MPRE Review Questions

Judge Juanita and Poppy, a distant cousin, vacation together twice a year and see each other socially nearly every weekend. Poppy appears as a party in a lawsuit in Judge Juanita's courtroom. Must Judge Juanita disqualify herself? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes Judge Juanita must disqualify herself from hearing the case. Although Poppy is not within the degree of relationship that would require the judge to disqualify herself on that basis, she does qualify as a close friend. A close personal relationship of this kind is a reasonable ground to believe that the judge has a personal bias concerning a party, and the judge must disqualify herself.

A lawyer who Judge Javier mentored before Judge Javier was appointed to the bench appears as a lawyer in a case in Judge Javier's courtroom. Must Judge Javier disqualify himself? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes Judge Javier must disqualify himself from the case. A judge must disqualify himself if there is a reasonable ground to believe that the judge has a personal bias concerning a party or a party's lawyer. Here, it would be reasonable to believe that Judge Javier would have a personal bias in favor of the lawyer with whom he shared a mentor-protege relationship, and he must disqualify himself

Jackson is representing a client in a lawsuit against TruckCo, which is represented by in-house counsel. The lawsuit arose out of an incident in which Vance, one of TruckCo's drivers, ran over Jackson's client with a company truck. Jackson believes that TruckCo's corporate culture encouraged Vance to drive recklessly, and he wants to interview: (1) TruckCo's president, (2) Vance, (3) other current TruckCo drivers, and (4) former TruckCo drivers. Who may Jackson properly contact without the consent of TruckCo's counsel? Select all that apply. (1) TruckCo's president (2) Vance (3) Other current TruckCo drivers (4) Former TruckCo drivers

(3) Other current TruckCo drivers (4) Former TruckCo drivers The rule against contacting represented persons also applies to represented organizations; but it prohibits contact only with certain employees and other constituents of the organization. A lawyer has to get the consent of the organization's counsel before communicating with: (i) a person who supervises, directs, or regularly consults with the organization's lawyer about the matter at hand; (ii) a person whose conduct may be imputed to the organization for purposes of criminal or civil liability; or (iii) a person who has authority to obligate the organization concerning the matter Category (ii) would include Vance because his alleged wrongdoing is the basis of the lawsuit, so Jackson can't contact Vance Category (iii) would include TruckCo's president. She is a high-ranking official with authority to obligate TruckCo with respect to the matter, so Jackson can't contact her. TruckCo's other current drivers don't fall within any of these three categories, so Jackson may properly contact them. Similarly, consent is not needed before talking to a former constituent of the organization, so Jackson may talk to former TruckCo drivers. However, when talking with either a present or former constituent, a lawyer must take care not to violate the organization's legal rights, such as the attorney-client privilege. For example, Jackson must not ask these drivers about confidential communications they may have had with TruckCo's counsel.

A lawyer would be subject to discipline for having their nonlawyer employee do which of the following? Select all that apply. - Negotiate a settlement for a client - Interview a client without the lawyer present - Research and draft a motion for the lawyer's review - Appear in court on a client's behalf - Advise a client on the legal consequences of what they intend to do

- Negotiate a settlement for a client - Appear in court on a client's behalf - Advise a client on the legal consequences of what they intend to do A nonlawyer may interview clients, do legal research, and draft documents with proper supervision.

Miko is a judge whose 17-year-old son is preparing to leave home. Her son was offered an internship with a tech startup beginning after high school graduation. He accepted the position but told Miko his plans were "a surprise." On Monday morning, Miko learns that she will be presiding over a highly publicized fraud case against the same startup. Her son tells her about the internship that night. Must Miko disqualify herself from the case? A. No, because Miko would receive no direct economic benefit from the matter B. No, because Miko was unaware of her son's connection to the party C. Yes, because Miko's son has an economic interest in the matter

(C) is correct. A judge must disqualify herself in a proceeding if she knows that she--or her spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child--has an economic interest in the matter or in one of the parties. (A) is wrong because this is not limited to a judge's direct economic benefit. Rather, the test is whether the economic interest raises a reasonable question regarding the judge's impartiality. (B) is wrong because a judge must make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the economic interests of her spouse, domestic partner, and any minor children residing in her household.

Aidan participates in a "quick advice hotline" sponsored by a local nonprofit organization. He properly obtains each caller's informed consent to the limited scope of the representation. For what actions will Aidan be subject to discipline? Select all that apply. (i) Aidan gives incompetent advice to Cassidy (ii) Aiden gives advice to Noah, whom he recognizes as one of his neighbors, and then tells another neighbor about Noah's legal problem (iii) Aidan gives advice to Logan, not realizing that Logan is an opposing party in one of his pending cases for a different client (iv) Aidan gives advice to Josiah, knowing that a different attorney at his firm is representing a client against Josiah in a different case

(i) Aidan gives incompetent advice to Cassidy (ii) Aiden gives advice to Noah, whom he recognizes as one of his neighbors, and then tells another neighbor about Noah's legal problem (iv) Aidan gives advice to Josiah, knowing that a different attorney at his firm is representing a client against Josiah in a different case A lawyer may participate in a limited legal services program (i.e., quick advice program) sponsored by a court or nonprofit organization. The rules of professional conduct apply in this situation, except that the conflicts of interest rules are relaxed somewhat. Aidan will be subject to discipline for violating his duties of competence (for giving Cassidy incompetent advice) and confidentiality (for disclosing information about Noah's case to the neighbor). A lawyer who participates in a quick-advice program ordinarily has no time to conduct an ordinary conflict of interest check, so the general rules for current-client conflicts and former-client conflicts don't apply unless the lawyer actually knows that giving the quick advice creates a conflict of interest. Aidan knew he had a conflict when he gave advice to Josiah, so he will be subject to discipline (recall that even though Aidan's partner was representing the client against Josiah, that conflict was imputed to Aidan). However, Aidan will not be subject to discipline for giving advice to Logan because he didn't realize there was a conflict. (But not that if Aidan's relationship with Logan continued past the quick-advice stage, the conflicts rules would apply to that further service.)

Mindy is a criminal defense lawyer. Judge Gonzalez appoints Mindy to defend Samantha in a murder case. Which grounds likely constitute "good cause" for seeking to avoid the appointment? Select all that apply. (i) Mindy has a severe illness affecting her ability to handle caseload (ii) The case would take a great deal of Mindy's time and impose an unreasonable financial burden on her (iii) Mindy believes that Samantha is guilty (iv) Mindy represents another client in a pending lawsuit against Samantha, and that client refuses to give consent to Mindy representing Samantha (v) Mindy strongly disapproves of violence.

(i) Mindy has a severe illness affecting her ability to handle caseload (ii) The case would take a great deal of Mindy's time and impose an unreasonable financial burden on her (iv) Mindy represents another client in a pending lawsuit against Samantha, and that client refuses to give consent to Mindy representing Samantha A lawyer must not seek to avoid such an appointment except for good cause. One example of good cause is when representing the client would require the lawyer to violate a law or disciplinary rule, in which case the lawyer must decline the appointment. Mindy's severe illness is good cause because the rules of professional conduct require a lawyer to decline or withdraw from a case if their physical or mental condition materially impairs their ability to represent the client. Additionally, Mindy has an unwaivable conflict of interest with another current client, so representing Samantha in that situation would violate the rules of professional conduct. Another example of "good cause" is where accepting the appointment would impose an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer, so Mindy can seek to avoid the appointment on that basis. Finally, a lawyer may seek to be excused from a court appointment if ht lawyer finds the client or the cause so repugnant that the lawyer-client relationship would be impaired or the lawyer could not represent the client effectively. For example, if Samantha's alleged crime was similar to a traumatic event from Mindy's past, Mindy could properly seek to avoid the appointment. However, Mindy's belief that Samantha is guilty and her strong disapproval of violence probably do not rise to the level of good cause. A lawyer can effectively represent a criminal defendant while believing she is guilty, and most people disapprove of violence--these considerations are not unique to Samantha's case.

