MPRE Multiple Choice Q's

Jaiden, an assistant general counsel of Plenum, Inc., a pharmaceutical manufacturer, was asked to investigate whether the research division of Plenum was concealing reports of adverse reactions to the company's best-selling product, Somalox, an anti-depressant. Two users of Somalox had contacted the general counsel's office, reporting that they had submitted adverse reaction reports to the research division, as directed on the package insert, but that they had received no response from the company. One of these two users alleged that he had suffered hallucinations and suicidal ideation after taking Somalox, and that he had described these reactions in his earlier report. The other user reported that she was hospitalized for depression after having taken Somalox for several weeks. She also had reported this to the research division. The non-response is worrisome. The company policy is to acknowledge receipt of any adv

C. "I represent Plenum, so I cannot give you any legal advice except the advice to get a lawyer"

Which one of the following statements would be protected by the attorney-client privilege if an adverse party sought to compel the lawyer to disclose the information? A. At a firm holiday party, a client with a products liability claim tells his lawyer's partner (who is not working on that case) that he plans to divorce his wife because she just wants his money. The partner informs the lawyer of that revelation. The wife's divorce lawyer later seeks disclosure of this conversation. B. A lawyer represents a doctor in a medical malpractice suit. The plaintiff is still in the hospital. To obtain facts about how much his client has been suffering, the lawyer interviews a patient in the bed adjacent to the plaintiff's bed. C. A paralegal interviews a client about his case, and she gives her notes to her supervising attorney. D. A lawyer advises several clients to buy certain securities that will minimize the clients' tax

C. A paralegal interviews a client about his case, and she gives her notes to her supervising attorney.

Attorney Leticia represents client Benjamin, a pharmacist, in an employment discrimination suit. With the help of his best friend Rocky, who happens to be sleeping on his couch that month, Benjamin writes a summary of the case, which Benjamin then emails to Leticia. Which one of the following statements is correct? A. Only Benjamin can be compelled to testify about the communication. B. Only Rocky can be compelled to testify about the communication. C. Benjamin or Rocky can be compelled to testify about the communication. D. Neither Benjamin nor Rocky can be compelled to testify about the communication.

C. Benjamin or Rocky can be compelled to testify about the communication.

Which of these bodies sometimes exercise functions that are delegated or authorized by governmental institutions? A. State bar associations. B. The Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association. C. Both A and B. D. The American Law Institute.

C. Both A and B

Zarah is a partner at a law firm. She supervises the work of a junior associate, Charlie. They are representing Whitney in her divorce proceedings. The divorce involves a heated battle over the custody of the daughter of Whitney and her husband, Cody. Zarah asks Whitney whether she knows the password for her husband's e mall. Whitney gives it to her. Then Zarah gives the password to Charlie and instructs him to copy all the emails in cody's account and read them to see whether cody is having an affair. charlie objects. zarah says that this invesitgative work could win the case for Whitney and threatens to fire Charlie if he does not comply. charlie complies. they learn that cody really is having an affair and whitney wins custody. when cody discovers what happened he files a disciplinary complaint against zarah and charlie. assuming charlie's surreptitious review of cody's email is unlawful and a rule violation, whic

C. Both Charlie and Zarah are subject to discipline.

Eduardo is a sole practitioner. He wants to handle the following matters and to make agreements with clients under which he would receive 20 percent of any recovery awarded to the client. In which of these cases would Eduardo be subject to discipline if he undertook the representation under those terms? A. Eduardo previously represented Atticus in a criminal matter. Atticus pleaded guilty and was incarcerated for a year. During that year, he reports, prison officials deprived him of medication that he needed, resulting in his having a mild stroke. Atticus wants to sue the prison for damages. B. Byron and his ex-wife are each half-owners of a mini-golf business. Byron has asked Eduardo to seek a partition (court-ordered division) of the property. C. Celeste has asked Eduardo to file an action seeking an order requiring her ex-boyfriend, who is the father of her daughter, to pay child support. D. In a fit of rage, Dana

C. Celeste has asked Eduardo to file an action seeking an order requiring her ex-boyfriend, who is the father of her daughter, to pay child support.

On a dark night in a bad part of town, a young man named Alan is found dead. Chad is arrested and put in jail, accused of murdering Alan. Chad tells Alberto, his lawyer, that he could not have murdered Alan, because at the time of the murder, he was burying the body of another man, Ethan, whom he had killed. Ethan has been declared missing, and the police are investigating whether foul play has occurred. Chad tells Alberto where he buried Ethan. Obviously, Chad does not want anyone to know his alibi because then he would be charged with another murder. In exchange for the alibi information, Alberto could obtain a desirable plea bargain for Chad on the current and prospective charges. May Alberto reveal this information to the prosecutor without consulting Chad? A. Yes, because he can use the information to obtain a desirable plea bargain for Chad on the current and prospective charges. B. Yes, because unless he revea

C. No, because Alberto obtained this information in the course of representing Chad.

Salima represents Anthony, a man accused of stealing money from his company. Anthony was a bookkeeper at a small bakery. His duties included administering the payroll system. Anthony altered a computer program so that he would be paid an extra few hundred dollars a month by the company. He got this higher pay every month for several years. Anthony's theft from the company was noticed during an accounting audit and he is facing criminal charges. During a meeting to discuss the criminal charges, Anthony tells Salima that he also rigged the program so that he would also receive approximately $200/month that should have been paid to Jason, a custodian with six children. He says that after he was caught stealing, Anthony re-programmed the system so that the checks would be properly paid going forward. Neither Jason nor the company are aware that Anthony stole from Jason. Salima asked Anthony if he plans to fess up and rep

C. No, because Anthony did not use Salimas services to steal Jason's money.

Attorney Dahlia represents restaurant owner Stefan in a negligence suit. During the course of her representation. Dahlia learns that Stefan uses PestOFF, a rat poison, in his kitchen PestOFf has recently been shown to cause birth defects if consumed, even in tiny amounts, by pregnant women, and its use within the state has been banned. Its use is a misdemeans: punishable by imprisonment for up to six months. The product was applied only once, ant only to the floor of a closet where cleaning supplies were kept. It was never used near food. There is nothing to suggest any ingestion or injury to a person A city ordinance requires anyone, including lawyers and doctors, who learns of the use of PestOFF to report it to local police immediately. Failure to report is a violation punishable by a $50 fine. Dahlia confronts Stefan and insists that he stop using this product and that they report his past use to the police. Stefa

C. No, because Dahlia's disclosure is permitted under these circumstances.

Attorney Priya represents Janice in her suit against major canned goods company, after she contracted botulism from a can of pickled fish. Priya receives an email from opposing counsel saying that he is ready to meet to discuss settlement. Priya asks Janice if they can meet the next day to talk about what terms Janice wants. When they meet, Priya tells Janice that she thinks she could get at least $4 million dollars in a settlement. Janice is thrilled at that number, and she tells Priya, "I didn't think we could get nearly that much! You have been such an amazing lawyer and friend throughout this process. If they come to us with an amount lower than that, and you think that we can get more by rejecting the offer, I trust your judgment. Do what you think is best." The next day, Priya meets with opposing counsel, who informs her that the company is offering $3.25 million dollars to settle the case. Without conveying th

C. No, because Janice authorized Priya to reject the settlement offer.

Last year, attorney Mira represented Sally, the owner of a small pizza restaurant, in a suit against Romes Own, Inc., a supplier of shredded cheese, based on breach of contract. The parties settled the claim for $15,000. Mira and Sally remained friendly after the matter was settled, and have gone to the movies and to dinner a few times in the last year. Earlier today, Sally's next door neighbor, Jose, came in to Mira's office for a consultation and asked Mira to represent him in a civil suit against Sally. Jose alleges that Sally's pet macaw bit him, causing an infection and permanent scarring. Jose wants to get a court order against Sally requiring that the bird be euthanized pursuant to a state law. Sally already paid for his medical care. Jose does not want further damages. Must Mira obtain Sally's informed consent before she can agree to represent Jose? A. Yes, because Jose's interests are directly adverse to Sal

C. No, because Jose's lawsuit is not substantially related to the breach of contract lawsuit against Rome's Own, Inc.

Eleanor represents Carmichael Inc., an energy company that sells electricity to residential and commercial customers. The corporation has five stockholders; four are Carmichael family members, and the fifth is an outside investor who provided start-up funds five years ago. In the course of her review of corporate documents, including e-mails exchanged among company personnel, Eleanor discovers that Marcus, the company's Director of Information Technology, has been harvesting cell phone numbers from employees and customers' e-mail messages that went through the company's server and selling them to telemarketing companies. This information about Marcus's activities, if it became public, would be very damaging to Carmichael In's reputation. She consults Carmichael's president, Joseph Carmichael, who says that he has suspected that something like this might be happening, but that Eleanor should just leave it alone. Elean

C. No, because Rule 1.13 does not require such disclosure, and the disclosure would violate Rule 1.6.

Attorney Uma is a solo practitioner who represents Royce in a civil case. She is scheduled to argue an important motion at a hearing three days from now. She learns that her father has passed away, and his funeral will take place on the same day as the hearing. The judge has denied her motion for a continuance, because she has previously been granted rote postponements of the argument of this motion. Uma's good friend Wendell is a seasoned litigator. She reasonably believes that he can competently represent Royce at the hearing, so she asks him if he can handle the hearing for her, and he agrees. He agrees to treat the file as confidential and to return it to Uma promptly after the hearing. Uma leaves a phone message for Royce, but he doesnt return her call. She gives Wendell Royces file so that he can familiarize himself with the case. Assume that Wendell can competently represent the client at the hearing. Was it p

