel then retained another lawyer to sue Cain to quiet title. Is it proper for Attorney Isaac to defend Cain in the quiet title litigation brought by Abel? A. Yes, because the attorney owes Cain her undivided loyalty. B. Yes, because the attorney did not agree to represent Able. C. No, because Able consulted with the attorney on the matter, and the attorney thereby received information that could be significantly harmful to Able. D. No, because the attorney ascertained the name of the holder of title as a result of Able's visit to her office.

C (see MRPC 1.18). "Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation...." (see Rule 1.18(b)). Moreover, a lawyer "shall" not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of another client in that matter "if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter." (see Rule 1.18(c)). Here, the attorney should not represent Cain. The critical information (i.e., the facts and potential problems) that the attorney obtained during the brief consultation with Able precludes the attorney from representing anyone on the matter who has an interest adverse to Able's. Thus, choice (C) is correct.

An insurance company retained Attorney to represent one of its policyholders (i.e., an insured) against a lawsuit. The insurance company that hired Attorney requires its retained counsel to follow its own litigation management guidelines, designed to monitor the fees and costs of the lawyers the insurer retains. The litigation management guidelines include the requirement of a third-party audit of legal bills. Although the guidelines usually serve the interests of both the insured and the insurer by keeping litigation costs low and expediting the resolution of the case, in this instance Attorney finds that the guidelines require tactical moves that are adverse to the insured's interests. The insurer claims that the insured impliedly consented to the guidelines by agreeing contractually in the insurance policy to "cooperate" during litigation. The insurance company hired Attorney for the case. Should Attorney comply with the insurer's litigation management guidelines? A. Yes, because the insured impliedly consented to the arrangement by accepting the insurance company's choice of legal counsel in defending the claim. B. Yes, because the insurer retained Attorney to handle the case. C. No, because a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment, and the insurer's litigation management guidelines in this instance materially impair the lawyer's professional judgment. D. No, because a lawyer hired by an insurance company to represent an insured should always represent the interests of the insured rather than the insurer.

C (see Rule 2.1)

A trial attorney agreed to represent a client in a high-profile criminal case and asked at the outset for the client to give the attorney literary rights to write a book or screenplay about the case after its conclusion, in lieu of part of the attorney's normal fees. The client refused, so the attorney represented the client for his normal hourly rate. The evidence in the case was very unfavorable to the client, so the trial ended in a conviction and the client hired a different lawyer to represent him on appeal. At some point, the client told his appellate lawyer that the trial attorney had requested literary rights in the case at the outset of the representation. The appellate lawyer believed this was a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and reported the trial attorney to the state disciplinary authority. When disciplinary proceedings commenced, the trial attorney maintained that he had not actually violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, because the client had refused to grant him literary rights related to the case. He maintained that even if he had attempted to violate the Rules, he was unable to achieve his goals and therefore no actual violation occurred. Is the trial attorney correct? A. Yes, because his request merely constituted an attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Rules do not impose discipline for attempts or inchoate violations. B. Yes, because the client refused to grant him literary rights, so the complaint is not ripe. C. No, because the lawyer should not have requested literary rights at the outset of litigation but could have waited until it was clear how the trial was going before asking for literary rights. D. No, because under the Rules, even an attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct independently constitutes professional misconduct.

D

Jill, an attorney, brings a lawsuit on behalf of her client, Ann, against Grant, after Grant fails to repay Ann's loan to him of $5,000. The retainer provides that Jill's contingent fee will be 30 percent of any recovery. Jill files the complaint one day too late, and the suit is dismissed with prejudice. Jill is chagrined and embarrassed and wants to make amends for her mistake. She would like to pay Ann out of her own pocket without disclosing her error to Ann or to anyone else. She would simply get Ann a cashier's check for the portion of the $5,000 that would have been paid to her if the court had ordered Grant to repay the $5000. May she do so if she avoids making any false statement about the source of the funds? A. Yes, because this would give Ann the amount she would have expected to obtain as a result of the lawsuit. B. Yes, because she would be doing the right thing without engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. C. No because she is required to report her misconduct to the disciplinary authorities. D. No, because Jill is required to tell Ann that she missed the deadline and that the case was dismissed.

