PR Quiz Questions
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 the case, that person's lawyer, and the judge.
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 a member of a bar association in another state.
A) By some states.
Which of these bodies sometimes exercise functions that are delegated or authorized by governmental institutions? A) State bar associations B) The American Law Institute C) Both A and B
A) State bar associations
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 company for a year and apply for jobs from there." Carla, who reasonably believes that Alice was providing correct legal advice, turns down the law firm job and returns to her home country. A few months later, she learns that Alice's advice was incorrect. The law firm could have sponsored her for a work visa. She tries to get the job back, but the firm informs her that it hired someone else and can no longer hire her. Alice's advice was negligent and was the cause of Carla's return to her home country and failure to get the job. Alice never signed a retainer, paid a fee, or otherwise agreed to be Carla's lawyer. Carla sues Alice for negligence. May a court grant judgment against Alice for malpractice? A) Yes, because Carla reasonably believed that Alice was providing correct legal advice. B) Yes, because a person whose only prior experience with a field of law was a summer job should not give legal advice in that field. C) No, because no consideration was given in exchange for the advice. D) No, because Carla knew that Alice was an environmental lawyer, not an immigration attorney.
A) Yes, because Carla reasonably believed that Alice was providing correct legal advice.
Carson is admitted to practice only in State A. State A had 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 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 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 representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by Denny against Betty or vice-versa. D) No, because Pavel's cross-examination of Betty is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.
A) Yes, because Denny's interests are directly adverse to Betty's.
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 Mayra's 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 anything wrong in Indiana. D) No, because Mayra's conduct had nothing to do with her work as a lawyer, and she has settled with her customers.
A) Yes, because Mayra's conduct involved dishonesty.
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 home, 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 staling occurred in Parnik's private life and was not related to the practice of law. D) No, because he was acquitted of the charges, so no criminal act has been proven.
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.
Carlos, a sole practitioner, represents Sharky Products, Inc., a property owner that disputes an 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 he only worked on Matthew's case for three hours. C) No, because his representation of Sharky is materially adverse to his former client. D) No, because Matthew is the president and sole owner of Berry's
A) Yes, because there is no substantial relationship between the two matters.
Attorney Kristin is a state prosecutor, and she is prosecuting Oliver Burson for the murder of his ex-wife. Before the trial begins, a reporter asks to interview Kristin for a television report. Which of the following statements would Kristin be well-advised NOT to make during the interview? A) "We are investigating the murder of Oliver Burson's ex-wife, Nina Richards." B) "Oliver Burson, who murdered his ex-wife, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." C) "Oliver Burson lives at 530 Orange Street." D) "Oliver Burson was arrested January 22nd."
B) "Oliver Burson, who murdered his ex-wife, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
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 Pablo's duties to the U.S. government and his duties to any current clients? A) Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 B) Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(a) C) Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(c) D) Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11
B) Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(a)
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 Dania's 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 case? A) Instruct Dania not to reveal to anyone in the law firm anything she learned about the case while she was at the SEC. B) Screen Dania from any participation in the matter, prevent her from receiving any extra pay related to the matter, and given written notice of the potential conflict to the SEC. C) Transfer Dania, while the litigation is pending, to a different office of the firm, in another city. D) Discharge Dania, because that is the only way in which the firm could both comply with the ethics rules and continue to represent its client.
B) Screen Dania from any participation in the matter, prevent her from receiving any extra pay related to the matter, and given written notice of the potential conflict to the SEC.
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 the 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 Grace's 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 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) Yes, because otherwise she might be blamed for the over-billing. B) Yes, because Arthur's conduct involves a violation of the rules that raises a substantial question as to his honesty. C) No, because she is contractually bound to report misconduct only to the managing partner in accordance with the firm's policy, and the managing partner has a duty to report the conduct to the bar authorities. D) No, because it is unlikely that she would be disciplined for failure to report Arthur's conduct, and if she does report the matter outside of the firm, the firm will fire her.