C. No, because Uma did not obtain Royces prior consent.

Attorney Yoshi represented client Cyrus in his divorce. During the course of the representation, Cyrus told Yoshi that if his ex-wife, Tisha, was awarded their beachfront vacation home in Florida, he would burn it down when it is vacant, because he could not stand the thought of his ex-wife using the vacation home without him. Yoshi advises Cyrus that this is a terrible idea. He points out that deliberate arson could lead to criminal charges and civil liability, not to mention termination of visitation rights. He also cautions that Cyrus could injure or kill a member of his family if he burns down that house. Cyrus repeats to Yoshi that he would not do this if anyone was in the house, but he does not assure Yoshi that he won't torch the building. The divorce was finalized, and Tisha was awarded the vacation home. Yoshi has terminated his lawyer-client relationship with Cyrus. Yoshi reasonably believes that revelation

C. No, because Yoshi learned this information during the course of the representation.

In answering this question, use the facts of the previous question and assume that Morton has properly undertaken the representation of the three siblings. In the course of his research before preparing the property transfer documents for Larry's summer cabin, Morton discovers that Carl could obtain a reduction in tax liability for the cabin if the transfer of the cabin is postponed until next year. Morton knows that Linda and Abby are eager to conclude the transaction and that they will be able to earn more interest on funds paid to them by Carl if the payment is made this year instead of next year. Carl asks Morton whether he could postpone the transfer of the cabin until next year, slowing things down without revealing any reasons for the delay. May Morton delay the transaction without disclosing the reasons to Carl's sisters? A. Yes, because the adverse consequence to them from the delay will not be as significan

C. No, because each client is entitled to be told information relating to the representation that might affect the client's interests.

Spencer desires to represent his golfing partner Craig, who was injured on a ski slope that was apparently negligently maintained. Spencer tells Craig on the phone that he is willing to work on a contingent fee basis, under which Craig will be charged nothing unless Spencer obtains a settlement or wins a judgment. In either case, Spencer would charge 33 percent of any recovery after the deduction of the expenses of litigation. Spencer explains that Craig will not be responsible for any litigation expenses unless there is a recovery that exceeds the amount of the expenses. They discuss these points, and Craig agrees to the fee arrangement. Spencer contacts the ski slope's insurer, and within three weeks, with Craig's approval, the case is settled for $21,000. Spencer transmits $14,000 of that settlement to Craig. Spencer spent only four hours on the case. Was Spencer's conduct proper? A. Yes, because he disclosed all

C. No, because he did not disclose all the details of the fee arrangement in a writing signed by Craig.

Burke is a trusts and estates lawyer. Ida, an acquaintance, asks him to represent her in a negligence lawsuit against a major retail company. she stands to make millions from the lawsuit, and she is happy to hire Burke on a contingent fee basis. Burke has never before handled a negligence action and he has never handled a trial of any kind. Burke accepts the case. He does not tell Ida that he has no experience in handling cases of this sort whom he could consult, but unfortunately he does not have such contact. He studies the relevant law and procedure. He performs well but loses the case. Is Burke subject to discipline? A. Yes. because he did not tell Ida that he had never handled a negligence claim or a trial B. Yes, because he failed to associate with a lawyer experienced in handling negligence actions. C. No, because he studied the relevant law and procedure and performed well D. No, because he is licensed to pr

C. No, because he studied the relevant law and procedure and performed well

In answering this question, use the facts of the previous question. Must Eleanor withdraw from representation of Carmichael? A. Yes, because a lawyer must withdraw from representation of an organizational client when she discovers that an employee of the client corporation has committed misconduct. B. Yes, because the board of directors failed to address the misconduct after Eleanor called it to the board's attention. C. No, because nothing in Rule 1.16 requires withdrawal. D. No, because she represents the corporation, not Marcus.

C. No, because nothing in Rule 1.16 requires withdrawal.

Evelyn, a recently admitted attorney, is serving as a law clerk to Judge Leopold Osterman on the state court of appeals. The judge has heard the appeal in a contract dispute in which IGL Corp. has sued Mountain Hardware, Inc., for damages. Mountain Hardware was rep resented by the law firm of Westerfield & Pilson, which Evelyn worked for during her second summer in law school. She did not work on that dispute while she was at the firm, because the firm accepted it after she left the job, but Judge Osterman has asked her to write the opinion in the case. While she was working on the opinion, Margaret Pilson from Westerfield & Pilson emailed Evelyn, on her private email account, asking whether she would like to discuss joining the firm as an associate after she finished her clerkship. Evelyn wanted to take that job, so she told Judge Osterman about the email, and he said that it was fine to discuss a possible job with

C. No, because she notified her employer of the overture from the law firm and her intent to pursue it.

Attorney Salim represents Roland, a doctor, in a medical malpractice case. In an e-mail, Roland reveals to Salim that on the day in question, he had had a couple of drinks before he performed the surgery at issue. He asks Salim whether that would expose him to punitive damages. Salim replies that it would not under the law of the state. Roland is to testify at the trial. In preparing for his testimony, Roland asks Salim whether, if the opposing counsel asks Roland whether he had anything to drink on the day in question, he can successfully invoke attorney-client privilege to avoid answering the question. Salim's answer should be: A. Yes, because the information is protected by attorney-client privilege. B. Yes, because the e-mail exchange is protected by attorney-client privilege. C. No, because the attorney-client privilege does not shield him from having to answer the question. D. No, because although Roland's stat

C. No, because the attorney-client privilege does not shield him from having to answer the question.

In a state in which judges are elected, Damian Garner, the President of Garner Industries, a manufacturer of firearms, has donated $3,000 to the successful campaign of Ambrose Zoltan, who was elected as a judge of the state's highest court. That contribution represented 2 percent of the campaign contributions that the judge received. All contributions were disclosed pursuant to the state's campaign finance disclosure law. A gun control group sued Garner Industries for violating the state's gun control laws by manufacturing and selling guns with built-in silencers. The court ruled against Garner and it has appealed to the state supreme court, arguing that the gun control law is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The gun control group filed a motion asking Judge Zoltan to recuse himself, but he denied the motion. Would Judge Zoltan's participation in the adjudication of this case be unconstitutional? A. Yes, becau

C. No, because the contribution was only a small part of his campaign treasury.

Attorney Charlie works at a law firm of 30 lawyers in a large city. He represents his friend Suma in a wrongful discharge suit against her former employer, an architecture firm, Suma and her husband, Todd, are in the process of divorcing. Suma has retained a family lawyer associated with another firm to represent her in the divorce case. Charlie just learned that one of his law partners, Angus, is representing Todd in the divorce Charlie and Angus agreed not to communicate with one another about either of the matters. They did not speak to Suma and Todd about the conflict. May Charlie continue to represent Suma in her civil suit against her former employer? A. Yes, because Charlie and Angus agreed not to communicate with one another about either of the matters. B. Yes, because the conflict involves only Charlie's personal interests and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting Angus's representation

C. No, because the firm did not obtain both clients' informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Attorney Damon represents his friend George in a civil case in which George is a defendant. George is alleged to have driven into the plaintiff's fence negligently. George and Damon meet in Damon's office to discuss the case. After some discussion about their children, who play together, George tells Damon that he was driving under the influence of PCP at the time of the incident. Several months later, George's wife files for divorce, and her lawyer subpoenas Damon to testify. The wife's attorney wants Damon to testify that George told Damon that he drove under the influence of drugs. May Damon be required to testify about George's use of PCP? A. Yes, because a subpoena has been issued. B. Yes, because the litigation in which Damon represented George was unrelated to the present litigation in which Damon will testify. C. No, because the information is privileged. D. No, because George shared this information with Dam

C. No, because the information is privileged.

The police arrested a middle school band teacher for repeatedly sexually abusing numerous female students aged 9 to 12. The molestation occurred during private music lessons and took place over a seven-year period before the teacher was arrested. Some of the victims told the police that they had reported the abuse to the school principal after it occurred, but the principal had failed to take action against the teacher. After the teacher was arrested, some of the victims and their families filed suit against the principal and the school board. The school board hired the firm of Schoenholtz & Koplow "to investigate the response of the school administration to allegations of sexual abuse of students." The board explained that it would need a full report so that it could decide whether to settle or litigate the claims against it. Meanwhile, the school board also hired a respected trial lawyer, Lindsay, at another firm,

C. Refuse to turn over the notes to the plaintiffs because they are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Which one of the following statements is correct? A. Congress and the state legislatures may not adopt binding rules of conduct for lawyers. B. The American Bar Association is the principal regulator of lawyers in the United States. C. State and federal courts adopt ethical rules that govern lawyers admitted to practice before them. D. State supreme courts have the exclusive authority to regulate the lawyers who practice in each state.