D (see MRPC 1.4 and 8.3). Under Rule 1.4, a lawyer must keep a client informed about the status of a matter. The fact that the client's case was dismissed is a significant event in the litigation. A lawyer who makes a serious mistake must inform the client (and should inform her malpractice insurer) of her mistakes. A and B are incorrect for this reason. C is incorrect: Rule 8.3 requires reporting of misconduct by another lawyer but does not require reporting one's own misconduct.

Attorney Barnum represented a local amusement park in a personal injury claim brought by one of its customers. Although the park had a valid defense to the claim, Attorney Barnum advised the park to pay the damages requested by the customer in order to avoid bad publicity. Relying on the attorney's advice, the park paid the claim. Is Attorney Barnum subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the client did not request advice regarding the publicity of the claim. B. Yes, because the park paid the claim although it had a valid defense. C. No, because the park accepted the attorney's advice. D. No, because paying the claim avoided bad publicity.

D (see MRPC 2.1). When a lawyer gives a client advice, he or she may rely on considerations other than those involved in giving purely technical legal advice. Consequently, it is proper for a lawyer to rely on moral, economic, and social factors in doing so, which is what the attorney did here when he took potential bad publicity into consideration.

Lawyer represented Wife in a divorce proceeding. Lawyer sent an offer of an agreement for temporary support to Husband's Lawyer but received no response for weeks. Lawyer suggested to Wife that she could call Husband and check on the status of the offer and make sure his lawyer presented it to him. Lawyer also gave Wife some 'talking points' to use when Wife talked to Husband to help Wife convince Husband that Husband should agree to Lawyers' proposal. Lawyer told Wife to tell Husband not to sign the agreement without talking to his lawyer. Wife followed Lawyers instructions and contacted Husband directly about the settlement offer. Husband did not agree to the offer. Did Lawyer violate the Model Rules? A. Yes, because Lawyer had contact with a represented party through the acts of another. B. Yes, because Lawyer initiated the idea of Wife contacting Husband and gave Wife 'talking points." C. No, because Lawyer had reason to believe that Husbands lawyer had not communicated the settlement offer to husband. D. No, because represented parties are allowed to speak directly with each other. E. No, because Husband didn't accept it anyways.

D (see MRPC 4.2). Although Rule 4.2 prohibits Lawyer from having direct contact with Husband because Husband has a lawyer, represented parties may speak directly to each other (see Comment [4] to Rule 4.2).

An attorney represented a client in a contract dispute involving royalties that the client believed she was owed by a music studio. Because the dispute centered on work (an album about her divorce) that the client considered intimately personal, she valued it highly, and as a result refused to settle the matter. After a jury trial, the client was awarded $1,000 in damages, a sum that she considered to be an insult to her talent. The client, acting out of spite and knowing that there was no basis for doing so, demanded that the attorney file a motion for a new trial based on jury prejudice. The attorney did not believe that a good faith argument could be made to support the client's frivolous position, but the client insisted. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, if the attorney fails to follow the client's instructions. B. No, if the attorney withdraws immediately from the representation. C. No, if the attorney ignores the client's demand and simply accepts payment of the judgment on her behalf. D. No, if the attorney withdraws from the case after taking reasonable steps to avoid prejudice to the client's rights.

D (see MRPC Rule 1.16(a)(1)). MRPC 1.16 mandates withdrawal if continued representation will result in violation of the Rules. The court may request an explanation of the withdrawal, while the lawyer may be bound to keep confidential the facts that would constitute such an explanation. Choice A is incorrect because Rule 3.1 states that a lawyer shall not take frivolous action, even if the client demands it.; Choice C is incorrect because an attorney must comply with a client's wishes or withdraw; an attorney cannot just ignore a client's directive.