Tia is an attorney planning a grassroots run for judicial office, with her best friend Theo volunteering as her campaign manager. Theo sets out several strategies to start funding the campaign. Which statements are correct under the CJC? (i) Tia can ask friends and colleagues to donate what they can (ii) Tia can update Theo on campaign contribution limits in her state (iii) Tia can give any contributions she receives to Theo directly for investment in the campaign (iv) Theo must reject campaign contributions from lawyers who may appear before Tia if Tia is elected (v) Theo can use campaign funds to print bumper stickers for supporters (vi) Theo can appear at a fundraiser that Theo coordinates and oversees (vii) Theo can host a free meet-and-greet in the courthouse after business hours

(ii) Tia can update Theo on campaign contribution limits in her state (v) Theo can use campaign funds to print bumper stickers for supporters (vi) Theo can appear at a fundraiser that Theo coordinates and oversees Tia updating Theo on campaign contribution limits, Theo purchasing bumper stickers for supporters, and Tia appearing at a fundraiser coordinated by Theo are permitted under the Rules. Tia asking friends for donations and giving funds to Theo for investment in the campaign are improper because a judge or judicial candidate must not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions. Rather, a judicial candidate running in a public election may establish a campaign committee to manage and conduct her campaign. The candidate is responsible for ensuring that her committee complies with the CJC and applicable fundraising laws and must direct the committee not to solicit or accept donations above contribution limits. Therefore, it is proper for Tia to update Theo on campaign contribution limits. It is proper for a campaign committee to accept reasonable campaign contributions from lawyers who may appear before the candidate if the candidate is successful. The candidate should, however, instruct her campaign committee to be especially cautious in connection with such contributions, so they don't create grounds for disqualification if the candidate is elected. Purchasing bumper stickers is a permitted use of campaign funds. A campaign committee may coordinate a candidate fundraiser or meet-and-greet, so it would be proper for Tia to appear at Theo's fundraiser. However, the Rules prohibit the use of court staff, facilities, or other court resources in a judicial campaign, so it would be improper for Theo to use the courthouse for a meet-and-greet.

Greg is representing Jolene in an attempted murder case. Jolene is currently out on bail awaiting trial. Which of the following public statements are proper? Select all that apply - After leaving a pretrial hearing, Greg states how the judge ruled on a particular motion - Liz, a partner at Greg's firm, states that the victim is known to be a very violent person - Greg states that Jolene passed a lie detector test - Greg responds to the prosecutor's assertion that Jolene was "missing and on the run" by stating that Jolene was home the entire time and her ankle monitor had simply malfunctioned - Greg states when and where Jolene was arrested

- After leaving a pretrial hearing, Greg states how the judge ruled on a particular motion - Greg responds to the prosecutor's assertion that Jolene was "missing and on the run" by stating that Jolene was home the entire time and her ankle monitor had simply malfunctioned - Greg states when and where Jolene was arrested A lawyer connected with an investigation or litigation of a matter must not make a public statement outside the courtroom that the lawyer reasonably should know would have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the case. For example, the lawyer must not discuss the character or credibility of a party or witness, the performance results of an examination, the possibility of a guilty plea, or the existence or contents of a confession. The statement about the lie detector test is prohibited b because it involves the results of an examination The rule above applies equally to other lawyers who are associated in a law firm or agency with the lawyers participating in the case. Therefore, Liz's statement about the victim's violent character is prohibited because she is associated in a firm with Greg. Notwithstanding the general rule against prejudicial statements, a lawyer connected with the case may publicly state certain "dry facts" about the case. These include, among other things, the scheduling or result of any step in litigation (such as how the judge rule on a motion), any matter contained in a public record, the time and place of a criminal defendant's arrest, and so on. A lawyer can also make a public statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect the client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. The statement about Jolene's ankle monitor problem is permitted because Greg has a right to reply to the prosecutor's assertion about Jolene.

Select the TWO conflict situations where the client must provide informed consent in a SIGNED writing: - Direct adversity exists - Representing co-parties in teh same case - Business transactions with client - Third party paying client's legal fees - Aggregate settlement agreements

- Business transactions with client - Aggregate settlement agreements Business transactions with clients and aggregate settlement agreements require informed consent in a writing that the client signs.

Which of the following actions would violate the rules of professional conduct? Select all that apply - During a court recess, discussing last night's football game with a juror after the juror started the conversation - Interviewing a willing juror in good faith after the jury has been discharged - Googling a prospective juror - Sending a paralegal to ask a juror what they think about the case so far

- During a court recess, discussing last night's football game with a juror after the juror started the conversation - Sending a paralegal to ask a juror what they think about the case so far Discussing a football game with a juror violates the rules. A lawyer connected with a case must not communicate (outside of official proceedings) with a juror or member of the panel from which the jurors will be chosen. This rule forbids communication on any subject--even a football game. It doesn't matter who initiates teh communication. If a juror or prospective juror attempts to communicate with the lawyer, the lawyer must refuse. Interviewing a willing juror after the jury has been discharged doesn't violate the rules. After the trial is over and the jury is discharged, a lawyer is allowed to communicate with a juror or prospective juror. The contact is prohibited though if any of the following conditions are met: (i) local law or a court order prohibits such communication, (ii) the juror has told the lawyer that he doesn't want to communicate; or (iii) the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, or harassment. It isn't improper for a lawyer to investigate members of a jury panel to determine their backgrounds and the existence of any factors that would be grounds for a challenge (e.g., bias, relationship to a party). Such an investigation must be done discretely and can't involve contact with the prospective juror or, in most cases, her family. Thus, "Googling" a prospective juror doesn't violate the rules (but sending a "friend request" would be prohibited). Sending a paralegal to talk to a juror violates the rules. A lawyer must not use another person to violate the rules of professional conduct. Because a lawyer isn't permitted to speak with a juror during the case, it follows that the lawyer can't send an agent to talk to the juror.

Which of the following arrangements in connection with pending or contemplated litigation are proper? Select all that apply. - Paying an indigent client's expert witness fees outright, without any provision for repayment - Paying a non-indigent client's court costs outright, without any provision for repayment - Advancing a non-indigent client's court reporter fees, and telling the client that they do not have to repay the money if they lose their case - When representing an indigent client pro bono, loaning the client $10,000 so they can buy a car

- Paying an indigent client's expert witness fees outright, without any provision for repayment - Advancing a non-indigent client's court reporter fees, and telling the client that they do not have to repay the money if they lose their case A lawyer must not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation. This includes gifts, loans, and even guaranteeing a third party's loan to the client. There are three exceptions to this rule. First, a lawyer may advance court costs and other litigation expenses on any client's behalf, and repayment may be contingent on the outcome of the case. Thus, it would be proper to advance a non-indigent client's court reporter fees and forgive repayment if the client loses. Second, a lawyer may simply pay the court costs and litigation expenses for an indigent client, without any provision for repayment, so it would be proper to pay an indigent client's expert witness fees outright. Third, a lawyer who is representing an indigent client pro bono can provide the client with modest gifts for basic living expenses. If the client is not indigent, the lawyer may only advance the expenses (although, as stated, repayment may be contingent on the outcome). Thus, it would be improper to pay a non-indigent client's court costs outright. It would also be improper to loan an indigent client $10,000 for a car. The third exception provides that when representing an indigent client pro bono, the lawyer can provide modest gifts to the client for basic living expenses. However, this exception allows the lawyer to give gifts, not loans. Additionally, even if this were a gift, it would not constitute a "modest" gift. The pro bono exception is meant to allow lawyers to help their clients with basic necessities, such as by purchasing groceries or providing the client with money for a ride home.

Two lawyers from different law firms want to work together on a matter for a client. Which of the following are ALWAYS required for a proper fee splitting arrangement between lawyers at different firms? Select all that apply. - The client must agree to the split in writing - The client must. be informed of the share each lawyer will receive - The total fee must be reasonable - The split must be in proportion to the services provided by each lawyer

- The client must agree to the split in writing - The total fee must be reasonable Lawyers from different firms can agree to split a fee if: (i) the split is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer, OR some different proportion if each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the matter; (ii) the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the client's agreement is confirmed in writing; and (iii) the total fee is reasonable. Thus, the split need not be in proportion to each lawyer's services if each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the matter.

Valerie meets with her attorney, Anissa, to discuss a tax matter. Valerie's accountant was present to help explain Valerie's finances, Valerie's friend was present because they had dinner plans after the meeting, and Anissa's secretary was present to take notes. The presence of which of the following people will defeat the attorney-client privilege? Select all that apply - The accountant - The secretary - The friend - None, because all parties are associated with either Valerie or Anissa

- The friend To be covered by the attorney-client privilege, a communication must be "confidential"; it must have been made by a means not intended to disclose the communicated information to outsiders, and the communicating person must reasonably believe that no one except a privileged person will hear the contents of the statement. However, the presence of a third party will not destroy the confidentiality if the third party was present to help further the attorney-client relationship. The accountant and the secretary were there for that purpose, but the friend was not. Therefore, the privilege was destroyed.