C. State and federal courts adopt ethical rules that govern lawyers admitted to practice before them.

The state in which Stella practices recently enacted an animal cruelty law. Stella represents Chix, Inc., a poultry company, in a suit brought by a local animal rights group. The suit alleges that the poultry company has violated the new state law by failing to provide adequate ventilation in the chicken coops. The suit seeks punitive damages. Stella files a motion to strike the punitive damages request, urging that the new law does not allow recovery of punitive damages. In an unrelated matter, Stella represents a group of students at a small Christian college, seeking to recover punitive damages against the school for allowing dissection of live animals in their school's biology classes in violation of the statute. When Stella agreed to represent the students, she explained to them that she was arguing against the availability of punitive damages in the Chix case. Stella is representing the students pro bono, so ev

C. The fact that Stella would not benefit financially if the statute were interpreted to allow punitive damages.

Attorney Moira represents defendant Oleg in a murder trial. The police discovered the victim's body in a ditch and found Olegs fingerprints on a kitchen knife that was under the body. Before the trial commences, Oleg tells Moira that he did not murder the victim, but he knows that his son did, because his son confessed to him. He tells her that under no circumstances will he turn his son in, and he does not want his son to know that he told Moira of his son's confession. He refuses to testify at his trial. What is Moiras best course of action? A. Reveal the information to the prosecutor to avoid a miscarriage of justice but remain as Oleg's attorney if he wants her to do so. B. Reveal the information to the prosecutor to avoid a miscarriage of justice but move to withdraw from representing Oleg. C. Tell Oleg's son that she has learned of his confession to his father and urge Oleg's son to retain her as his lawyer so

D. Do not reveal the information and do not tell Oleg's son that she is aware of his confession to his father.

During his final year of college, Henry got excellent grades and achieved a very high LSAT score. However, during that year, he had two car accidents, ran up $11,500 in credit card debt, and was fired from his part-time restaurant job after he inexplicably failed to show up for work for ten days. Henry was then evaluated and diagnosed by a psychiatrist, who concluded that Henry suffered from bipolar disorder. This condition, if untreated, can cause extreme shifts in mood, energy, and ability to function. Henry's doctor explained that what he went through during his senior year was a manic period. The doctor prescribed medication. Ever since, Henry has been taking his medication as prescribed. Henry's doctor considers his illness "well-managed," and has told Henry that it would not affect his ability to practice law. Henry started law school three months after he finished college. Now he has completed law school, grad

D. Henry must disclose the diagnosis and provide detailed information about it.

Armand, a lawyer, represented Walter, a plastic surgeon, during Walter's contested divorce from his wife five years ago. Armand no longer has any contact with Walter, and he does not remember anything about Walter's case. Recently, one of Walter's patients, Celia, developed serious complications and nearly died as the result of the extensive cosmetic surgery that Walter performed on her. She wants to sue him for punitive damages based on gross negligence. She has asked Armand to represent her. May he do so without Walter's consent? A. Yes, because he no longer represents Walter and the medical malpractice matter is unrelated to the divorce. B. Yes, because he does not remember anything about Walter's case. C. No, because a lawyer may not sue a former client without the former client's consent. D. No, because Armand would normally have obtained information in the divorce case that could be helpful to Celia.

D. No, because Armand would normally have obtained information in the divorce case that could be helpful to Celia.

Barbara approaches attorney Morgan to ask for representation in a landlord/tenant suit. Morgan has not handled this type of case before. She is willing to take it on and will charge a much lower hourly rate than her normal rate, but only if Barbara agrees not to sue her for any mistake she might make. Morgan has accordingly drafted a retainer agreement with Barbara that Barbara waives any potential claims for malpractice against Morgan. Morgan has read Barbara this provision and explained it to her, and she has encouraged her orally to seek the advice of another lawyer about whether to hire Morgan on these terms. Barbara says that she fully understands the provision, that she does not need to consult another lawyer, and that she wants to sign the retainer agreement. May Morgan represent Barbara pursuant to this agreement? A. Yes, because Morgan obtained Barbara's informed consent. B. Yes, because Morgan advised Barba

D. No, because Barbara was not independently represented in making this agreement.

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 chagrinned 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 $5,000 that would have been paid to her if the court had ordered Grant to repay the $5.000. 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, dece

D. No, because Jill is required to tell Ann that she missed the deadline and that the case was dismissed.

Johann, a lawyer, is has recently taken Carly's products liability case. They have agreed to a fee of $250/hour. Because he has only handled a few such cases, he wants to avoid being sued for malpractice. He would like Carly to sign a retainer agreement that provides that any malpractice claim that she wants to make against him has to be resolved by an arbitration rather than in a court. He drafts the retainer agreement and explains it to her but does not tell her that she may have a different lawyer advise her about the desirability of agreeing to the arbitration. Arbitration agreements between professional persons and their patients or clients are not prohibited by state law. She signs the agreement. Is Johann subject to discipline? A. Yes, because Carly was not independently represented in signing the agreement. B. Yes, because Johann did not advise Carly of the desirability of seeking independent counsel before s

D. No, because Johann explained the effect of the arbitration term to Carly.

Attorney Meghan represents Walter, a used-car salesman who has been criminally charged with driving while intoxicated. Before Walter's trial, a friend of Meghan's, Laurel, asks Meghan to represent her in her breach of contract suit against Walter and his company. If Meghan were to sue Walter on behalf of Laurel, another lawyer would defend Walter in that matter. Meghan has formed a close bond with Walter as a result of her work on his criminal case, and she reasonably believes that she could not represent Laurel very vigorously, because of her friendship with Walter. She explains her concern to Laurel, and Laurel states that she understands the risks and agrees to the representation anyway. She confirms her understanding in writing. Walter also gives informed consent in writing. May Meghan represent Laurel? A. Yes, because the representation is not prohibited by law. B. Yes, because Walter's case is criminal and Laur

D. No, because Meghan does not reasonably believe that she can competently and diligently represent Walter and Laurel, even though both clients gave informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Abdul, a lawyer, is employed by the United States Department of Labor and works in its Office of Civil Rights. He is also an experienced litigator. His neighbor, Blaine, has been having a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service, which claims that Blaine's deduction for home office expenses is not valid and has withheld part of his claimed tax refund. Abdul wants to represent Blaine in a suit against the United States in the federal Tax Court to try to obtain the withheld portion of Blaine's refund. He would not charge Blaine any fee. Also, Abdul has spoken to his supervisor in the Department of Labor, who has confirmed that the Department would have no objection to Abdul providing legal assistance to Blaine in his dispute with the Internal Revenue Service and will confirm this in writing. As a result, Abdul is confident that there is no conflict of interest, and he does not intend to advise Blaine that he should ge

D. No, because a federal employee may not represent an unrelated client in a claim against the United States.

Harriet intends to bring an action in small claims court against her landlord. She meets with lawyer Joaquin, who is experienced in landlord-tenant law, to see if he will represent her in the matter. After discussing the case, Joaquin and Harriet agree to a flat fee of $1000 for the representation, a reasonable fee given the time and effort Joaquin will expend on the case. Joaquin knows that Angela, a landlord-tenant lawyer three blocks away, would do the same work for $500. In fact, Joaquin believes that Harriets case is so strong that she could probably represent herself and win. Joaquin does not inform Harriet of these things, and he accepts the case. Is Joaquin subject to discipline? A. Yes, because Joaquin was required to tell Harriet that she could resolve her problem without the use of Joaquin's services. B. Yes, because Joaquin was required to tell Harriet that she could achieve the same result while paying a

D. No, because attorneys are not required to tell prospective clients that they could resolve their problems at a lower cost or no cost.

Attorney Mosi is representing Blake, a naturopathic doctor accused of malpractice. Blake is accused of having prescribed Amaronset, a homeopathic compound to Eloise, a patient suffering from migraine headaches. Amaronset is not regulated by the FDA and it has not been widely used to treat migraines. Blake did not tell Eloise that the use of this substance was experimental. Three years after her treatment ended, Eloise died from a brain tumor. Her family is suing Blake, who is no longer prescribing Amaronset. A study recently published in Germany found that 1 in 20 of the people who took Amaronset for more than two years developed malignant tumors. During the course of his representation, Blake tells Mosi that he prescribed Amaronset to two other individuals who suffered from migraines. They both took this compound for three years, and in both cases stopped taking it four years ago. These two patients do not know abou

D. No, because even if the two patients might have tumors, Mosi must keep this information confidential.

Lawyer Shawn has handled various property and business transactions for Evelyn, her adult daughter Adelaide, and Evelyn's business partner, Oliver, during the last decade. Those matters are all completed. Five years ago, Shawn wrote a will for Evelyn in which she left all of her property to Adelaide. In that work, Shawn represented and gave advice to both Evelyn and Adelaide. Adelaide, who lives with her mother, suffers from disabling epilepsy and has not been able to support herself. After Shawn finished drafting the will, he drafted a letter to Evelyn and Adelaide informing them that his office was closing their file and confirming the termination of their lawyer-client relationship. However, he failed to mail them the letter. Last week, Evelyn came to Shawn to tell him that it's time for Adelaide to stand on her own two feet. She mentioned that Adelaide has become involved with a boyfriend, Felix, and has been sta

D. No, because he did not obtain Adelaide's informed consent to his representation of Evelyn with respect to the new will.

Paul, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court owns a substantial amount of stock in a publicly traded corporation called Exrix, LIC. The Court grants certiorari to decide a class action suit brought by shareholders of Exrix. Paul has disclosed his stock ownership but is not planning to sell his stock. No party has made a recusal motion. Must Paul recuse himself pursuant to a code of judicial conduct? A. Yes, because he owns some stock in a corporation whose case he must decide. B. Yes, because the amount of stock that he owns is substantial. C. No, because no party has made a recusal motion. D. No, because no ethics rule requires him to recuse himself.