An attorney is admitted in State A and works in the State A office of a law firm that has offices in States A and B. The law firm's office in State B does not have any litigators; the only firm lawyers who are licensed by State B are lawyers who handle complicated (and esoteric) regulatory issues. On one occasion when a law firm client was sued for breach of contract in State B, the law firm asked the attorney to handle the State B litigation matter for the law firm client. The attorney filed a petition to appear pro hac vice in the State B case and expected the application to be granted. While the pro hac vice petition was still pending, the attorney traveled to State B where she interviewed trial witnesses and prepared documents to be used during the trial. As expected, the pro hac vice application was granted to weeks later. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the attorney's presence in State B will be systematic and continuous during the lengthy trial. B. Yes, because the attorney conducted work in State B before receiving permission to appear pro hac vice. C. No, because the attorneys law firm has an office in State B. D. No, because the attorney reasonably expected to be admitted pro hac vice by the State B court.

D (see Rule 5.5(c)(2))

An attorney faced a grievance over a client complaint regarding his neglect of the client's matter. The attorney knew that he had never actually agreed to represent the client, but instead had met with the client once, determined that he had a conflict of interest, and he had refused to represent the potential client by both oral and written communication. The client failed to hire another lawyer, and mistakenly (unreasonably) believed that the attorney she had met with was, in fact, representing her. Because he knew the case was without merit, he did not respond to the state bar when the disciplinary authorities requested a formal response from him. Ultimately, the client withdrew her complaint and the disciplinary authorities dismissed the grievance as frivolous. The board then commenced disciplinary proceedings against the attorney for failing to respond to its requests in the case it had dismissed. Was the attorney's refusal to respond permissible in this case? A. Yes, because he knew the case was without merit as he had never agreed to represent the complainant, and the board's determination vindicated him in this regard. B. Yes, because it was improper for the board to commence new proceedings that it based on prior proceedings that it had dismissed for being without merit. C. No, every lawyer has the right to refuse to answer, according to the Fifth Amendment. D. No, because in connection with a disciplinary matter, a lawyer must not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority.

D (see Rule 8.1(b))

In an effort to expand his business, an attorney placed the following advertisement to be broadcast on the radio: "I engage in the general practice of law, with a concentration on personal injury plaintiff work. In negligence actions I work on a contingent fee. You will recover any proceeds I collect less my one-third contingent fee after deducting any necessary expenses from the total amount recovered. The first consultation is free." Is the attorney's advertisement proper? A. No, because the attorney advertised that he offers contingent fees. B. No, because the attorney advertised that his first consultation is free. C. Yes, if the attorney is a certified specialist in negligence. D. Yes, because it is not false or misleading.

D A lawyer may publish or broadcast information to the public as long as it is not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive. Here, the attorney's advertisement is clear with respect to the fees and costs and nothing in the advertisement is false or misleading.

David, an attorney, belongs to the Relax Spa, and loves to bathe in its hot tub. One afternoon, he is in the hot tub when Janet enters the tub. No one else is present at the time. David tells Janet that he specializes in torts claims. Janet says in response, "What luck! I've got a little problem. I was teasing my neighbor's dog last week when the dog bit me." She proceeds to expand on all the details, including how much she hates her neighbor and how relentlessly and repeatedly she teased the dog. David is annoyed, and just wants to enjoy his soak. Finally, Janet says, "Well what do you think, do I have a case against my neighbor? Can you represent me?" David offers Janet no legal advice and tells her that he's too busy with other cases to represent her. Janet is annoyed. In the subsequent trial brought by Janet against her neighbor, David is subpoenaed to testify; he refuses. What's the result? A. David must testify because he heard Janet admit that she teased the dog. B. David must testify because there was never an attorney-client relationship with Janet C. David may not testify because the attorney-client evidentiary privilege has attached D. David may not testify because Janet spoke to him in confidence.