What is USUALLY NOT privileged? Select all that apply: - An authenticated e-mail exchange between a lawyer and client - The client's admission to the lawyer that he committed the crime - The identity of the client - Information about the fee arrangement

- The identity of the client - Information about the fee arrangement Usually the attorney-client privilege doesn't cover the mechanical details of the attorney-client relationship, such as the identity of the client, the fee arrangement between the attorney and client, and the bare fact that the attorney is acting for the client. Note, however, that this information is privileged if disclosure would be tantamount to revealing a privileged communication. For example, if the client admitted to his attorney that he was involved in a hit-and-run accident and asked the attorney not to reveal his identity, the privilege applies.

Theo is representing Jessica in the sale of her condo. During negotiations, prospective buyer Penny admires the view of the lake from the window and explains that it is the main reason she is interested in the condo. Theo knows that construction of a large building is going to start next month and will almost completely block the view of the lake. He says, "Yep, it's a once in a lifetime view." Is Theo subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he misrepresented the facts to Penny B. No, because he had no duty to volunteer harmful facts to Penny

- Yes, because he misrepresented the facts to Penny When dealing on behalf of a client with a third person, a lawyer must not knowingly make a false statement of law or material fact. Although a lawyer generally has no duty to volunteer harmful facts, the lawyer can't misrepresent the facts. A misrepresentation can occur when the lawyer makes a statement knowing that it is false, when the lawyer affirms or incorporates a statement knowing that it is false, when the lawyer states something that is partly true but misleading, or in some contexts when the lawyer fails to speak or act. Theo clearly misrepresented the facts to Penny in this situation

Even with client consent, a lawyer litigating a matter for a client must not assert a claim against another client whom the lawyer represents: A. In the same litigation B. In the same litigation or in an unrelated matter

A. In the same litigation Even with client consent, a lawyer must not assert a claim on behalf of one client against another client represented by that lawyer in the same litigation (or other proceeding before a tribunal). In contrast, if the lawyer represents the second client in unrelated matters only, the conflict may be waivable.

Julio represents Sarah in an attempted murder case. The prosecution offers a plea deal that would require Sarah to serve five years in jail. Julio strongly believes Sarah will be acquitted at trial, and explains this to her, but she tells him she does not want to risk ending up with the maximum sentence of 30 years. What should Julio do? A. Abide by Sarah's decision B. Act in Sarah's best interests and reject the deal C. Take protective action, because Sarah is at risk of substantial harm in prison.

A. Abide by Sarah's decision A lawyer must abide by the client's decision with regard to certain substantive matters in the case, including pleas. Sarah has decided to accept the plea agreement after consultation with Julio, and he must accept her decision, even if he doesn't believe it's in her best interests. Thus, (A) is correct and (B) is wrong. (C) is wrong because it refers to a lawyer's duty when a client has diminished capacity, and there is no indication that Sarah has diminished capacity.

A lawyer's duty to rectify false evidence: A. Ends when a final judgment has been affirmed on appeal or the time for appeal has expired. B. Ends when the final judgment has been entered, regardless of a possible appeal C. Ends when the client dies D. Is perpetual

A. Ends when a final judgment has been affirmed on appeal or the time for appeal has expired The duty to rectify false evidence continues until the end of the proceedings, which means when a final judgment has been affirmed on appeal or the time for appeal has expired.

William wants Lena to represent him in the sale of his home to Peter. Lena represents Peter in an unrelated matter. Lena reasonably believes that she can competently and diligently represent them both in their respective matters. What must Lena do before undertaking the representation of William? A. Get informed consent, confirmed in writing, from both William and Peter B. Nothing, because this is a transactional matter C. Nothing, because Lena represents Peter in unrelated matters

A. Get informed consent, confirmed in writing, from both William and Peter Direct adversity exists when a lawyer represents one client in a matter adverse to another current client, even where the lawyer represents the clients in unrelated matters. This is true in both litigation and transactional matters. Thus, Lena must address the conflict by obtaining informed consent, confirmed in writing, from both Peter and William.

Lawrence represents Ophelia in a breach of contract case. At trial, Lawrence offers various documents supporting Ophelia's case. Later, the opponent discovers that Ophelia forged the documents. Under what circumstances will Lawrence be subject to discipline for offering false evidence? A. If he knew the evidence was false B. If he knew or reasonably believed the evidence was false C. If he knew the evidence was false, reasonably believed the evidence was false, or negligently failed to investigate the integrity of the evidence.

A. If he knew the evidence was false A lawyer is subject to discipline for knowingly offering false evidence. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes to be false (except for the testimony of a criminal defendant) but will not be subject to discipline if he offers the evidence. Finally, a negligent failure to investigate the evidence will not result in discipline.

Jackie agrees to defend Boris in a traffic case. Boris gives Jackie $1,000 as an advance against fees and expenses. Where can Jackie put the money? A. In the client trust account B. In her office account C. Anywhere, with Boris's consent

A. In the client trust account Funds that are advanced by the client must be placed into the client trust account, to be withdrawn as the fees are earned and the expenses are incurred. The client cannot consent to placing the funds in the office account.

Darby, an author, hires Lee to represent her in contract negotiations with a publisher. Darby eventually stops paying Lee's bills, in violation of their fee agreement. Lee warns her that he will withdraw if she doesn't start making payments, but she refuses. Even though the negotiations are at a critical point, Lee withdraws. Darby is forced to find a new lawyer and start the process again. Is Lee subject to discipline? A. No, because he had good cause to withdraw B. Yes, because he withdrew knowing it would have material adverse effect on Darby's interests

A. No, because he had good cause to withdraw A lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if the client substantially fails to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer (paying their legal bills for example) and has been warned that the lawyer will withdraw unless it's fulfilled. This was the case here, so Lee had good cause to withdraw. Another permissive ground for withdrawal is when it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client. This ground is independent of any other ground for withdrawal. In other words, a lawyer may withdraw for any reason if it wouldn't materially harm the client's interests, but, if another permissive ground is present, the lawyer may withdraw even if it would materially harm the client's interests.

Joelle represented Simon in a drunk driving trial. Simon was convicted, and his license was suspended. After the verdict, Simon was very emotional and did not want to talk to Joelle. Joelle is unsure as to whether Simon wants to file an appeal, but she does not want to continue working with Simon, so she sends him his final bill and moves on. Were Joelle's actions proper? A. No, because she failed to consult with Simon about an appeal B. Yes, because the trial had concluded

A. No, because she failed to consult with Simon about an appeal As part of the duty of diligence, a lawyer generally must see each matter through to completion (unless, of course, the lawyer is fired or is required or permitted to withdraw). If there's doubt about whether the lawyer-client relationship has ended, the lawyer should clarify it, preferably in writing. An appeal was possible in Simon's case, so Joelle should have brought this to Simon's attention and clarified whether he wanted her to keep working o his behalf.

Judge Jasmine is a full-time federal judge. The judge's daughter is a public school teacher who is being let go from her job. Her daughter asks Judge Jasmine to attend the hearing on her termination as her lawyer. May Judge Jasmine attend the hearing as a lawyer? A. No, because she is a full-time judge B. Yes, because she can represent members of her immediate family in private proceedings

A. No, because she is a full-time judge Judge Jasmine may not attend the hearing as her daughter's lawyer. A full-time judge must not practice law. There is an exception for drafting documents or reviewing documents for a family member, but a judge can't act as a family member's lawyer in any forum

Divorce lawyer CeeCee joins a service called "JusticeMatch," in which consumers go to a website, select their legal problem, and are provided with a list of lawyers who provide services in that field of law. Because CeeCee purchased a premium membership, she will have an icon next to her name that says "Best Match" whenever she appears on a list. Was it proper for CeeCee to join JusticeMatch? A. No, because she paid for a recommendation B. Yes, because lawyers may pay the reasonable costs and charges of advertising and lawyer referral services.

A. No, because she paid for a recommendation As an exception to the prohibition on paying for recommendations, a lawyer may pay the permitted costs of advertising, and may also pay the usual charges of a legal services plan, a not-for-profit lawyer referral service, or an approved lawyer referral service. However, there are special rules when paying "lead generators," like JusticeMatch, that provide consumers with matching, referral, and directory services. A lawyer can pay others to generate client leads as long as the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer and the lead generator's communications aren't false or misleading. A communication by the lead generator is false or misleading if it creates a reasonable impression that: (i) it is recommending the lawyer; (ii) it has analyzed the person's legal problems when determining whether to refer the person to the lawyer; or (iii) it is making the referral without any payment from the lawyer. JusticeMatch at least appears to be recommend lawyers who are "premium members" over those who aren't, so CeeCee is subject to discipline for joining the service.