D. No, because no ethics rule requires him to recuse himself.

Attorney Ria represents criminal defendant Carl, who is charged with armed robbery. Carl is in jail pending his trial. During a meeting at the prison, Carl tells Ria that on the night of the alleged robbery, he was at a hockey game with his girlfriend. When Ria returns to her office, she does an Internet search and finds out that the hockey game actually took place on the night before the robbery, not the night of the robbery. Ria tells Carl this information during their next meeting, and Carl tells her he was mistaken. He says he went to the hockey game the night before the robbery, and on the night of the robbery, he was having dinner with his mother an hour away from where the robbery took place. Ria reasonably thinks that Carl probably is lying about the dinner with his mother. Without first counseling Carl to tell the truth, she refuses to allow Carl to testify about the dinner at his trial. Is her refusal prope

D. No, because she does not know for sure that Carl is lying.

Erin, a lawyer, had a motion that was scheduled to be argued on November 5. Another attorney, Manfred, represented her adversary. On October 31, Erin learned that her son's surgery had been scheduled for November 5, and she wanted to be with her son on the day of the surgery. She tried to call Manfred to discuss rescheduling, but he was out of town and could not be reached that day. So without first notifying Manfred, she telephoned the judge's clerk to find out whether the argument on the motion could be heard the following week. To her surprise, the judge picked up the phone and explained that he had answered because his clerk was at lunch. Erin explained the situation and asked the judge whether the argument could be scheduled for November 12. The judge checked his computer and advised that he could fit in the argument on that date, and he advised Erin to notify Mantred of her request and if Manfred had no objecti

D. No, because she only discussed a procedural issue with the judge.

Chris and Bobby are accused of burglarizing a house. They want Meyer to represent both of them in the criminal matter because they prefer not to have to pay two lawyers. Also, they believe that if they coordinate their stories and refuse to cooperate with the police, the state won't have enough evidence to convict either of them. No state statute prohibits lawyers from representing criminal co-defendants. Meyer obtains the police reports and charging documents. He also obtains the criminal records of both Chris and Bobby. From his investigation, Meyer learns that Chris may have been the instigator. Chris is 26 years old and Bobby is 19. Chris has three prior felony convictions, while Bobby has a prior conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana, for which he received a suspended sentence that could be revoked if he is again convicted. Meyer's law clerk recommends that Meyer obtain a court order permittin

D. No, because the joint representation presents a non-consentable conflict.

Client Sylvia hired lawyer Dino to represent her in a personal injury action against Chainmart. In the course of the representation, Sylvia told Dino that she was prepared for the case to go to trial, if necessary, and that she probably would not even consider accepting a settlement offer below $2 million. Dino thought she might be awarded $10 million or more if the claim were decided by a jury. The evening before trial, opposing counsel called Dino and offered a settlement of $1 million. Dino tried calling Sylvia but could not reach her. Five hours after trying unsuccessfully to reach Sylvia and hoping to be able to get some sleep before the trial, Dino called opposing counsel and rejected the offer. The case went to trial the next morning, and after trial, the jury awarded Sylvia $5 million. Is Dino subject to malpractice liability for his actions? A. Yes, because decisions to accept or reject settlement offers are

D. No, because the jury award was greater than the settlement offer.

Chloe and Matilda are partners in a small law firm. Chloe has represented Speisler Motors, an auto manufacturer, for years. She represents Speisler in all litigation in which it is a party. At present she is defending the company in a lawsuit brought by Tom, a driver of a speisler Car who was blinded when an airbag spontaneously exploded while he was driving. When the bag exploded, Tom's car hit Anton, a pedestrian, who died some days after the accident. The executor of Anton's estate has asked Matilda to represent the estate in a lawsuit against Tom and Speisler Motors. Matilda believes that she would be able to provide competent and diligent representation to Anton's estate, and Chloe believes that she would be able to provide competent and diligent representation to Speisler Motors. They have agreed not to talk with each other or to share documents relating to the matter. Speisler, Tom, and Anton's executor all gi

D. No, because there is a conflict of interest and the conflict is not consentable.

Attorney Darla represents the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Nutrisnax, a granola bar company, alleging false advertising. The plaintiffs allege that Nutrisnax falsely advertised its granola bars as a healthy alternative to candy bars when, in fact, the granola bars contained just as much fat, sugar, and sodium as the average candy bar. The class includes anyone who purchased a Nutrisnax granola bar in the last three years. Last week, a potential client named Samuel came into Darla's office and asked her to represent him in his claim for child support against his former husband, Franklin. Darla learned that Franklin purchased hundreds of Nutrisnax granola bars during the relevant period, making him one of the unnamed members of the class in the granola bar suit. Must Darla obtain Franklins informed consent before agreeing to represent Samuel? A. Yes, because Samuel's interests are directly adverse to Fr

D. No, because unnamed members of a class are ordinarily not considered to be clients of the lawyer for conflicts purposes.

A law firm has offices in three major U.S. cities. Once a year, lawyers from all three offices convene for a firm retreat. One of the partners in the firm, Sandler, represents Nigel, a celebrity chef, in several lawsuits (filed both by and against Nigel). Sandler prepares a complex counseling exercise for the retreat, based on his relationship with Nigel, called "Dealing with a Difficult Client" Sandler does not change Nigel's name or any of the facts in any of the training materials. The materials provide detailed descriptions of cases in which Nigel was a party, and included stories about difficult interactions between the chef and his lawyers. The materials are distributed in loose leaf notebooks clearly marked "confidential training materials." Nigel learns about the training program from Tommy, one of the firm's junior lawyers, whom Nigel is dating casually (unbeknownst to Sandler). Nigel is furious. Is Sandler

D. No.

Which one of the following communications would be protected by the attorney-client privilege? A. A prospective client tells an attorney the facts of her case, but the attorney decides not to take the case. B. An attorney and client meet in a crowded restaurant to discuss the client's case. They do not know anyone sitting around them, but they are sitting near enough to other diners that others could hear their conversation. In fact, no one hears the conversation. C. A lawyer represents a client in a dispute about a real estate contract. The client gives the attorney a copy of the contract at issue. The contract includes statements about the obligations of both parties and statements about their reasons for entering into the contract. D. A lawyer and a client go out to celebrate after obtaining a favorable settlement. While they are out to dinner, they talk at length about the personalities of the opposing party in t

A. A prospective client tells an attorney the facts of her case, but the attorney decides not to take the case.

Membership in a state bar association is required for a person who is being licensed to practice law: A. By some states. B. By no state. C. By every state, unless the person is a member of a bar association in another state. D. By every state, even if the person is member of a bar association in another state.

A. By some states.

Sophia retained Drake as her attorney to sue the city where she lived after she stepped into a deep hole in the sidewalk, fell, and broke her leg. She incurred $4,000 in medical bills and suffered a great deal of pain. State law provides that a city is not liable in suits for personal injury unless the suit is filed within one year after the injury occurs. Drake never filed the suit. Six months after the one-year period was up, Sophia sued Drake for malpractice, based on his failure to file the lawsuit. In fact, Drake called Sophia five days before the one-year period was up and told her that he was ready to file, and Sophia told him not to go ahead with the case. When he asked why not, she said, "It is because I am a finalist for a job as the city's commissioner of parks, and I probably won't get the job if I sue the city. I'm telling you this in the strictest confidence. If I don't get the job, I don't want anyone,

A. No, because he revealed no more than necessary to defend himself.

Winthrop, a judge, and his brother Leonard, a lawyer, have both been members, for many years, of the exclusive and private Antelope Club, one of the most prestigious clubs in their city. The club includes some lawyers and judges but it is not a club only for lawyers; its membership also includes business leaders, journalists, educators and others. The club has no openly gay members, and it recently voted that openly gay individuals are not eligible for membership. The club provides a social setting for meals, relaxation, golf and tennis. Neither Winthrop nor Leonard engage in any judicial or legal activities at the club. Who, if anyone, must resign from membership? A. Only Winthrop B. Only Leonard C. Both Winthrop and Leonard D. Neither Winthrop nor Leonard

A. Only Winthrop

Sasha is an associate in the law firm of Garrett & Glass, LLP. Recently, Sasha discovered that Gerry Glass, one of the partners, had stolen large sums of money from Healthwest, a client organization. In one case, for example, Gerry was defending Healthwest in a personal injury suit. Gerry reached a settlement under which Healthwest would pay the plaintiff $100.000. but he told the CEO of Healthwest that the organization was obliged to pay $200,000. Healthwest sent Gerry a check to cover the settlement. Gerry deposited the check in a firm account, paid the plaintiff $100,000, and wrote himself a check for the remainder. Gerry did this secretly. His law firm billed the client for legal fees as usual. Gerry repeated this same pattern in a series of cases over a seven-year period. The evidence that Gerry has stolen funds from Healthwest is indisputable. Sasha explained the whole situation to the law firm's general counse

A. She must report the misconduct to the disciplinary authorities if she can do so without disclosing any client confidences.

In 2009, Anita, a criminal defense lawyer, represented Liam, an immigrant from Australia who was charged with selling cocaine. Under state law, if convicted, Liam could have been sentenced to five years in prison. The district attorney offered a deal providing that if Liam pled guilty, he would be sentenced to serve a term of 14 months. A criminal defense lawyer must give a client accurate advice about the potential adverse legal consequences of entering a guilty plea. Even so, without researching the potential immigration consequences of this guilty plea, Anita recommended that Liam accept the offer, and Liam did so. At the end of the 14 months, the state turned Liam over to federal immigration authorities, who deported him to Australia based on the criminal conviction. Liam cannot show that he would not have been convicted of a deportable offense if he had gone to trial. In 2010, the Supreme Court decided the Padil

A. Yes, because Anita failed to investigate the potential immigration consequences of pleading guilty and failed to advise her client about that.