D Even though the attorney-client relationship may not result, an attorney owes any person who consults him in his professional capacity the duty of confidentiality (see MRPC 1.6). Under these facts, Janet clearly revealed to David information that she intended to keep confidential. David identified himself as a tort specialist and did not interrupt or discourage her while she spoke, thus he induced Janet to assume that she was speaking to him in his role as an attorney and that her statements would be treated with confidence.

Law Firm had multiple offices. Under Law Firm's partnership agreement, every partner agreed that, if the partner did not provide the type of service that a prospective client needed, the partner would refer that prospective client only to another firm partner who usually and customarily provided services of the type that the prospective client needed. In every such circumstance, the referring partner agreed to recommend the other partner. The partnership agreement provided that, in return, the partner to whom the prospective client was referred would compensate the referring lawyer in an amount to be agreed upon or determined by Law Firm's Compensation Committee. Lawyer referred Prospective Client to Partner pursuant to the partnership agreement. Partner compensated Lawyer for the referral in an agreed-upon amount. Prospective Client was not apprised of the referral arrangement. Did Partner violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? A. Yes, because Partner compensated Lawyer for recommending Partner's services. B. Yes, because the referral arrangement was not disclosed to Prospective Client. C. No, because Lawyer and Partner are both lawyers. D. No, because the referral was within one law firm.

D Generally, lawyers may only enter into reciprocal referral arrangements if the arrangement is not exclusive and the client is informed (see MRPC 7.2(b)(4)). These restrictions do not, however, apply to referrals within one firm (see Comment [8] to MRPC 7.2).

Attorney Alpha, a sole practitioner, recently suffered a heart attack and was advised that she could not return to work for six months. Alpha delivered all of her clients' files to Attorney Beta, who is also a sole practitioner. Beta agreed to review each client's file promptly, take any action necessary to protect each client's interests, and treat the information in the files as confidential. Alpha then wrote her clients, advising each client that the client's file had been delivered to Beta for review and for any action necessary to protect the client's interest, and that the client was free to select another lawyer. Alpha knows that Beta is a competent attorney. Beta did not accept the file of any person whose interests were, or could be, adverse to the interests of any of Beta's own clients. Was it proper for Alpha to deliver the files to Beta for review? A. Yes, because Alpha knows that Beta is competent to protect the clients' interests. B. Yes, because Beta agreed to treat the information in the files as confidential. C. Yes, because given her medical condition, Alpha's delivery of the files was necessary to protect the clients' interests. D. No, because Alpha did not obtain the prior consent of each client whose file was delivered to Beta.

D In general, Rule 1.6(a) prohibits a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a client without client consent. A lawyer practicing in a law firm is impliedly authorized to disclose client confidences to other lawyers within the law firm (see Rule 1.6, cmt. [5]), but not to lawyers outside the firm. There is an exception when a lawyer seeks legal advice from another lawyer about how to comply with the ethics rules, but that exception does not apply here. Therefore, the lawyer needed client consent.

A multinational corporation with headquarters in the United States is involved in wine making and distribution around the world. The corporation employs an attorney in the role of general counsel who supervises several lawyer employees licensed in the state where the corporation is headquartered. Because the corporation wants to expand its presence in a foreign country, the attorney has hired as a new employee a foreign lawyer licensed only in that country. The foreign lawyer is a member in good standing of the legal profession in that country and is subject to regulation by its disciplinary authority. The foreign lawyer has now moved to the United States and has established a continuous and systematic presence in the state where the corporation is headquartered. The state permits foreign lawyers who complete a master's degree to take the bar exam, but the foreign lawyer has not applied to become licensed as a lawyer in the state. The foreign lawyer works on the corporation's operations of growing grapes in the foreign country and exporting them to the United States for processing. The foreign lawyer does not work on legal matters involving US law. Is the attorney subject to discipline for employing a foreign lawyer who practices in the state without being licensed there? A. Yes, because the foreign lawyer hired by the attorney has not sought licensure in the state where the corporation is headquartered. B. Yes, because the foreign lawyer hired by the attorney has established a systematic and continuous presence in the state. C. No, because the state disciplinary authority has no jurisdiction over a foreign lawyer practicing only foreign law within its territory. D. No, because the foreign lawyer hired by the attorney is duly licensed in the foreign country and provides legal counsel to the corporation only on matters related to that country's laws.