Annika represents Bobby in a murder prosecution. Near the end of the trial, Bobby tells her that he intends to lie on the stand. Despite Annika's best efforts, Bobby will not change his plan. Annika considers withdrawing but knows that it will not solve the problem because even if the court permits her to withdraw at this late stage, Bobby's next attorney would be in the same situation. What must Annika do next? A. Notify the judge of the situation B. Nothing, because she owes a duty of confidentiality to Bobby

A. Notify the judge of the situation When a criminal defendant is about to testify falsely, or has already done so, the lawyer has to balance her duty of candor to the tribunal with the defendant's constitutional right to testify on his own behalf. First, the lawyer must try to convince the defendant not to testify falsely. Second, if the defendant insists on testifying falsely, the lawyer should consider withdrawal, if that will solve the problem. Usually it won't solve the problem, either because the court won't permit withdrawal or because withdrawal won't erase or prevent the false testimony. Third, if all else fails, the lawyer must reveal the situation to the judge, even if that means disclosing the client's confidential information. The judge then decides what to do.

Olivia's old law school classmate, Brennan, is president of a small insurance company. Brennan creates and manages a policy for legal services in which an insured pays a yearly premium and is reimbursed up to a certain amount for legal services each year. Employees of the insurance company sell subscriptions by phone, and they locate potential subscribers based on their location and demographic information only. Brennan asks Olivia if she would provide legal services to members of the plan. Olivia reviews the plan's advertising material and does not see anything that would violate the rules of professional conduct. Brennan is also thinking about reactivating his law license so he can provide services to members of the plan. Who can properly provide legal services to members of the plan? A. Olivia only B. Brennan only C. Olivia and Brennan D. Neither Olivia nor Brennan

A. Olivia only Olivia may participate in the plan because there is nothing objectionable about it. The plan doesn't contact persons who are known to need specific legal services in a particular matter--they contact potential subscribers based on location and demographic information only. Furthermore, Olivia has reasonably ensured that the plan is in compliance with the advertising and solicitation rules. Where the legal service plan uses live person-to-person contacts, a lawyer can't participate if he owns or directs the organization that operates the plan. Brennan is the president of the insurance company that operates the plan, so he can't provide legal services to members.

While employed as a judicial law clerk, Alana reviewed motions and made recommendations to the judge in a personal injury lawsuit between a plaintiff and three defendants. After Alana leaves to work at a law firm, one of the defendants reaches out to her and asks her to take over as his lawyer in the case. Under what circumstances may Alana represent the defendant in the case? A. Only if the plaintiff and the other defendants give informed consent, confirmed in writing B. Only if the plaintiff gives informed consent, confirmed in writing C. Without restriction, because there is an exception to the conflict rule for law clerks

A. Only if the plaintiff and the other defendants give informed consent, confirmed in writing A lawyer must not represent a private client in a matter in which the lawyer has earlier participated personally and substantially while serving as a judge or other adjudicative officer (e.g., a referee or special master) or as a law clerk to such person, or as an arbitrator, mediator, or other third-party neutral, unless all parties to the proceedings give informed consent, confirmed in writing. Thus, (A) is correct and (B) is wrong. (C) is wrong because it confuses the law. There is a separate conflict rule that prohibits judges, other adjudicative officers, and third-party neutrals from negotiating for private employment with a party in a matter they are involved with. There is an exception to that rule for law clerks, but that rule is not at issue here—Alana did not negotiate for private employment while working as a judicial law clerk; she is already in private practice. The issue is whether she can represent a client in a matter she worked on as a law clerk. There is no exception to that conflict rule for law clerks—she cannot proceed unless all parties consent.

Generally, a lawyer must not share fees with a nonlawyer. Which of the following is NOT an exception to this rule? A. Paying a paralegal a portion of a fee based on how much work they did on that matter B. Paying death benefits to a deceased lawyer's estate C. Sharing a court-awarded legal fee with the nonprofit organization that hired or recommended the lawyer in the matter D. Purchasing the law practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer E. Paying the firm's administrative assistants a salary or bonus

A. Paying a paralegal a portion of a fee based on how much work they did in the matter A lawyer generally can't share fees with a nonlawyer, except for the scenarios laid out in (B)-(E). The situation in (A) is a classic example of prohibited fee-splitting. A lawyer may of course pay nonlawyer employees in accordance with a regular compensation plan, profit-sharing bonus, etc. However, sharing a specific fee with a nonlawyer employee (e.g., based on their work in the case) is prohibited.

Which of the following does NOT accurately describe an exception to the duty of confidentiality? A. Preventing crimes or frauds by a client B. Preventing or mitigating substantial financial injury to a person caused by a client's crime or fraud involving the lawyer's services C. Preventing reasonably certain substantial death or bodily harm D. Obtaining legal ethics advice E. Defending a lawyer against a charge of wrongdoing

A. Preventing crimes or frauds by a client There is no exception to the duty of confidentiality for preventing a client's crimes or frauds in general. However, the exceptions in (B) and (C) might apply to a client's crime or fraud. The exceptions in (D) and (E) are also recognized exceptions.

Mario places a FaceTime call to his best friend and offers to represent her in contesting a traffic ticket. This is: A. Proper solicitation B. Prohibited solicitation C. Not solicitation

A. Proper solicitation This is proper solicitation. Live person-to-person contact with certain persons, including close friends, is generally allowed.

Lorenzo visits the owner of a shopping mall and says, "I heard you're planning to lease out your top floor to a new department store. I know you always hire large firms to do your leasing work, but I have extensive experience in this field, and I'd like you to consider me for the job." This is: A. Proper solicitation B. Prohibited solicitation C. Not solicitation

A. Proper solicitation This is proper solicitation. Live person-to-person contact with routine business users of the type of services offered is generally allowed. Lorenzo's reference to the owner "always" hiring other firms for leasing work demonstrates that the owner is a routine user of these services.

Upon hearing that an acquaintance was injured at work, Greta sends her a text message offering to represent her in her workers' compensation case. This is: A. Proper solicitation B. Prohibited solicitation C. Not solicitation

A. Proper solicitation This is proper solicitation. Text messages don't constitute live person-to-person contact and are generally allowed

A lawyer is subject to discipline for which of the following acts? Select all that apply. A. Refusing to consider female associates for partner if they are of child-bearing age B. Choosing to represent mostly male clients in child custody disputes C. Making a specific effort to recruit diverse employees D. Using an ethnic slur against another guest at a social event held by the bar association E. Insulting a family member's sexual orientation at Thanksgiving F. Mocking a witness's religious clothing at a deposition.

A. Refusing to consider female associates for partner if they are of child-bearing age D. Using an ethnic slur against another guest at a social event held by the bar association F. Mocking a witness's religious clothing at a deposition A lawyer can't engage in conduct related to the practice of law that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status. Mocking a witness's religious clothing at a deposition is a clear violation of this rule. Insulting a family member at a holiday isn't conduct related to the practice of law. However, "in conduct related to the practice of law" is broad and would include conduct at a social event held by a bar association. It also covers conduct related to operating and managing a law practice. Thus, a lawyer can't discriminate against employees or job candidates (e.g., by refusing to promote female employees). This rule doesn't limit a lawyer's ability to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation, so a lawyer could generally limit their child custody practice to male clients. This rule also doesn't limit a lawyer's ability to promote diversity or inclusion. Efforts aimed at recruiting, hiring, retaining, or advancing diverse employees are permitted

Which of the following is a valid requirement for admission to a state's bar? A. The applicant is willing to take an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions B. The applicant is a citizen of the United States C. The applicant is a resident of the state in which she is seeking admission

A. The applicant is willing to take an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions. It is valid for a state to require an applicant for admission to the bar to take an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions. An applicant who refuses to take such an oath may be denied admission because there is a rational connection between this requirement and the practice of law. However, a state cannot require that an applicant be a United States citizen; such a requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Similarly, a requirement that a bar applicant be a resident of the state in which she is seeking admission violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution and is therefore invalid.