Carla, a graduating law student who is in the United States on a student visa, is having lunch with her friend Alice, an environmental lawyer who graduated from the same law school the previous year and who was just admitted to the bar. Carla knows that during law school, Alice did a summer internship at a small immigration law firm, where she helped companies that were seeking employment visas for some of their workers. Carla tells Alice that her student visa is about to expire, but that she has just been offered a job at a law firm. She asks whether the law firm could sponsor her for a visa. Alice responds, "Unfortunately, I don't believe that law firms can sponsor people who are straight out of law school for employment visas. My advice would be to go back to your home country for a year and apply for jobs from there.? Carla, who reasonably believes that Alice was providing correct legal advice, turns down the law

A. Yes, because Carla reasonably believed that Alice was providing correct legal advice

Carson is admitted to practice only in state A. State A has adopted Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Carson commits a minor fraud in state B against a citizen of state B, and is prosecuted for this misdemeanor offense and punished in state B. Is Carson subject to discipline in state A? A. Yes, because Carson's conduct would violate state A's ethics code, regardless of where the conduct occurs. B. Yes, because Carson was convicted of the misdemeanor offense in a court of law. C. No, because Carson's conduct did not occur in state A and has no impact on the citizens of state A. D. No, because the matter has been criminally prosecuted in state B, so a disciplinary proceeding would impose double jeopardy on Carson.

A. Yes, because Carson's conduct would violate state A's ethics code, regardless of where the conduct occurs.

Attorney Cherie represents Patience in a suit against her landlord for failure to do adequate remediation after a flood caused mold growth in the attic. Patience is an anthropologist who is writing a novel about a forensic anthropologist who solves murder mysteries. Patience is low on cash, but her upcoming book is expected to be a bestseller. Cherie proposes a fee arrangement in which Patience will pay Cherie a percentage of the royalties from her book as the fee for the landlord-tenant dispute. She discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this arrangement. Patience agrees to pay the legal fee in this manner. Cherie then sends Patience a letter that includes a clear explanation of the terms of the arrangement, which are fair and reasonable. The letter also advises Patience that it is desirable for her to seek independent legal advice before signing this agreement. A few weeks later, Patience signs the letter to

A. Yes, because Cherie complied with the disclosure and other requirements that govern business transactions between lawyers and clients.

Attorney Pavel is a criminal defense lawyer representing Denny, who is charged with larceny. Denny, a pro bono client, is alleged to have stolen a piece of jewelry from a jewelry box during a house party. In an unrelated matter, Pavel is defending Betty, for a fee, against a criminal charge of arson. Both cases are assigned to be heard by a single judge. During Denny's trial, the prosecutor calls Betty to the stand. She testifies that she was at the party in question and saw Denny go in and out of the room where the alleged theft occurred. She further testifies that she never went into that room. Earlier, Denny had told Pavel that he saw Betty go into the room, and he suggested that she may be the thief. Pavel intends to cross-examine Betty on this point. Is there a conflict of interest? A. Yes, because Denny's interests are directly adverse to Betty's. B. Yes, because Betty is a paying client. C. No, because the rep

A. Yes, because Denny's interests are directly adverse to Betty's.

Ellen wants to hire Donna, an attorney, to handle her divorce case. Ellen works as a saleswoman in a department store, earning $26,000 a year. Donna proposes to charge a fee of $300 per hour, which is not an unusual hourly rate for divorce work in Ellen's community, although some lawyers charge less. Donna discloses her fee and all expenses for which Ellen will be responsible in writing, and Ellen signs the writing. May Donna charge this fee? A. Yes, because Donna informed Ellen, before starting to work, that her fee will be $300 per hour and listed the expenses for which Donna will be responsible. B. Yes, because the notice of the fee arrangement was in writing. C. No, because Donna did not give Ellen a good faith estimate of the likely total fee. D. No, because some other lawyers in the community charge less than $300 per hour for divorce work.

A. Yes, because Donna informed Ellen, before starting to work, that her fee will be $300 per hour and listed the expenses for which Donna will be responsible.

Mayra, an attorney licensed in Indiana with a law office in Gary, Indiana, had a business office in Illinois. In her Illinois business, she imported maple syrup from Canada and sold it to distributors in California. Her importing work was unconnected with the legal work that she did in Indiana. Two years ago, she deliberately misrepresented the grade of a shipment of syrup and thereby overcharged her U.S. customers. When they discovered the fraud, they confronted Mayra, who settled with them out of court for an undisclosed sum. The matter was reported in the trade press. One of her customers sent a copy of the article to the Indiana bar disciplinary authority. Is Mayra subject to discipline in Indiana based on these events? A. Yes, because Mayras conduct involved dishonesty. B. Yes, because the matter was not merely reported in the press; a customer made a complaint to the Indiana bar. C. No, because Mayra did not do

A. Yes, because Mayras conduct involved dishonesty.

Milan graduated from law school, took the bar exam in state A, passed the exam, and was admitted to the bar in state A. He maintains active membership even though he is neither practicing law, nor living in state A. Milan bought a small computer consulting firm in neighboring state B and ran it successfully for a few years, earning a good living. Then Milan decided to sell the business. He found a buyer who purchased the business. In the course of their discussions about the business, Milan represented that the business had been twice as profitable as it actually was. After a few months of operating the business, the buyer sued Milan for damages for fraud and to rescind the contract. That lawsuit is pending. Is Milan subject to discipline in state A? A. Yes, because Milan lied to the buyer about the value of the business, even though his dishonesty took place in state B. B. Yes, because the terms of the agreement (in

A. Yes, because Milan lied to the buyer about the value of the business, even though his dishonesty took place in state B.

Seymour owns and manages a small dairy farm. Recently, Seymour discovered that his fertilizer supplier had been mislabeling its fertilizers as organic when, in fact, they were not. Seymour has had to recall many of his products that were labeled as organic, at great expense, and his reputation has suffered as a result. He wants to sue the supplier for damages. He meets with attorney Gemma to see whether she will represent him. Gemmas usual fee is $200 per hour. Knowing that Gemma is one of the best lawyers in town, Seymour offers to pay her $250 per hour for her services. Gemma has the time and requisite knowledge and experience in the field to represent Seymour. However, as a vegan, she would find it morally repugnant to represent a dairy farmer. May Gemma refuse to represent Seymour? A. Yes, because a lawyer is not obliged to accept a client whose cause the lawyer regards as repugnant. B. Yes, because Seymour is no

A. Yes, because a lawyer is not obliged to accept a client whose cause the lawyer regards as repugnant.

Parnik, a licensed attorney and state prosecutor, was arrested for stalking his ex-girlfriend. Parnik did follow his girlfriend on numerous occasions, spied on her through the windows of her house, and called her repeatedly after she had asked him not to do so. Nevertheless, a jury acquitted Parnik of the charges. Is Parnik subject to discipline for stalking his ex-girlfriend if the bar disciplinary authorities determine that he committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law? A. Yes, because a lawyer who commits a criminal act can be disciplined for it whether or not the lawyer was convicted of a crime. B. Yes, because Parnik is a prosecutor, so he has a special responsibility beyond that of other lawyers to show respect for the law and the legal system. C. No, because the stalking occurred in Parniks private life and was not related to the practice of law. D. No, because he was acqui

A. Yes, because a lawyer who commits a criminal act can be disciplined for it whether or not the lawyer was convicted of a crime.

Kwame has represented Samantha for many years. Samantha has a daughter named Rosalind and a granddaughter named Celine, four years old. Kwame and Samantha meet to discuss Samanthas will. Samantha expresses doubts about leaving all her money to Rosalind. She reports that Rosalind's new husband, Matthew, is physically abusing Celine -she has seen him hit Celine. She shows Kwame some recent photos that she took of Celine. The pictures reveal bruises. The evidence of abuse is unambiguous. A state child abuse reporting statue requires any person who suspects child abuse to report it to the states department of social services. The law, which does not exempt lawyers from reporting, authorizes criminal penalties for failure to report, Kwame counsels Samantha to report her suspicions to department of social services, but Samantha does not want to do it and does not want Kwame to do so either. Must Kwame report what Samantha

A. Yes, because he is required to do so by state law and Rule 1 6 does not excuse lawyers from having to obey state law.

Joseph is an immigrant who was recently denied asylum by the administrative appeals body that handles immigration cases. He hires Cyrus to appeal the decision to the US: Court of Appeals, Joseph knows that there is a $500 fling fee that he will have to pay. The appeal and fee are due tomorrow. Cyrus called Joseph and left a message, but Joseph did not call him back. He knows from prior conversations, however, that Joseph wants to appeal the decision. If he misses the filing deadline, Joseph will be barred from appealing. May Cyrus go ahead and file the appeal, paying the filing fee, with the expectation that Joseph would reimburse him? A. Yes, because lawyers are permitted to advance court costs. B. Yes, because $500 is not excessive. C. No, because lawyers are not permitted to provide financial assistance to clients. D. No, because Joseph did not exercise reasonable diligence in communicating with Cyrus before advan

A. Yes, because lawyers are permitted to advance court costs.

Armand DuBois was elected as a state court judge seven years ago. This year, he is up for re-election. His state has adopted the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which bars a candidate for judicial office from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions. A rule of the state supreme court provides that violation of the Code may be punished by that courts judicial conduct committee, which may impose sanctions ranging from a reprimand to suspension of judicial duties. Judge DuBois personally accepted a $500 contribution from his close friend and tennis partner, Stanley Baskin. Is he subject to discipline by the judicial conduct committee? A. Yes, because the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision does not apply to judicial campaigns. B. No, because under the Citizens United case, Judge DuBois has a First Amendment right to accept campaign contributions. C. No, because a judge may be punished only by impea