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 Barry's 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 in 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 did not actually acquire confidential information that is material to Ted's lawsuit while he was working at his old firm. C) No, because the matters are the same or substantially related. D) No, because Ted's interests are materially adverse to those of Pankos.
B) Yes, because Barry did not actually acquire confidential information that is material to Ted's lawsuit while he was working at his old firm.
Tax attorney Tammy represents client Lilian, who plans to buy several tickets to upcoming concerts using her student ID and then 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 the 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 Lilian's 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.
A judge at a judicial conference went for drinks at a bar with three other judges. Making his way back to the hotel on foot after several drinks, a drunken passerby approaches the judge and launches into an expletive-filled rant about the judge and the judge's family. The judge takes a swing at the passerby and misses, but they end up in a brawl. Is the judge subject to discipline? A) Yes, because the judges were drinking in public. B) Yes, because the judge acted in a manner that reflected adversely on his fitness and temperament. C) No, because this event occurred on the judge's personal time and was not related to his judicial duties. D) No, because the judge's actions were reasonable given the provocation.
B) Yes, because the judge acted in a manner that reflected adversely on his fitness and temperament.
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 represent 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 of the students are directly adverse to the interests of the University. D) No, because the University employs Tandy, so this representation would present a non-consentable conflict of interest for Tandy.
B) Yes, because the students gave informed consent, confirmed in writing.
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 similar issues and stated she also reported these. The non-response is worrisome. The company policy is to acknowledge receipt of any adverse reaction reports and to assure users that the company will report adverse reactions to the Food and Drug Administration as required by law. The research division would route any adverse reaction reports through the general counsel's office to the FDA, but no adverse reaction reports have been received or sent for Somalox. Jaiden schedules a meeting with Bertha, the chief of the research division. Jaiden shows her the correspondence sent to the general counsel's office by the two users and asks her to show him these and any other adverse reaction reports that the company has received. Bertha flushes and stammers in response to Jaiden's query. "I am afraid that I have let a few of these slip through the cracks. Since, you are the company's lawyer, I can speak to you in confidence, right? Am I in trouble, here?" In answering Bertha's questions, which of the following statements would Jaiden be best advised to make? A) "Our conversation is protected by attorney-client privilege, so you can talk with me in confidence." B) "You can speak to me in confidence, because you are an employee of Plenum, and therefore your interests are aligned with those of the company." C) "I represent Plenum, so I cannot give you any legal advice except the advice to get a lawyer." D) "I have to report anything that you tell me to the company's leadership, because I represent the company, but I can assure you that the information won't be shared outside of the company--for example, with law enforcement agencies."
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 beg 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 liabilities. The government believes that the securities are unlawful tax shelters and issues a subpoena to the lawyer, seeking the names of the clients.
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 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 and Rocky can be compelled to testify about the communication. D) Neither Benjamin nor Rocky can be compelled to testify about the communication.
C) Benjamin and Rocky can be compelled to testify about the communication.
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 reveals the information, he is impeding the state's investigation of Ethan's disappearance. C) No, because Alberto obtained this information in the course of representing Chad. D) No, because Alberto does not have objective evidence indicating that Chad killed or buried Ethan
C) No, because Alberto obtained this information in the course of representing Chad.
Attorney Dahia 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 misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to six months. The product was applied only once, and 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. Stefan agrees to stop using the product but refuses to report his past use to the police. Dahlia then withdraws from representation of Stefan and reports Stefan's use of PestOFF to the police. Is Dahlia subject to discipline for reporting Stefan's use of PestOFF to the police? A) Yes, because she knew of no potential harm to a person from the use of PestOFF B) Yes, because her duty to protect Stefan's confidences continued even after she terminated her representation. C) No, because Dahlia's disclosure is permitted under these circumstances. D) No, because by using PestOFF, Stefan committed a crime.
C) No, because Dahlia's disclosure is permitted under these circumstances.