Generally, a lawyer must not act as an advocate at trial in which she is likely to be a necessary witness. Which of the following is NOT an exception to this prohibition? A. The client consents to the lawyer's dual role B. The testimony relates solely to an uncontested matter or formality C. The testimony relates solely to the nature and value of legal services the lawyer has rendered in the case D. The lawyer's withdrawal as trial counsel would cause substantial hardship to the client

A. The client consents to the lawyer's dual role The client's consent is irrelevant to whether the lawyer may serve as both trial counsel and witness. The other choices list valid exceptions to the prohibition

Abby wants to sell her car to one of her clients. Which condition does NOT have to be satisfied for Abby to properly enter into the transaction? A. The client must seek the advice of an independent lawyer B. The client must give informed consent in a signed writing C. The terms must be fair to the client D. The terms must be transmitted to the client in writing

A. The client must seek the advice of an independent lawyer A lawyer must not enter into a business transaction with a client unless: (i) the transaction and terms under which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client; (ii) the terms are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client; (iii) the client is advised in writing that they should seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction (if they don't already have counsel in the transaction), and is given a reasonable opportunity to do so; and (iv) the client gives informed consent in a signed writing. It's not required that the client actually seek advice from independent counsel. (Note that the rules regarding business transactions with clients don't apply to ordinary fee agreements, or to standard commercial transactions for products or services that the client routinely markets to others.)

Judge Jasper is a full-time state court judge. His best friend Bailey asked Jasper to draft a contract for him. Jasper took a couple of hours on the weekend and drafted the document as a favor to his friend. Is Judge Jasper subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes A full-time judge must not practice law. There is an exception for drafting documents or reviewing documents for a family member, but Bailey is not a family member. The fact that a judge drafted the document on the weekend and did not charge for it is immaterial

Nate was asked by his client, Elva, to hold her valuable diamond ring while he negotiated its sale to a buyer. Nate places the ring in his bank safe deposit box for safekeeping along with his own valuables. Is Nate subject to discipline. A. Yes B. No

A. Yes A lawyer is subject to discipline for commingling the client's money or property with the lawyer's own personal or business funds or property. When the lawyer comes into possession of non-monetary property to be held on the client's behalf, the lawyer must identify it as belonging to the client and must put it in a safe place. Although it is advisable to place small items in a safe deposit box, Nate is subject to discipline because he commingled Elva's property with his own.

Beth, an entertainment lawyer, forms a partnership with Jeff, a nonlawyer talent agent. The partnership's purpose is to provide clients with a "one stop shop" for their needs. Beth provided legal services on one side of the office, and Jeff worked as a talent agent on the other side of the office. Jeff never did any legal work, and Beth made sure to warn all clients that the protections of the attorney-client relationship did not apply to their dealings with Jeff. Is Beth subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes A lawyer must not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any part of the partnership activities will constitute the practice of law. Because Beth formed a partnership with nonlawyer Jeff, and the partnership was meant to provide legal services, Beth is subject to discipline. Make sure to distinguish this rule from the law-related services rule. It would have been proper for Beth to control a separate entity that provided law-related services. However, Beth would have been subject to the rules of professional conduct with respect to the non-legal services unless she made it clear that the protections of the attorney-client relationship did not apply.

Evan is representing a client in litigation in front of Judge Gibson. Evan writes a letter to the chief judge stating that Judge Gibson has been carrying on an improper personal relationship with Evan's opposing counsel, Reese, and failed to disqualify himself. Evan does not know whether Judge Gibson has any relationship with Reese but suspects it to be true because Judge Gibson keeps ruling against him. Is Evan subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes A lawyer must not make a statement that the lawyer knows is false about the qualifications or integrity of a judge, hearing officer, or public legal official, or about a candidate for a judicial or legal office. The same rule applies to statements made with reckless disregard as to truth or falsity. Because Evan's accusation was not based on any reliable information, he is subject to discipline.

Zara asks Jeremy to represent her in a lawsuit. Jeremy gives Zara a written fee agreement to review and sign "at her leisure." The agreement contains a clause that limits Jeremy's malpractice liability to $25,000. The clause further states that it would be beneficial for Zara to seek the advice of independent counsel before returning the agreement. Zara reads the agreement herself, finds it reasonable, and returns a signed copy to Jeremy the next day. Is Jeremy subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes A lawyer must not make an agreement with a client that prospectively waives or limits the lawyer's ability for legal malpractice, except in the unlikely event that the client is independently represented in making the agreement. Not that unlike with settlements, the client must actually be represented by independent counsel; advising the client to seek representation is not sufficient. Because Zara wasn't independently represented in making the agreement, Jeremy is subject to discipline.

Aaron is representing Molly in a personal injury case. Juan, one of Molly's co-plaintiffs, calls Aaron and says, "Can you tell me what's going on with the case? My attorney won't respond to my emails." Aaron gives Juan a quick and accurate update on the case. Is Aaron subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes A lawyer who represents a client in a matter cannot communicate about a matter with a person the lawyer knows is represented by counsel, unless that person's counsel consents, or unless the law or a court order authorizes the communication. This is true even if the represented person initiates or consents to the communication, as was the case here. Furthermore, the fact that Juan isn't necessarily adverse to Molly in the case has no relevance. Juan is represented by counsel in the matter, so Aaron is subject to discipline for talking to Juan about the matter without consent from Juan's attorney.

Stella is defending Rafael in a personal injury lawsuit filed by Dale. Stella reasonably believes that Dale's attorney failed to convey Rafael's latest settlement offer to Dale. Stella calls Dale to communicate the offer and tells him to talk it over with his attorney. Is Stella subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes A lawyer who represents a client in a matter must not communicate about the matter with a person the lawyer knows is represented by counsel, unless that person's counsel consents, or unless the law or a court order authorizes the communication. Here, Stella communicated with Dale, a person she knew was represented by counsel, about the case without the consent of Dale's attorney. The fact that Stella believes that Dale's attorney failed to pass on the settlement offer isn't a valid reason to contact Dale directly. If a lawyer has some exceptional reason to contact a represented person, the lawyer should get a court order.

Terrell previously worked at Firm A, and while he was there, Firm A worked on the Smith v. Jones case, representing Smith. Terrell did not work on the case and did not otherwise obtain confidential information about the case. Terrell has now moved to Firm B, which is representing Jones in the same case. May Terrell work on the Smith v. Jones case without Smith's consent? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes A lawyer's duties may extend not only to the clients he represented personally, but also to clients of the lawyer's former firm. A lawyer whose firm formerly represented a client in a matter and who acquired protected confidential information or information pertaining to the representation may not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter if that person's interests are materially adverse to those of the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. However, there is no conflict if the lawyer didn't not acquire confidential information while at the former firm. Because Terrell didn't obtain any information about Smith v. Jones while at Firm A, he may work on the case at Firm B without Smith's consent.

Thea is a partner at a law firm. Her then-colleague Laura, with the help of one of the firm's associates, defended Monty in a misdemeanor traffic case five years ago. Laura subsequently left the firm, and the firm no longer represents Monty. However, the associate who worked on Monty's traffic case is still at the firm. Pedro approaches Thea and asks her to defend him in a breach of contract lawsuit filed against him by Monty. None of the information from the traffic case would be material to the breach of contract lawsuit. May Thea represent Pedro without Monty's consent? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes A lawyer's former firm is prohibited from representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client of the formerly associated lawyer if: (i) the matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and (ii) a lawyer remaining in the firm has material confidential information about the matter. The conflict can be waived with informed consent, confirmed in writing, from the firm's former client. Here, however, there is no conflict. Although an associate with information about Monty's traffic case is still at the firm, the traffic case and the breach of contract lawsuit are not substantially related matters. Therefore, Thea can represent Pedro against Monty without Monty's consent.

Bar applicant Tom hires his old law professor Aisha in connection with his bar application. Tom tells Aisha that there were charges of plagiarism filed against him during college, but these charges were eventually dropped when the accusing professor died. Aisha does not believe Tom would have committed plagiarism. The state bar contacts Aisha as a character reference and asks, "Do you know of any past or current allegations of dishonesty against the applicant?" Aisha responds, "No, I do not." Is Aisha subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application, must not knowingly make a false statement of material fact. Additionally, an applicant, or a lawyer in connection with an applicant's application for admission, must not: (i) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or (ii) knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions authority. This rule doesn't, however, require disclosure of information otherwise protected by the confidentiality provisions of the rules of professional conduct. Here, Aisha will be subject to discipline because she made a false statement of material fact to the state bar—she said she didn't know of any allegations against Tom, when in fact she did know about the plagiarism allegation. But note that if she had simply refused to respond to the question (rather than lying), she would NOT be subject to discipline because she gained the information while representing Tom as a client—it is protected by her duty of confidentiality.

Marek is on trial for negligent manslaughter. Marek's attorney, Alexis, reasonably believes (but does not know) that Marek intends to lie on the stand. Alexis refuses to call Marek as a witness at trial. Is Alexis subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes Because Alexis only suspects that Marek will testify falsely, and Marek is a defendant in a criminal case, Alexis must allow him to testify on his own behalf.