A. Yes, because the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision does not apply to judicial campaigns.

Sol practices tax law, but his expertise is in giving tax advice rather than handling litigation. Recently, Sol provided personal tax advice to businessman Bill. Bill then asked Sol to look at another tax matter involving a deduction denied by the Internal Revenue Service. Bill wants Sol to litigate the matter in the tax court. Sol mentioned to his friend Al, a litigator in a different firm, that one of his clients wants him to take on a litigation matter. Al responded, "Great! Just tell your client that you will do it with co-counsel. I will charge Bill 33 percent of the recovery, and I'll give you half of what he pays us. We'll both enter appearances and sign the papers, but you can leave everything to me. It will be as if we were in a law partnership together!" Sol believes that Al is an excellent litigator capable of doing a good job for Bill. sol and Al agree to accept any liability for mistakes. The overall fee

A. Yes, because the arrangement complies with all of the relevant rules.

Jabari is an associate at a law firm in state A. He is admitted to practice only in state A. Jabari goes to state B to litigate a matter on behalf of a client. He is admitted pro hac vice in stale B. Jabari violates an ethical file That has been adopted in state B requiring disclosure of client perjury to the judge. State A has not adopted any similar rule. Could Jabari be disciplined in state A even though state A has not adopted the rule that Jabari violated? A. Yes, because the disciplinary authorities in state A would apply the rules adopted in state B in this case. B. Yes, because state A is the only state in which Jabari is a member of the bar, so state A is solely responsible for overseeing his conduct. C. No, because Jabari's conduct did not take place in state A. D. No, because Jabari's conduct does not violate the ethics code in state A.

A. Yes, because the disciplinary authorities in state A would apply the rules adopted in state B in this case.

Nathan is a partner in the law firm of Pace and Gillespie, which represents Bostwick Corp., which is not publicly traded. The corporation manufactures boots. Nathan is a friend of David Bostwick, the chairman of his client's board of directors, who owns 12 percent of the stock of the company. Nathan himself owns 3 percent of the stock, which he acquired long before Pace and Gillespie began representing Bostwick. Whenever there is a vacancy on the board, the board selects a replacement director. No directors are elected by the shareholders. On David's recommendation, the board takes a formal vote and offers Nathan the opportunity to join the board. Nathan would like to accept, and neither he nor anyone on the board knows of any actual or apparent conflict of interest. Nathan is not willing to divest himself of his stock in the company. May Nathan accept the offer to join the board? A. Yes, because there is no law or e

A. Yes, because there is no law or ethical rule barring his joining the board.

Carlos, a sole practitioner, represents Sharky Products, Inc, a property owner that disputes In adjoining owner's right of access to an alleyway between their buildings. Carlos sent a letter to the other property owner, Berry's Beauty Supply Co, to explain the problem. He received a reply from Berry's lawyer, Eleanor, requesting that Carlos withdraw from representation of Sharky, Eleanor claimed that Carlos was prohibited from handling this matter because five years ago, Carlos represented Matthew, the president and sole owner of Berry's in a claim against the manufacturer of a lawn care product that he used at his home. The matter took three hours of Carlos time and Matthew was satisfied with the resulting settlement. Carlos has had no contact with Matthew since then. May Carlos continue to represent Sharky Products, Inc.? A. Yes, because there is no substantial relationship between the two matters. B. Yes, because

A. Yes, because there is no substantial relationship between the two matters.

Danielle is a lawyer. Ted, the son of her brother Matthew, is very ill with a life-threatening condition. Ted must get a certain medication that costs $1,400 in the next 24 hours or else he will go into kidney failure. Matthew has no cash, but he will receive a large sum from the sale of his home in one week. Matthew has no other possible source of funds until then unless Danielle gives him a short-term loan. Danielle is flat broke (in fact, she is deeply in debt), but there is $120,000 in Danielle's trust account. This amount is the proceeds of a personal injury settlement that Danielle will distribute to her client Van. She represented him on a pro bono basis, so she is not owed a fee from the settlement. Van is in prison for the next few years. Danielle has agreed to hold the funds for Van in the interim and to make mortgage payments on his house as they become due. Danielle lends Matthew $1,400 from this account

A. Yes, even though she promptly informed Van that she borrowed the money and he ratified her prior action.

Attorney Sebastian graduates from law school and starts his own criminal defense practice. He establishes an LLC for his practice and sets up a bank account for the office expenses. He also has a personal bank account. He decides to charge the relatively low fee of $200 per hour for his work. Within the first month of opening his practice, five different clients retain him in connection with their criminal matters. Pursuant to the retainer agreements, each client gives Sebastian a check for $4,000. Sebastian will earn $200 for each hour that he works. After 20 hours, he will bill each client for additional sums. At a minimum, how many additional bank accounts must Sebastian open? A. 0 B. 1 C. 4 D. 5

B. 1

Pablo, a lawyer who used to work at the U.S. Department of Justice, now works at a private law firm. Which of the following rules does NOT apply to potential conflicts between Pablos duties to the U.S. government and his duties to any current clients? A. 1.7 B. 1.9(a) C. 1.9(c) D. 1.11

B. 1.9(a)

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. laya, 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 the 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. Confidential, but not privileged.

Geraldine, an attorney in a legal aid program, provides pro bono representation to Amber, who is indigent, disabled, and homeless, in litigation against Mike's Job Counseling Service. Amber had paid $300 to Mikes, which did not give her any job leads or help. Mikes has recently been exposed in the local paper for not actually having helped anyone to get a job. Winter is approaching, and it has become increasingly difficult for Amber to live on the streets. She is in danger of freezing to death. All of the homeless shelters in the area are full. Geraldine cares about Amber and wants to keep her from freezing. Which of the following statements is correct? A. Geraldine may loan Amber $500 so that she can rent a modest room. B. Geraldine may give Amber $500 so that she can rent a modest room. C. Both A and B are correct. D. Neither A nor B is correct.

B. Geraldine may give Amber $500 so that she can rent a modest room.

Spencer, a businessman, calls Kai, an attorney. He says he is looking for a lawyer so that he can sue his former business partner, Max, with whom he has had a falling out. He asserts that he has proof that Max was stealing money from his company and covering it up by keeping two sets of books. Spencer says he has photos of several pages from both sets of books, which he obtained by sneaking into Max's house, where he found the books in the study and photographed them with his cell phone. Kai makes an appointment to meet with Spencer the following week to discuss possible representation. The day after the phone call, Max calls Kai to ask for representation because he thinks Spencer is going to sue him. Max offers Kai a generous flat fee for the work. Kai would like to represent Max. May Kai represent Max without Spencer's consent? A. No, because an attorney may not accept representation of a person where the attorney'

B. No, because Spencer has given Kai information that could be used adversely to Spencer if Kai represents Max.

After she graduated from law school, Dania worked for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for three years. During that time, she worked on securing an indictment in a large securities case involving seven defendants who collaborated on an insider trading scheme. At the end of three years, she moved on to a position at one office of a large private law firm whose practice includes defense of securities fraud cases. A month after she started work at the firm, Dania learned that a partner in the firm was representing one of the defendants in the securities case that Dania had worked on while she was at the SEC. This did not emerge in the preliminary conflicts screening before she was hired because Danias work focused on three of the other defendants in the suit. The basic facts were the same, but the targets were different. What should the firm do to enable it to represent the defendant in the securities fraud

B. Screen Dania from any participation in the matter, prevent her from receiving any extra pay related to the matter, and give written notice of the potential conflict to the SEC

Attorney Alton recently filed a medical malpractice action on behalf of Juan against Metropolitan Hospital, where Juan was sexually assaulted by a staff member while he was being treated for a psychotic episode in the psychiatric ward. Juan was traumatized by his experience at the hospital. In a telephone call before their first meeting, Alton learned that Juan suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and needs a social worker to be present in all stressful situations. Alton therefore asked Juan to bring his social worker, Pierre, to all of their metings. Juan pays Pierre to assist him, and he brought Pierre to all of his meetings will Alton. The lawyers for Metropolitan Hospital have learned about Pierres presence during the meetings between Juan and Alton. The hospital is seeking discovery of the conversations that took place during those meetings. Which one of the following statements is correct? A. The attorne

B. The attorney-client privilege would have protected the conversations between Alton and Juan from discovery despite Pierre's presence even if Juan had brought him to the meetings without any suggestion from Alton.

Grace is an associate in a law firm. Her firm bills clients by the hour. When she began working for the firm, she signed a statement in which she agreed to abide by firm policy. The firm policy stated in part: "All misconduct shall be reported promptly to the managing partner and shall not be revealed to anyone else in the firm or outside the firm.? Grace discovers that Arthur, the partner who supervises her work, always alters her time sheets by multiplying the number of hours she reported working by 1.2, thereby claiming to the clients that she spent 20 percent more time on each project than she actually spent, and billing the clients accordingly. Grace reports the misconduct to the managing partner, who tells her that she need not concern herself with the conduct of her superiors. He takes no action. Would Grace be subject to discipline if she failed to report Arthur's conduct to the disciplinary authorities? A. Y

B. Yes, because Arthur's conduct involves a violation of the rules that raises a substantial question as to his honesty.

Five years ago, attorney Barry worked at a large law firm with offices across the country. One of the firm's partners defended Panko, Inc., an appliance manufacturer, against allegations that its toasters had a defect that would cause many of them to catch fire. Barry was not involved in that litigation and did not learn anything about it during his time at the firm. Barry has since opened up a private practice of his own. Ted comes to Barrys new office seeking legal help. Ted tells Barry that his Panko toaster recently overheated and caused a house fire. He would like to sue Panko for damages. May Barry represent him a suit against Panko without Panko's informed consent? A. Yes, because there was not a substantial risk that confidential factual information as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation of Panko would materially advance Ted's position in the subsequent matter. B. Yes, because Barry

B. Yes, because Barry did not actually acquire confidential information that is material to Ted's lawsuit while he was working at his old law firm.