D Model Rule 5.5(d) sets forth conditions when a lawyer admitted in a foreign jurisdiction (and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction) may provide legal services through an office or other systematic and continuous presence. Specifically, the foreign lawyer may provide advice to the lawyer's employer or its organizational affiliates. Rule 5.5(d)(1) also notes that the legal services provided by the foreign lawyer are not services for which the jurisdiction requires pro hac vice admission. Furthermore, Rule 5.5(e) states that the foreign lawyer must be a member in good standing of a recognized legal profession in a foreign jurisdiction, the members of which are subject to effective regulation and discipline by a duly constituted professional body or public authority. The facts indicate that the conditions of Rule 5.5(d) and (e) are met. Therefore, the attorney is not assisting in the unauthorized practice of law by hiring the foreign lawyer who is providing legal counsel to the corporation on matters related to the foreign country's laws.

Lawyer represented Grandfather Gus in a custody dispute involving Grandfather's granddaughter. The judge ordered Gus to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Lawyer received the report of the psychiatrist. The report stated that Gus was in a 'precariously fragile mental state' and that granting him custody of Granddaughter would not be in the child's best interests. The report also expressed concern about Gus' 'suicidal ideation' in discussions with the psychiatrist about what it would feel like not to obtain custody of granddaughter. Gus asked Lawyer what the psychiatrists report said, but Lawyer did not provide the information in response. Instead, Lawyer waited to reveal the substance of the report to Gus until there were other family members present who could, if necessary, safeguard Grandfather from himself. Lawyer meanwhile gave the report to Associate (who worked in the firm for Lawyer) and asked Associate to draft a motion with the court to exclude it from evidence. Did Lawyer violate the Model Rules? A. Yes, because Lawyer did not promptly provide Grandfather with the information that Grandfather Gus requested. B. Yes, because lawyer gave the report, which contained confidential information, to Associate. C. No, because Lawyer had no duty to report the substance of the report to Gus. D. No, because lawyer was justified in delaying the transmission of the information to Gus.

D The general rule is that a lawyer must promptly comply with a client's reasonable requests for information. There is an exception, however, when doing so may harm the client. That is this case. Here, lawyer was justified in delaying the delivery of the report until client has a support system in place. See Comment [7] to Rule 1.4.

Client is the leader of a radical religious group that protests at the funerals of soldiers who died tragic combat deaths overseas. The protests are not against the war, however, but against society's increasing tolerance of homosexuality and gay marriage. The group heckles those attending soldiers' funerals, but then disperses once the funeral ceremony starts. The client now faces a tort lawsuit by the father of a deceased soldier whose funeral the group picketed; the plaintiff claims intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The client is certain that his First Amendment rights beat such subjective-harm tort claims and has a recent Supreme Court case supporting his position. The client asks an attorney to represent him in the matter. The attorney reluctantly agrees to take the case and the trial court gives an unfavorable verdict against the client. After the case, reporters interview the attorney asking how he could represent such a client and the attorney states during the interviews that he did not necessarily endorse the client's religious, social, moral, or political views, but was merely providing representation. Are the attorney's actions in this case proper under the Model Rules? A. Yes, because the attorney did not win the case on behalf of this client, so justice prevailed in the end, as this client advocates intolerance of others in our society. B. No, because the attorney has a duty under the Rules of Professional Conduct to refuse representation of a client if he cannot endorse the client's political, social, or moral views, especially those who preach intolerance and hate. C. No, because the attorney lost the case, and then tried to justify himself in the media by denying any endorsement of the client's political, social, and moral views. D. Yes, because a lawyer's representation of a client does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social, or moral views or activities.