Attorney Perez of the Perez, O'Leary, & Miller law firm was elected to the state legislature. Perez periodically travels to the state capital for a few days at a time during the legislative season, but otherwise continues his practice. May the firm continue to use Perez's name? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes If a lawyer has entered public service, the firm cannot use the lawyer's name during any substantial period in which the lawyer isn't regularly and actively practicing with the firm. Perez is still regularly and actively practicing law, so the firm may continue to use his name.

Emily previously represented building owner Sunil in various landlord-tenant disputes. Sunil e-mails Emily and says he wants her to represent him in a new dispute with a tenant. Emily and Sunil meet and spend a few hours discussing strategy. Emily never expressly accepts or declines the case during the meeting. Is there an attorney-client relationship between Emily and Sunil? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes One way an attorney-client relationship is formed is when a person manifests an intent that the lawyer provide legal services and the lawyer agrees. The lawyer's agreement does not have to be an express statement. Sunil clearly stated that he wanted Emily to represent him in the dispute, and Emily manifested consent by meeting with Sunil and discussing strategy. Their prior relationship is not determinative but further supports the conclusion that they formed an attorney-client relationship with respect to this new matter.

Jason is charged with bank robbery. Jason meets with his attorney, Ben, and says, "I'm going to be straight with you. I did it." Is the communication privileged? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes The attorney-client privilege doesn't apply if the client seeks the attorney's services to engage in or assist a future crime or fraud, but this crime-fraud exception doesn't apply to communications about past crimes.

Justin calls his lawyer, Vanessa, and tells her that he killed his friend the previous night and he buried the body in his backyard. Vanessa calls the authorities and passes on the information. Is Vanessa subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes The ethical duty of confidentiality provides that a lawyer must not reveal any information relating to the representation unless the client has given informed consent, consent is impliedly authorized, or an exception to the duty applies. The closest exception is the "prevention of reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm" exception, but here the friend is already dead. Consequently, Vanessa is subject to discipline for disclosing the information.

Hank visited his lawyer, Gemma, and they discussed a sensitive legal matter in Gemma's office. They reasonably believed that no one else was in the office. However, Paul was hiding behind a curtain and heard everything. Can Hank assert the attorney-client privilege to prevent Paul from testifying about the conversation? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes To be covered by the attorney-client privilege, a communication must be "confidential"; it must have been made by a means not intended to disclose the communicated information to outsiders, and the communicating person must reasonably believe that no one except a privileged person will hear the contents of the statement. For example, if a lawyer and a client had a discussion in a crowded courtroom, it would not be privileged, but under modern evidence law, a communication remains privileged if an eavesdropper is present.

Ronnie, who works in a busy office building, is representing Martin in a divorce. Martin asks Ronnie to hold various stock certificates in advance of handing them over to his wife. Ronnie puts the certificates in an envelope labeled "Martin's Stock Certificates" and keeps the envelope on top of his desk in his office. Unfortunately, the certificates are stolen. Is Ronnie subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes When a lawyer comes into possession of property (other than money) to be held on a client's behalf, the lawyer must identify it as belonging to the client and must put it in a safe place. Lawyers are required to hold the property of others with the care required of a professional fiduciary. Even though the certificates were properly identified as being Martin's property, leaving them in a labeled envelope out in the open is grounds for discipline. Ronnie should have taken more care to keep the certificates safe (e.g., put them in a safe deposit box).

Kelsey is representing Val in the sale of a painting to Emma, who is representing herself. One day, Emma calls Kelsey and asks her if she thinks Val's latest offer is a good deal. Kelsey tells Emma, "I'm here to make sure everyone gets a good deal, and this is a good deal." Kelsey does believe that the offer is fair to Emma. Is Kelsey subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes When dealing with an unrepresented person, a lawyer must not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. Furthermore, when the lawyer knows, or reasonably should know, that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer must make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. Kelsey's statement that she was "there to make sure everyone gets a good deal" implied that she was disinterested, when in fact she had an interest in getting the best deal for her client, Val. Whether Kelsey believed the deal was fair to Emma is irrelevant; she still implied that she was disinterested.

A firm is named "Alvarez, Kane, & Lee." Alvarez and Kane are living partners. Lee was the third partner but died two years ago. Is the name proper? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes When partners die, successor partnerships may continue to use their names.

Jean hires Louis to negotiate the contract for her first mystery novel. Jean wants to give Louis 2% of the book royalties in return for his services. Is the arrangement proper? A. Yes, as long as Louis complies with the requirements for business transactions with a client B. No, because a lawyer must not acquire literary or media rights relating to the representation while the matter is pending

A. Yes, as long as Louis complies with the requirements for business transactions with a client A lawyer must not acquire literary or media rights to a story based in substantial part on information relating to the lawyer's representation of a client (e.g., a lawyer representing a client in a pending murder trial must not acquire rights to a book about the case). However, a lawyer may acquire these rights after the client's legal matter is entirely completed, appeals and all. Furthermore, the rule doesn't apply to literary or media rights that aren't substantially based on information relating to the representation. Here, the prohibition doesn't apply because the mystery novel is a work of fiction—it isn't based on information relating to the contract negotiation. However, Louis still must comply with the requirements for business transactions with a client.

HotelCo, Ava's longtime client, has been sued for allegedly failing to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Monica, HotelCo's compliance director, was also named in the lawsuit. HotelCo wants Ava to defend Monica in the lawsuit as well. May Ava represent both HotelCo and Monica in the lawsuit? A. Yes, as long as the conflict of interest is addressed B. Yes, because the organization's lawyer naturally represents both the organization and its constituents C. No, this is prohibited

A. Yes, as long as the conflict of interest is addressed When an organization is the lawyer's client, the lawyer owes their duty of loyalty to the organization--not to the people who are its constituents, Thus, (B) is wrong. However, the lawyer for an organization may represent both the organization and one or more persons associated with the organization, provided that the ordinary conflict of interest rules are satisfied, so (A) is correct and (C) is wrong. The joint representation poses a standard conflict of interest because there is a significant risk that Ava's representation of HotelCo will be materially limited by her duties to Monica, and vice versa. Ava can proceed to represent both parties only is she reasonably believes that she can competently and diligently represent both of them despite the conflict of interest, and both parties provide informed consent, confirmed in writing. Note that when dual representation requires the consent of the organization, the consent must be given by an appropriate person other than the person to be represented (i.e., Monica can't give consent on HotelCo's behalf).

Fatima's client Brian told Fatima in confidence that he planned to open a massive new shopping complex at a particular location. Without telling Brian, Fatima quickly bought land one block away from the location and built a parking garage to serve the upcoming shopping complex. Brian had no plans to build a parking garage, so Fatima's garage did not harm him. Does Brian have a viable civil suit against Fatima? A. Yes, because Fatima used Brian's confidential information for her own pecuniary gain B. No, because Brian suffered no harm as a result of Fatima's actions

A. Yes, because Fatima used Brian's confidential information for her own pecuniary gain The rules of professional conduct prohibit a lawyer form using their current, prospective, or former client's confidential information against them. That disciplinary rule applies only when the lawyer's misuse of information disadvantages the person. However, a lawyer who uses confidential information for her own pecuniary gain other than in the practice of law may be subject to civil liability--she may have to account to the client, former client, or prospective client for her profits even if the person is not harmed. Here, even though the garage did not harm Brian, Fatima must disgorge the garage profits to Brian because she used Brian's confidential information to enrich herself outside the practice of law

Kristen misses a statute of limitations in Howard's case, and Howard gets very upset. Kristen wants to resolve the matter quickly and quietly, so they meet in her office and she gives Howard a written offer for $50,000 in exchange for his promise not to sue her for missing the statute of limitations. The offer letter advises Howard to seek the advice of an independent lawyer about the settlement. Kristen tells Howard that the offer is only valid for 24 hours. Howard accepts the offer on the spot. Is Kristen subject to discipline? A. Yes, because Kristen said the offer was only valid for 24 hours B. Yes, because Howard was not independently represented in the settlement C. No, because Howard had not yet filed a malpractice claim D. No, because Kristen advised Howard in writing to seek independent counsel