Attorney Eli has represented Jacques, an elderly but lucid man, in his legal matters for the past eight ears. He continues to do so from time to time. The legal matters with which Eli has assisted Jacques have been minor; the most Jacques ever paid Eli was $1,500. One day, Jacques tells Eli that as a token of his appreciation for his years of service and friendship, he would like to give Eli his mint condition 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle, a car Eli knows to be worth over $70,000. Eli refers Jacques to another lawyer who can prepare the documents transferring the title to the vehicle to Eli. May Eli accept the gift A. Yes, because there are no restrictions with respect to receiving unsolicited gifts from clients. B. Yes, because Eli referred Jacques to another lawyer who will prepare the documentation to effectuate the transfer of the title to the vehicle. C. No, because Eli did not first arrange for a guardian ad litem

B. Yes, because Eli referred Jacques to another lawyer who will prepare the documentation to effectuate the transfer of the title to the vehicle.

Ella, a public defender, represented a college student named Kenneth. Kenneth was driving his brother Thomas car and was stopped for going through a red light. The officer spotted what looked like cocaine and drug paraphernalia on the front seat and arrested Kenneth. When the substance was tested, it turned out to be cocaine. Against Ella's advice, Kenneth told Ella that he planned to plead guilty. Ella writes a blog in which she regularly recounts her experiences as a public defender. After Kenneth was released pursuant to a negotiated deal for deferred prosecution, she wrote on her blog: * "#126409 (the client's jail identification number): This stupid kid is taking the rap for his drug-dealing dirtbag of an older brother because 'hes no snitch: I managed to talk the prosecutor into treatment and deferred prosecution, since we both know the older brother from prior dealings involving drugs and guns. My client is in

B. Yes, because Ella revealed confidential information.

Laila was a pedestrian who was hit by a car. Her best friend Joan, who is a nurse, visited her in the hospital. Neither Joan nor Laila knew the driver of the car. Joan later discussed the accident with her friend Craig, who is an attorney. Craig would like to represent Laila, on a contingent fee basis, in a claim against the driver of the car. Craig tells Joan that if she recommends him to Laila, and Laila retains him, Craig will pay Joan 10 percent of his share of any recovery that Laila collects. He does not tell Laila about this part of the arrangement. Is Craig subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he did not disclose the arrangement to Laila. B. Yes, because Joan is not a lawyer. C. No, because Joan has no connection with the driver of the car and there is therefore no conflict of interest. D. No, because he offered Joan 10 percent of his own fee, rather than 10 percent of the recovery.

B. Yes, because Joan is not a lawyer.

Josh, a third year law student, is planning to apply for admission to the bar. He just looked at the questionnaire of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which he will have to submit. It asks: Have you ever been dropped, suspended, warned, placed on scholastic or disciplinary probation expelled, requested to resign, or allowed to resign in lieu of discipline from any college or University (including law school), or otherwise subjected to discipline by any institution or requested or advised by any institution to discontinue your studies there? Four years ago, a residential advisor found alcoholic beverages in Josh's dormitory room in violation of college rules. At a meeting with a dean, Josh agreed to be put on probation for one semester, during which he would be allowed to take classes as usual. If he made it through the semester without any more infractions, the incident would be expunged from his record. He

B. Yes, because Josh was placed on disciplinary probation by his college, so the question calls for disclosure of the incident, and includes no exemption for "expunged" offenses.

Kieran, five years out of law school, accepted a job with Sato & Perlmutter, LLP. A couple of months after he started work, Miranda Perlmutter was asked to take over representation of Kasho Natural Foods in an ongoing lawsuit against the Roxbury Box Company. Kasho had fired its previous counsel after a dispute over legal fees. Miranda wants to accept Kasho as a client. However, there may be a problem. Kieran came to Sato & Perlmutter from another firm, Podkrash and Associates, LLP, where he had worked for three years. The Podkrash firm has been representing the Roxbury Box Company in the Kasho litigation for the last two years. Kieran did not work on the Roxbury matter while he worked at Podkrash. While Kieran was working at Podkrash, he dated Lance, the senior paralegal at the firm. Lance oversaw all the staff work on the Roxbury matter and talked at length about the factual and strategic issues in the case with Kie

B. Yes, because Kieran was properly screened from the Kasho representation.

Attorney Roger is a solo practitioner in a small town. There are only about 70 lawyers in the town, and of those, only 20 (including Roger) handle divorce cases. One day, Roger does an intake interview with Leon, who is seeking a divorce. Leon reveals to Roger that he had several affairs during his marriage and that his wife, Reva, does not know about them. At the end of the interview, Roger tells Leon that he will let Leon know within a week whether he can accept his case. The next day, Leon calls Roger to say that he has decided to retain another lawyer. A week later, Reva comes to Roger's office seeking representation in the divorce. Recognizing her name, and before she says anything else, he asks her if Leon is her spouse. She confirms that he is. Roger immediately tells Reva that he may not be able to represent her. Before he can finish his sentence, Reva interrupts, "Is this because he came to see you already?

B. Yes, because Leon met with every divorce lawyer in town.

Tax attorney Tammy represents client Lilian, who plans to buy several tickets to upcoming concerts using her student ID and sell them to non-students for a significant profit. She seeks Tammy's advice as to whether she must pay income tax on the money she expects to make. She does not know that reselling student tickets for profit is illegal in her state, and when Tammy informs her that it is, she does not go forward with the plan. Is Lilians conversation with Tammy privileged? A. Yes, because all confidential communications between lawyers and clients for the purpose of obtaining legal advice are privileged. B. Yes, because Lilian did not go through with her plan. C. No, because the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies. D. No, because Lilian did not know that scalping was a crime when she asked Tammy for advice.

B. Yes, because Lilian did not go through with her plan.

Use the facts from the previous question. Suppose Morgan decides not to include the malpractice language in the retainer agreement, and both she and Barbara sign the agreement. Suppose further that Morgan indeed makes a serious mistake in the course of representation. Morgan and Barbara estimate that the mistake cost Barbara $9,500. Morgan would like to settle any malpractice claim that Barbara may have against her for $12,000 without litigation. Morgan does not wish to notify her malpractice insurer of the mistake, because then her rates would go up. She advises Barbara in writing to seek independent counsel, and she tells her she can take her time finding another lawyer. Barbara declines, saying she does not need another lawyer and that she agrees with the $12,000 settlement. May Morgan go forward with the settlement? A. Yes, because Morgan's mistake cost Barbara less than $12,000. B. Yes, because Morgan advised Ba

B. Yes, because Morgan advised Barbara in writing regarding the desirability of seeking independent counsel.

Attorneys Carrie and Paige are partners in a small firm. Paige supervises the work of the firm's two associates. Over the last few years, Carrie has noticed that Paige has been intoxicated during the workday. In the last few months, Carrie has been smelling alcohol on Paige's breath during the workday at least two or three days a week. Paige continues to meet with clients and work on cases, but Carrie believes Paige's work is suffering as a result of her drinking. In the past two weeks, she has received calls from three of Paige's clients complaining that Paige either failed to show up for a meeting or failed to return a call. Last Tuesday, she found Paige passed out on the couch in her office at 11 am. There was vomit all over a client file that was on the floor near her head. Today she learned that a case that Paige was handling, to recover damages for a woman who was badly injured in an accident, was postponed for

B. Yes, because Paige's alcohol consumption suggests that she is ill and needs medical care, but her conduct also raises a substantial question about her fitness to practice law in her current state.

Paula, a lawyer, drafted a will for Viet. The will stated that in the event of his death, his property should go to "my children." Viet and his wife Jenny had two sons. After his death, Edith, a woman with whom he had had an affair, proved through DNA evidence that he also had fathered her son Michael. She claimed that her son was entitled to one third of the estate. During probate of the will, Paula plans to testify that Viet had told her that what he meant was that his property should go to his children Gabriel and Veronique, and any children that he and Jenny later produced. Since Jenny is next of kin, Paula has obtained her informed consent to this plan. Paula would assert that she was waiving the privilege on behalf of her deceased client. Edith's lawyer objects on the ground that Paula's testimony would violate the attorney-client privilege. Should the probate judge allow Paula to testify about Viet's intent? A

B. Yes, because Paulas testimony would fall under an exception to the privilege.

Attorney Seamus represents Rona in her purchase of an apartment in a major metropolitan city. The apartment is priced well below market value, and it seems to both Seamus and Rona that it is a very good deal. Seamus learns that the apartment is priced so low because one of the bedrooms was constructed below ground level in violation of the city's housing code. When Seamus relays this information to Rona, she gets cold feet and decides not to sign the contract. She finds another apartment and closes a purchase agreement. As it happens, Seamus is also looking to buy an apartment. The apartment that Rona declined to buy would work well for him and his family. He is also willing to buy the apartment knowing that it has a bedroom that does not meet the code requirements. He talked with Rona about his interest in the apartment. She says it would not concern her at all if he bought it. May Seamus purchase the apartment? A.