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 accepted the case. He does not tell Ida that he has no experience in negligence work and has not handled a trial. He wishes that he knew a lawyer who was experienced in handling cases of this sort whom he could consult, but unfortunately, he does not have such a contact. He studies the relevant law and procedure. He performs will 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 practice law in the state and may therefore accept any litigated matter in the state.
C) No, because he studied the relevant law and procedure and performed well.
Tomas, an attorney, represents the IWT Corporation, which fired a woman named Celinda. IWT claims that Celinda's written work was sloppy. Celinda claims that IWT simply wanted to give the job to a younger person. She wants her job back or a substantial cash settlement. Pursuant to a clause in Celinda's employment contract, her dispute had to be resolved through arbitration. While the arbitration proceeding was pending, IWT's general counsel read the emails that Celinda had sent to Tomas through the company's email system, from the time that Celinda received notice that she was being fired until a month later, when she actually departed. IWT's 250-page office handbook, a copy of which was given to Celinda two years ago, says on page 138 that the e-mail system belongs to the company and that information sent over the system may be read or disclosed by company officials. One of Celinda's emails said, "I know that my work isn't as good as it used to be, and that I have been making a lot of mistakes this year. So maybe they do have good reason to fire me after all." IWT's general counsel sent a copy of this email to Tomas. Tomas did not tell Celinda's lawyer that he had a copy of the email, planning to use it to surprise her during the arbitration proceeding. Is Tomas subject to discipline? A) Yes, because this document consisted of electronically stored information relating to the representation and he therefore had a duty to notify Celinda, the sender, or her attorney. B) Yes, because Celinda's communications with her lawyer were privileged. C) No, because no ethics rule requires this disclosure, even if litigation or arbitration is pending. D) No, because the matter is in arbitration and the disclosure would be required if litigation were pending.
C) No, because no ethics rule requires this disclosure, even if litigation or arbitration is pending.
Which one of the following statements listed below 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.
Attorney Moira represents defendant Oleg in a murder trial. The police discovered the victim's body in a ditch and found Oleg's 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 this trial. What is Moira's 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 that she will have an obligation not to reveal the information. D) Do not reveal the information and do not tell Oleg's son that she is aware of his confession to his father.
D) Do not reveal the information and do not tell Oleg's son that she is aware of his confession to his father.
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 would be helpful to Celia.
D) No, because Armand would normally have obtained information in the divorce case that would be helpful to Celia.
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 give Ann a cashier's check for the portion of the $5000 that would have been paid to her if the court had ordered Grant to repay the $5000. May she do so if she avoids making any false statement about the source of the funds? A) Yes, because this would give Ann the amount she would have expected to obtain as a result of the lawsuit. B) Yes, because she would be doing the right thing without engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. C) No, because she is required to report her misconduct to the disciplinary authorities. D) No, because Jill is required to tell Ann that she missed the deadline and that the case was dismissed.
D) No, because Jill is required to tell Ann that she missed the deadline and that the case was dismissed.
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 a 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 anyways. 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 Laurel's case is civil. C) No, because the representation would involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation. 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.
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 not conflict of interest, and he does not intend to advise Blaine that he should get a different lawyer, because any other lawyer would charge a substantial fee to Blaine. May Abdul represent Blaine in this litigation? A) Yes, because he is not going to charge a fee. B) Yes, because he is obtaining written approval from the Department of Labor C) No, because he does not plan to advise Blaine about the possibility of obtaining a different lawyer. D) No, because a federal employee may not represent an unrelated client in a claim against the United States.
D) No, because a federal employee may not represent an unrelated client in a claim against the United States.
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 Amaronet. A study recently published in Germany found that 1 in 20 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 stopped taking it four years ago. These two patients do not know about the recent research on Amaronset or that Eloise died from a brain tumor. Blake refuses to inform these patients about the research or about Eloise's death, because he does not want to open himself up to further liability. Mosi reasonably believes that it is not reasonably certain that Blake's other two patients are at risk of death or substantial bodily harm. Does Mosi have the discretion to reveal this information to Blake's other patients? A) Yes, because failure to do so would involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. B) Yes, because Mosi may disclose to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by Blake. C) No, because Mosi is required to disclose the information to Blake's other affected patients. D) No, because even if the two patients might have tumors, Mosi must keep this information confidential.