A. Yes, because Kristen said the offer was only valid for 24 hours The law favors the amicable settlement of claims. Thus, a lawyer may settle a malpractice claim or potential claim made by an unrepresented client or a former client, but only if the lawyer first advises the client in writing to seek the advice of an independent lawyer about the settlement, and the lawyer gives the client a reasonable chance to obtain such advice. Even though the offer letter advised Howard to seek independent advice, Kristen told him the offer was only open for 24 hours. This demonstrates that she did not give Howard a reasonable opportunity to consult independent counsel. Thus, (A) is correct and (D) is wrong. (C) is wrong because the rule applies to both pending and potential malpractice claims. A potential claim arose when Kristen missed the statute of limitations. (B) is wrong. When it comes to settling a malpractice claim, the client doesn't actually have to be represented by independent counsel--it is sufficient to advise the client in writing to seek such advice. The problem here was that Kristen didn't give Howard a reasonable chance to do so. (Contrast this rule with the rule for prospectively waiving or limiting malpractice liability. In that situation, the client must be independently represented)

Austin represents CameraCo, which wants to borrow a large sum of money from LocalBank. CameraCo asks Austin to prepare an evaluation of its legal and business affairs to furnish to LocalBank as soon as possible. As Austin delves into CameraCo's affairs, he realizes that CameraCo's potential legal exposure is much more serious than expected. He finalizes the evaluation and simultaneously sends copies to CameraCo and LocalBank. Is Austin subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he did not get CameraCo's informed consent before sending confidential information to LocalBank. B. No, because he was impliedly authorized to send the evaluation to LocalBank as soon as possible

A. Yes, because he did not get CameraCo's informed consent before sending confidential information to LocalBank When a lawyer has been asked to evaluate a client's affairs for a third party, and the lawyer knows or should know that the evaluation will materially harm the client, the lawyer must obtain the client's informed consent before making the evaluation. Because Austin realized that his evaluation would contain harmful information about CameraCo, he was required to seek CameraCo's informed consent before passing on their confidential information to LocalBank.

Julius is representing a client in the sale of her car. During negotiations, Julius presents his client's offer to the buyer's attorney and says, "It's a great price for a car in such prime condition." In fact, Julius knows that the car has serious engine problems. Is Julius subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he made a false statement of material fact B. No, because he used an acceptable negotiation technique

A. Yes, because he made a false statement of material fact A lawyer must not make a false statement of material fact to a non-client. Lying about the condition of the car was not mere "puffery," so Julius will be subject to discipline.

Jerry is on the board of directors of the local legal aid society. The society is in dire financial straits and proposes to end free legal service in landlord-tenant disputes. Jerry represents several apartment complexes in the area. He discloses to the society that some of his clients would benefit from the decision, and then votes for the proposal. Is Jerry subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he participated in the vote B. No, because he disclosed to the society that his clients would benefit from the decision C. No, because he voted for the proposal

A. Yes, because he participated in the vote A lawyer may serve as a director, officer, or member of a legal services organization (apart from the lawyer's regular employment) even where the organization serves persons whose interests are adverse to the lawyer's regular clients. However, the lawyer must not knowingly participate in a decision or action of the organization if doing so would be incompatible with the lawyer's obligations to a client under the general conflicts of interest rules. Furthermore, the lawyer can't knowingly participate in a decision or action of the organization if doing so could adversely affect the representation of one of the organization's clients whose interests are adverse to those of a client of the lawyer. (A) is correct because the proposal could have had an adverse effect on clients of the society who are adverse to Jerry's client, so he should not have participated in the vote at all. (C) is wrong because the substance of Jerry's vote is immaterial. (B) is wrong because it confuses the rule for legal service organizations with the rule for law reform projects (in which a lawyer may participate in decisions but must disclose when their client will benefit from a decision).

While working as a public defender, James researched and drafted an evidentiary motion for the State v. Miller case at the request of the attorney handling the case. James has moved on to private defense work, and the State v. Miller case is ongoing. Defendant Miller decides to fire his attorney and hire James. Must James seek the consent of the public defender's office before representing Miller? A. Yes, because he was involved in the case as a government employee B. No, because his representation of Miller will not be adverse to the public defender's office.

A. Yes, because he was involved in the case as a government employee Except when expressly permitted by law, a lawyer who leaves government service and enters private practice can't represent a private client in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in government service, unless the government agency gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. Drafting a motion for the case qualifies as personal and substantial involvement. Furthermore, this conflict rule applies even where the lawyer is not taking a position adverse to the government agency. Even though James's position will be the same as the public defender's prior position—that Miller is not guilty—James will be disqualified unless the public defender's office gives consent.

Maddy represents Colin in a personal injury case against a defendant. During settlement negotiations, the defense offers $50,000. Maddy is certain that this is just a lowball opening offer, but she knows that Colin is a pessimist and will accept it. Maddy rejects the offer on Colin's behalf and does not tell him about it. The following week, the defense offers $75,000. Maddy presents the offer to Colin and he accepts. Is Maddy subject to disclipline? A. Yes, because she failed to tell Colin about the first offer B. No, because Colin suffered no harm C. No, because Colin was likely to react imprudently to the offer

A. Yes, because she failed to tell Colin about the first offer If an adversary offers to settle a civil case, or offers a plea bargain in a criminal case, the lawyer must promptly convey the offer to her client unless the client has previously instructed the lawyer that an offer on those terms is acceptable or unacceptable or has authorized the lawyer to accept or reject such an offer. Maddy will be subject to discipline for failing to communicate the offer, even though Colin ultimately ended up with a higher amount. A lawyer is subject to discipline for violating an ethics rule even when the client isn't harmed. Thus, (A) is correct and (B) is wrong. (C) is also wrong. A lawyer may delay the transmission of information to a client if the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication. For instance, a lawyer may wait to pass on bad news if the client is especially agitated and needs some time to cool off. But here, there isn't any indication that Colin would react differently at a later time, and Maddy didn't delay the communication—she failed to tell him about the offer at all.

Julia is a State A prosecutor working on a murder case against Dennis. Julia is contacted by Dennis's cellmate, who tells her that Dennis claimed responsibility for an unrelated murder in State B. Dennis gave the cellmate specific details relating to the crime and bragged that he was never even on the radar of State B police. Julia finds the cellmate's story to be credible, and she knows that the victim's husband, Bradley, was convicted of murder in the State B case based on flimsy circumstantial evidence. Julia does not contact State B because she believes that doing so would delay justice in her pending case against Dennis. However, she plans to contact State B as soon as the trial is over. Is Julia subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the evidence creates a reasonable likelihood that Bradley was wrongfully convicted B. No, because the conviction occurred in another jurisdiction

A. Yes, because the evidence creates a reasonable likelihood that Bradley was wrongfully convicted A prosecutor must promptly disclose new, credible, and material evidence that creates a reasonable likelihood that a defendant was wrongfully convicted. This is true even if the conviction occurred in a different jurisdiction. (Additionally, if the conviction occurred in the prosecutor's own jurisdiction, and the prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was innocent, the prosecutor must actually seek to remedy the conviction.)

Firm A and Firm B have been in merger discussions for some time, but they are concerned about possible conflicts of interest. Firm A asks Firm B to send a list summarizing each of its matters, including the name of the client involved, a brief summary of the general issues, and the estimated value of the claim. Firm B complies. Is Firm B subject to discipline? A. Yes, but only for disclosing the estimated values of each matter B. Yes, for disclosing any of the information C. Yes, but only for disclosing the client's names D. No, because the disclosure falls within an exception to the duty of confidentiality

A. Yes, but only for disclosing the estimated value of each matter When a lawyer changes firms, when two firms merge, or when a law practice is being purchased, lawyers may disclose limited client information (e.g., client names and a brief summary of the general issues involved) in order to detect and resolve conflicts of interest, subject to the following conditions: (i) the disclosure may be made only after substantive discussions regarding the new relationship have occurred; (ii) the disclosure must be limited to the minimum necessary to detect any conflicts of interest; (iii) the disclosed information must not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the clients; and (iv) the disclosed information may be used only to the extent necessary to detect and resolve any conflicts of interest. It was proper to disclose the names of the clients and a brief summary of the issues involved, so (B) and (C) are wrong. However, the value of each claim has nothing to do with whether there is a conflict of interest. Thus, (D) is wrong and (A) is correct.

May a lawyer properly give moral, economic, social, political, or other nonlegal advice to a client? A. Yes, even where the client has not asked for it B. Yes, but only at the client's request C. No, a lawyer should focus on legal advice

A. Yes, even where the client has not asked for it A lawyer may give a client not only legal advice, but also moral, economic, social, or political advice when relevant to the client's situation. This is true even if the client hasn't requested such advice. When appropriate, a lawyer may also urge a client to seek advice from persons in related professions (e.g., advice from an accountant, psychiatrist, physician, or family counselor).