B. Yes, because Rona no longer wants to buy the apartment.

Leta graduated from law school one year ago and is applying for admission to the bar. While in law school, Leta accumulated $150,000 of debt from law school loans and credit card expenses related to her wedding. Upon graduation, Leta turned down a high-paying job at a prestigious law firm, choosing instead to work for $12 per hour at a public interest organization that represents indigent people in consumer and bankruptcy cases. She plans a career in consumer credit and bankruptcy law. She hopes that her work at the organization will eventually lead to a full-time public service job. Accordingly, she has not been able to begin paying off her debt. One credit card company has obtained a judgment against her for $7.000. The state bar has denied her application for admission to the bar because it finds that her conduct with respect to her finances indicates that she is not fit to practice law. Is the state bar's positio

B. Yes, because a court could conclude that her conduct with respect to her personal finances indicates that she is not fit to practice law.

Eloise is a law professor in state B who maintains active licenses to practice law in states A and B. She has not practiced law in some time and does not plan to practice law in the near future. Eloise wrote and published a law review article in state B criticizing the criminal justice system in state A. The article includes long passages of plagiarized material, and includes some false statements about the law in state A. The disciplinary agency in state B is unable to decide whether the plagiarism and false statements were intentional, but it imposes a six-month suspension for this conduct. Is Eloise subject to discipline in state A? A. Yes, because many readers of the article are lawyers in state A, so the article has harmed the administration of justice in state A. B. Yes, because a lawyer may be disciplined by more than one state for a single act of misconduct. C. No, because a lawyer may be disciplined by only

B. Yes, because a lawyer may be disciplined by more than one state for a single act of misconduct.

Valladia, Inc., is a small, closely held corporation. Valladia and its president, Alan, are defendants in a civil action brought by a state attorney general who accuses both of them of fraud, based on the same facts and the same law. Both of them desire to be represented by Martha, an attorney. Martha will bill each defendant for services provided on behalf of that defendant. Martha reasonably believes that she could provide competent and diligent representation to both of them. Martha advises the board of directors of Valladia of all the foreseeable risks of the corporation being represented by the same attorney who is representing Alan, and she advises Alan of all of the foreseeable risks of being represented by the lawyer who is representing the board. Valladias board of directors votes to approve the representation, and Alan approves as well. Martha writes a letter to the corporation and to Alan noting that both

B. Yes, because both defendants gave informed consent to the joint representation.

Lucille, a criminal defense lawyer, receives a frantic call from Svlvia, who states that her sister, Basia, who recently immigrated from Poland, has been arrested by state police for a drug violation, and that the bail hearing will be held in less than two hours. She asks Lucille to represent Basia at the bail hearing and in her criminal case. Lucille hires Magda, a Polish-speaking interpreter, and rushes to the courthouse, where she is able to briefly meet with Basia and represent her at the bail hearing. The judge sets the bail at $2,000. Sylvia is able to pay the bail amount, and Basia is released from prison that night. The next day, Lucille meets with Basia, with Magda interpreting, and informs her that her rate for legal services is $300 per hour. She states that that rate will be used to calculate the bill for the work that Lucille did on the bail hearing, and for future work that she will do on the criminal c

B. Yes, because she did not communicate the expenses for which Basia will be responsible within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.

Attorney Maria is a divorce lawyer. Several months ago, Maria represented Jillian in her divorce from her husband, Jack. At that time, Maria charged her an hourly fee of $400 per hour. The judge granted the divorce and ordered Jack to pay her $1,000 per month child support. Recently, Jillian came to Maria seeking help, because Jack has not been paying the child support for the past 6 months. She would like Maria to help her get the $6,000 that Jack owes her. Maria wishes to charge Jillian a contingent fee of 30 percent of the recovery. She discloses the fee and expense terms and receives Jillian's informed consent in writing. May Maria charge the contingent fee? A. Yes, because Jillian is Maria's former client. B. Yes, because she obtained Jillian's consent in writing. C. No, because contingent fees are not permitted in domestic relations cases. D. No, because 30 percent is excessive because it will drain resources n

B. Yes, because she obtained Jillian's consent in writing.

Cindy, an indigent single mother of four, sought the help of Rona, an attorney, in filing an application for emergency food stamps. Rona agreed to help Cindy for a very low, fixed fee, which Cindy paid immediately. While the application is pending, Rona realizes that even if the application is approved, Cindy's family will go hungry, because the state's welfare benefits are so low. She wants to help Cindy by giving her $100 a month, for six months, out of her own funds. May she do so? A. Yes, because Cindy is indigent. B. Yes, because the financial assistance is not being offered in connection with litigation. C. No, because Cindy did not waive any potential conflict of interest in writing. D. No, because she did not terminate the representation before providing the assistance.

B. Yes, because the financial assistance is not being offered in connection with litigation.

Jennifer is a partner at a small law firm, and she has been practicing law for eight years. During that time, she has handled primarily trusts and estates cases. Recently, however, she has taken on a domestic relations case representing a woman named Eunice, who is seeking a divorce from her husband, Rudy. During this representation, Jennifer discovered some evidence that indicated that Rudy was sexually abusing Eunice's daughter. Eunice does not want Jennifer to report this to authorities, because she doesn't believe that it is true. Jennifer is not sure whether she has a duty to report the apparent child abuse to the state authorities pursuant to a state reporting statute. Nobody else in Jennifer's firm has any experience with family law. A friend of Jennifer, Isai, is an experienced domestic relations lawyer in a different law firm but is not her firm's ethics counsel. Jennifer has not talked with Eunice report th

B. Yes, because the purpose of the disclosure is to obtain advice about whether jennifer must report the child abuse.

In the course of representing Frostco, Inc, Caroline receives a visit from Mark, a Frostco employee. She explains at the outset that she represents Frostco, not Mark. He says he understands that but needs to tell her about a problem off the record! Mark says that the Sales contracts that Caroline prepared for Frostco over a period of years included fraudulent misrepresentations about the durability of the refrigerators that Frostco was selling to distributors. Mark provides Caroline with secret internal memos in which company officers acklowledged that the refrigerators have substandard compressors that will last for only a tenth of the useful life stated in the contracts. These defects will cause substantial financial losses to the distributors, because the refrigerators will not work without functioning compressors, and many buyers will sue for breach of warranty. Caroline knows that Frostco probably will not be ab

B. Yes, because the rules permit disclosure in these circumstances so that the distributors can try to recoup their losses.

Tandy is a practicing lawyer and adjunct law professor at Frostburg Law School, which is part of Frostburg University. Two Caucasian high school seniors have asked her to present them in their lawsuit against Frostburg University. They allege that Frostburg University did not admit them to the undergraduate program because of race discrimination. Specifically, they allege that students of color with similar test scores and grades were admitted to Frostburg University, while they were not. Tandy reasonably believes that she can competently and diligently represent the students in their lawsuit. She obtains informed consent, confirmed in writing, from both the students and the university. May Tandy represent the two students in their lawsuit? A. Yes, because the university gave informed consent, confirmed in writing. B. Yes, because the students gave informed consent, confirmed in writing. C. No, because the interests

B. Yes, because the students gave informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Attorney Ash is a solo practitioner specializing in serving small businesses. Ten years ago, Ash handled a routine health department license application for Sprinkles, a newly founded small family-owned bakery. Sprinkles is now known for its cupcakes. Death by Cupcake (DBC) is a bakery across town from Sprinkles that also specializes in cupcakes. DBC would like to hire Ash to represent them in negotiating a commercial lease to open a new bakery. As it happens, the property it wants to lease is across across the street from Sprinkles. The increased competition would significantly hurt Sprinkles business. May Ash accept the representation without obtaining Sprinkles' informed consent? A. Yes, because informed consent is not required when a prospective client and a former client are merely economic competitors. B. Yes, because the two matters are not substantially related. C. No, because BC and Sprinkles are economic co

B. Yes, because the two matters are not substantially related.

Use the facts from the previous question. Must Mira obtain Jose's informed consent before she can agree to represent Jose? A. Yes, because Jose's interests are directly adverse to Sally's. B. Yes, because there is a significant risk that Miras representation of Jose will be materially limited by her loyalty to Sally. C. No, because Jose's lawsuit is not substantially related to the breach of contract lawsuit against Rome's Own, Inc. D. No, because Joses interests are not materially adverse to Sallys.

B. Yes, because there is a significant risk that Miras representation of Jose will be materially limited by her loyalty to Sally.

Larry, the father of Linda, Abby, and Carl, died at age 87. His property was to be divided equally among his children. Louise, Larry's partner, is executor of the estate. Most of his property is in cash and stocks, but Larry also left his children a lakeside cabin. The three adult children decide that Carl should take the cabin and should pay his sisters one-third of its value each out of his share of the cash and stocks. The appraised value of the cabin is $225,000, but Carl urges that, for the purpose of the transfer, the cabin should be valued at $150,000, because he believes the appraised value is unrealistic and that he will soon have to replace the water and septic systems for the cabin, at considerable cost. After some discussion, Linda and Abby are willing to go along with their brother's suggestion as to the valuation of the cabin because they care more about their brother than they do about the money. The t

B. Yes, because there is no apparent conflict between the interests of the three siblings and he obtained their informed consent.