D) No, because even if the two patients might have tumors, Mosi must keep this information confidential.
Maude, a lawyer, was retained by Anya. Anya lives in an assisted-living building for elderly persons. Anya noticed that many residents of the building were contracting respiratory infections. Anya has noticed that the ceiling tiles by some of the air vents in her apartment have turned black, an indicator of mold in the HVAC system. She suspected that Warner Management, Inc., which was running the building, was cutting costs, and had not been servicing the air conditioning and heating systems often enough. Regular servicing and changing the filters quarterly is necessary to maintain clean indoor air. Maude wants to question Xavier, the Warner employee who services the heating and air conditioning systems and changes the filters in Anya's building. Under the substantive law of the jurisdiction, if Xavier reveals that he failed to service the system or change the filters regularly, Warner Management could be liable for his negligence on the theory of respondeat superior. Maude knows that Warner is represented by attorney Peter in all matters related to Anya's building. Maude is planning to tell Xavier that she represents Anya but is not planning to tell him that he has a right to consult with counsel of his choice. Also, she does not plan to ask Peter's permission to question Xavier, or even to notify Peter that she is interviewing him. May she question Xavier without getting Peter's permission? A) Yes, because a lawyer may always interview the employee of a corporation that is an adversary of her client. B) Yes, because Xavier is not an officer or director of Warner or a member of Warner's management group. C) No, because while Maude should notify Peter before interviewing Xavier, she does not need his permission to conduct the interview. D) No, because his failure to change the filters often enough could be imputed to the organization for the purpose of civil liability.
D) No, because his failure to change the filters often enough could be imputed to the organization for the purpose of civil liability.
Hamilton, a lawyer, represents Surety, Inc., an automobile insurance company that insures rental car companies. Lee was seriously injured when the brakes on his rental car failed. Through his lawyer, Esther, Lee sued the rental car company, and pursuant to his agreement with Surety, Hamilton represented the defendant in the lawsuit. Surety's investigation revealed that the brakes were faulty and the rental car company is therefore liable. Hamilton knew that Esther had not done her own forensic investigation of the brakes. Surety authorized Hamilton to offer Lee up to $500,000 to settle the suit. When Esther and Hamilton met to explore whether a negotiated settlement was possible, Esther said her client was willing to accept a settlement of $400,000. Hamilton said "I know that my client won't pay a penny more than $300,000." Is Hamilton subject to discipline for lying to Ester? A) Yes, because a lawyer may not make a false statement of material fact to a third person. B) Yes, because lawyers may not make false statements about how much a client is willing to offer in settlement. C) No, because lawyers are permitted to make false statements to other lawyers, provided that the statements are not made under oath or in the course of a proceeding. D) No, because lawyers are allowed to make false statements about a client's intentions regarding an acceptable settlement.
D) No, because lawyers are allowed to make false statements about a client's intentions regarding an acceptable settlement.
Attorney Lilith represents Opal in a custody case against Opal's ex-husband, Claude. Lilith knows that Claude is represented by another lawyer, Oscar. Claude enters Lilith's office one day and tells her that he wants to speak with her about Opal's treatment of their children. Lilith says, "As you know, Oscar represents you in this matter." Claude says, "I know that, but I want to talk to you anyway." May Lilith allow Claude to continue? A) Yes, because she did not initiate the conversation; Claude did. B) Yes, because she has obtained Claude's oral consent after reminding him that he was represented by Oscar. C) No, because she did not obtain Claude's written consent. D) No, because she does not have consent from Claude's lawyer.
D) No, because she does not have consent from Claude's lawyer.
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 this trial. Is her refusal proper? A) Yes, because her belief that Carl is lying is reasonable. B) Yes, because she believes that Carl is lying, and the reasonableness of her belief is not relevant. C) No, because she was required first to counsel Carl that he should tell the truth in court, and she could only refuse to allow him to testify that he was at dinner with his mother if he persisted in doing so after this caution. D) No, because she does not know for sure that Carl is lying.