D Under MRPC 1.2(b), a "lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities."

A lawyer places an advertisement in a magazine. In the ad, he states that he has never lost a drunken driving case. This is correct - the lawyer has handled 5 drunken driving cases and won all 5 of them. Nonetheless, the lawyer is subject to discipline because: A. Advertising is per se unlawful. B. Advertising is per se in violation of the rules. C. The ad must be in a dignified forum. D. The ad is misleading.

D Under MRPC 7.1, advertisements must not be misleading. A statement that a lawyer has "never" lost a case, even if true, is misleading because it sets up an unreasonable expectation regarding the outcome of future cases.

Attorney represents Client in a civil suit. Client and Attorney often discuss their hunting trips and have gone hunting together on several occasions. Client tells Attorney he is purchasing a piece of property for hunting with five other people and asks Attorney if he would like to go in on the purchase. Attorney tells Client he would like to join in the purchase, and he provides Client with a check for his portion of the purchase price. Is Attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, attorneys shall not enter into transactions with clients that result in joint ownership of property. B. Yes, attorneys shall not engage in social activities with current clients or enter into transactions that result in joint ownership of property. C. No, attorneys are not restricted from entering into transactions with clients as long as the transactions are not related to the current representation of the client and the client gives informed consent. D. No, attorneys are allowed to enter into fair and reasonable business transactions with clients as long as the client is informed in writing of the benefit of seeking advice from independent counsel and gives informed consent, in writing and signed by the client, of the transaction details

D (see MRPC 1.8(a)(1))

Attorney represented Client as the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit and won a large settlement for Client. Attorney had represented Client on a contingent fee basis, with an agreement at the outset of representation to charge 30% of the total winnings or settlement amount. Client was very good-looking, and Attorney offered at the end of representation to discount his fee by another 10% if Client would pose for a photograph with Attorney for use in printed advertisements, with a quote by Client that truthfully expressed gratitude to Attorney for providing excellent representation in the case. The advertisement did not include any disclaimer explaining that not all of Attorney's clients were as attractive as the client who appeared in the photo. The advertisement also included a promise from Attorney "to provide the same type of excellent legal representation to you [the reader] as well." Was this advertisement proper? A. Yes, because the client and the lawyer both made truthful statements. B. Yes, because the discount offered to the client was reasonable for such an endorsement, as long as the amount was comparable to hiring a model to pose for the photograph instead. C. No, because the lawyer promised implicitly to obtain similar results for other potential clients, without knowing their circumstances or the merits of their claims. D. No, because the lawyer effectively offered money to the client by giving a discount on the earned legal fees in exchange for appearing in the advertisement.

D (see MRPC 7.2)

An attorney represents a client who is under indictment for homicide. In the course of the representation, the client told the attorney that she had previously killed two other people. These murders are completely unrelated to the murder indictment for which the attorney is providing representation. With the client's consent, the attorney made a tape recording of the client's confession regarding the unrelated homicides. At the attorney's request, the client also drew a map of the remote locations of the victims' graves from the unrelated killings. Those bodies have not been found by the police, and the client is not a suspect in either crime, both of which remain unsolved. Is the attorney subject to discipline if he fails to voluntarily disclose to the authorities his knowledge of the two prior murders and the locations of the victims' bodies? A. Yes, because as an officer of the court, the attorney must disclose any knowledge that he has, whether privileged or not, concerning the commission of the prior crimes by his client. B. Yes, because the attorney is impeding the state's access to significant evidence. C. No, because the attorney did not represent or advise his client with respect to the prior crimes. D. No, because the information was obtained by the attorney in the course of the representation.

D In general, Rule 1.6(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent." Further, no exception to the confidentiality rule allows or requires the attorney to disclose the information.