D) No, because she does not know for sure that Carl is lying.
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 the two are alleged to have had relatively equal roles in the burglary, but 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 permitting the joint representation, but Meyer declines to seek such an order because he believes that he can provide competent and diligent representation to both defendants. May Meyer represent both defendants if each gives informed consent to the joint representation, confirmed in writing? A) Yes, because both clients have provided consent confirmed in writing. B) Yes, because the charges arise out of a single incident. C) No, because Meyer did not seek an order from the judge allowing the joint representation. D) No, because the joint representation presents a non-consentable conflict.
D) No, because the joint representation presents a non-consentable conflict.
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 obtained Franklin's informed consent before agreeing to represent Samuel? A) Yes, because Samuel's interests are directly adverse to Franklin's. B) Yes, because Darla cannot reasonably believe that she can competently and diligently represent both Franklin and Samuel. C) No, because the child support claim is unrelated to the class action lawsuit. D) No, because unnamed members of a class are ordinarily not considered to be clients of the lawyer for conflicts purposes.
D) No, because unnamed members of a class are ordinarily not considered to be clients of the lawyer for conflicts purposes.
T/F: A lawyer may not include a clause in her retainer agreement mandating arbitration for disputes arising between the lawyer and the client, unless the client is independently represented by an attorney when making the agreement.
False
T/F: Assume that you are a Lawyer who has a trust and estates practice. One of your long-time clients is an 85 year-old widow, who lives in a beautiful Victorian home. One day the client comes to your office and states that you have been like the child that she never had and asks you to draft a codicil to her will to leave her house to you when she dies. As long as you did not fraudulently induce her to leave you the house, you may draft the codicil that she is requesting.
False
T/F: Assume that you are in private practice, working mainly in the area of estates and trusts, with little to no litigation experience. A prospective client asks if you will represent her in a suit against her former employer for wrongful discharge. You choose not to accept the matter and will not do any work on the matter, but instead will refer it your friend, Samantha, who has a plaintiff's employment law practice. You and Samantha enter into a referral fee agreement that states that she will pay you ten percent of any fee that she earns. No other action on the referral fee is taken. This referral fee agreement is allowed under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
False
T/F: A lawyer may settle a claim for malpractice with a client or former client, who does not have separate counsel, as long as the lawyer advises that client, in writing, of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel, and the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel.
True
T/F: An attorney can write a retainer agreement asking a client to waive his right to sue the lawyer for malpractice, as long as the client is represented by another lawyer in making the agreement to prospectively waive liability?
True
T/F: Assume that you are a Lawyer representing a criminal defendant who is accused of using his fortune to murder, and hire people to murder, drug dealers. The media has dubbed your client the "Guardian Devil" because it is believed that he is responsible for the murder of over fifty drug dealers who were selling drugs to children. Your client tells you that his family has taken steps to limit his access to the family fortune and that he is concerned about paying your fee. In exchange for your representation, he offers to give you the literary rights to his story (which has remained untold). Knowing that you would have represented him for free given the publicity that the trial will provide you and your firm, you draft and execute this agreement. This agreement violates the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
True
T/F: Lawyer has a Client who has limited disposable income and may not be able to pay the legal fees that the Lawyer earns in his representation of the Client in a breach of contract matter. Lawyer would like to have the Client sign an agreement that would give the Lawyer a lien on the Client's summer cottage, if the Client is unable to pay her legal bill. Such a lien would prevent the Client from selling the cottage, the Lawyer could execute against the cottage if the Lawyer successfully sued the client for the Lawyer's earned fee, and the Lawyer would have priority over other creditors if the Client becomes bankrupt. Such a lien is legally permissible in the governing jurisdiction. Lawyer cannot enter into such an agreement unless Lawyer meets all of the requirements of Rule 1.8(a).
True