Sonya previously worked at Firm A. While she was there, Firm A worked on the Fisher v. Baker case, representing Fisher. Sonya obtained confidential information about the case while at Firm A. Sonya has now moved to Firm B, which represents Baker in the same case. Fisher does not want Sonya or anyone else at Firm B working on the case. May Sonya's colleagues at Firm B continue to work on Fisher v. Baker? A. Yes, if they screen Sonya from the case, apportion no part of the fee to Sonya, and give notice and updates to Fisher B. No, they must withdraw from the case

A. Yes, if they screen Sonya from the case, apportion no part of the fee to Sonya, and give notice and updates to Fisher If a lawyer who is disqualified from representing a client joins a new firm, the new firm may be disqualified as well unless the lawyer is properly screened. Proper screening means the disqualified lawyer doesn't work on the case, discuss it with those who do, or have access to case files. It also requires that the disqualified lawyer doesn't share fees from the matter, and the former client is given notice (along with periodic certifications of compliance with the screening procedures). Alternatively, the former client can give informed consent, confirmed in writing, but here Fisher has refused to give consent.

Theresa is representing Malik in his divorce from Jeff. Theresa and Jeff's lawyer are not getting anywhere in the negotiations, so Malik tells Theresa that he is going to have coffee with Jeff and try to sort things out. Theresa gives Malik general advice on which topics to discuss and avoid at his meeting with Jeff. Is Theresa subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

B. No The rule against contacting represented persons doesn't prohibit represented persons from communicating directly with each other, and a lawyer may advise their client regarding such communications.

Alison e-mails her lawyer, Bill, about a sensitive matter. Alison then forwards the e-mail to a friend. The e-mail is protected by: A. The attorney-client privilege only B. Bill's duty of confidentiality only C. Neither the attorney-client privilege nor Bill's duty of confidentiality D. Both the attorney-client privilege and Bill's duty of confidentiality

B. Bill's duty of confidentiality only By forwarding the e-mail to a third party, Allison waived her attorney-client privilege. However, the ethical duty of confidentiality applies to information relating to the representation even if some third parties know about it.

A lawyer can solve a competence problem in any of the following ways, EXCEPT: A. Association with a competent attorney B. Charging a reduced fee C. Studying the law

B. Charging a reduced fee A lawyer can solve a competence problem with adequate preparation, or by associating with an attorney who is competent. A lawyer can't solve a competence problem simply by charging the client a lower fee. Furthermore, a lawyer who has violated the duty of competence can't escape discipline by reimbursing the client for any loss.

Ryan is representing a client in a trial in State A. This is a case of first impression in State A, but Ryan knows that there is a State B case that is directly adverse to the position of Ryan's client. Opposing counsel fails to disclose the State B case. Ryan decides not to disclose it either. Is Ryan subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

B. No An attorney is subject to discipline for knowingly failing to disclose to the court a legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction that is directly adverse to the client's position and that hasn't been disclosed by the opposing counsel. State B isn't the controlling jurisdiction here, so Ryan isn't' subject to discipline for failing to disclose the State B case

What is the most accurate definition of "confidential information" under the ethical duty of confidentiality? A. Any communication between the lawyer and client B. All information relating to the representation C. All information relating to the representation that the attorney receives from the client D. All information relating to the representation that the client asked to keep private

B. All information relating to the representation Unlike the attorney-client privilege, the ethical duty of confidentiality protects more than confidential communications. It applies to any information relating to the representation, from any source. This is true regardless of whether the information is privileged, whether the client asked for it to be kept in confidence, and whether revealing it might harm or embarrass the client. (A) is wrong for two reasons. The duty isn't limited to communications between the lawyer and client, and the information must relate to the representation. Similarly, (C) is wrong because the duty covers information from any source; it doesn't have to come from the client. (D) is wrong because, as noted, the duty is broader than information the client asked to be kept private. Note that there is never a requirement that the client ask to keep information private in order to protect information relating to the representation.

A court orders Joe to disclose what Joe believes to be a privileged communication with his client. The client wants the information to remain private. What should Joe do next? A. Comply with the court's order B. Assert the attorney-client privilege

B. Assert the attorney-client privilege A lawyer may reveal a client's confidential information to the extent that he's required to do so by law or court order. However, absent informed consent of the client to do otherwise, the lawyer should assert on behalf of the client all nonfrivolous claims that the order isn't authorized by other law or that the information sought is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable law.

Jack is representing Beth in a personal injury case against a defendant. Beth's sister, Beth's best friend, and a crossing guard also have information relating to Beth's accident, and Jack suspects that the defendant's attorney will be contacting them for information. Who can Jack properly advise to refrain from giving information to the defense? A. Beth only B. Beth and Beth's sister only C. Beth, Beth's sister, and Beth's best friend only D. Beth, Beth's sister, Beth's best friend, and the crossing guard.

B. Beth and Beth's sister only A lawyer may advise a person not to voluntarily give information to an opponent or other party if the following conditions are met: (i) the person is a client, or a relative, employee, or agent of a client, and (ii) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not. be harmed by not volunteering the information. The crossing guard doesn't fall within any of these three categories

Attorney-client privilege applies to: A. Confidential communications between the attorney and anyone involved in the case B. Confidential communications between the attorney and client and their respective agents C. All information relating to the representation D. All information relating to the representation that would harm the client

B. Confidential communications between the attorney and client and their respective agents The attorney-client privilege protects only confidential communications between the attorney and client (or the agents of either of them). The ethical duty, in contrast, covers not only confidential communications, but also any other information that the attorney obtains relating to the representation of the client, from any source.

What type of fee agreements are required to be in writing? A. Hourly fees only B. Contingent fees only C. Flat fees only D. All fees

B. Contingent fees only A lawyer generally must, before or within a reasonable time after commencing a representation, communicate the basis or rate of the fee and the expenses for which the client will be responsible. Although a writing is preferable, it is generally not required, except in contingent fee agreements (which must be in writing and signed by the client).

Robert used to work for a state government agency but has now moved into private practice. Which of the following acts during Robert's government employment would NOT qualify as a "matter" for purposes of the government conflicts rules? A. Drafting a contract between the agency and a private party B. Drafting a regulation that applied to homeowners C. Defending the agency in a lawsuit D. Drafting a zoning ordinance for a particular tract of land owned by a developer

B. Drafting a regulation that applied to homeowners Except when expressly permitted by law, a lawyer who leaves government service and enters private practice must not represent a private client in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in government service, unless the government agency gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. As used in the government conflict rules, "matter" has a narrow, technical meaning. It does not mean "general topic" or "broad subject area." It means a specific set of facts involving some specific parties. It's defined more fully as, "any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties" (plus anything else that's covered under the conflict of interest rules of the government agency in question). Drafting a regulation that applies to the public or a segment of the public doesn't qualify as a matter; thus, (B) is correct. (A), (C), and (D) are "matters" because they involve specific facts and parties.

Rena wants Jacob to draft a will that leaves a large sum of money to Jacob. Under what conditions, if any, is this proper? A. None; this is always forbidden B. If Jacob and Rena are related to each other C. If Rena is also a lawyer D. if Rena understands the inherent conflict of interest and provides informed consent, confirmed in writing

B. If Jacob and Rena are related to each other A lawyer must not solicit a substantial gift from a client or prepare an instrument giving the lawyer, or the lawyer's relative, any substantial gift from a client except when the client is related to the donee. Thus, (B) is correct and (A) is wrong. (C) is wrong because there must be a family relationship; whether the client is also a lawyer makes no difference. (D) is wrong because consent won't cure the conflict.

Prospective client Matthew visits Ronda's office for a consultation about his upcoming divorce case. Matthew shares some information with Ronda, but ultimately decides to hire a different attorney. Unless Matthew consents, Ronda must not go on to represent Matthew's spouse in the divorce: A. Under any circumstances B. If the information from the consultation could significantly harm Matthew in the divorce case

B. If the information from the consultation could significantly harm Matthew in the divorce case A lawyer who obtains confidential information during a consultation with a prospective client must not later represent a different person in the same or a substantially related matter if the confidential information could significantly harm the prospective client in the matter, unless the prospective client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Jeanne practices law in State A. Where can she open a client trust account? A. In State A only B. In State A, or elsewhere with the client's consent C. Anywhere

B. In State A, or elsewhere with the client's consent The client trust fund account must be located in the state where the lawyer practices, unless the client consents to having it elsewhere

A government lawyer who receives confidential government information about a person must not later represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person if the information could be used to the material disadvantage of the person. What is the most accurate description of "confidential government information" for purposes of this conflict rule? A. Information that was gained under public authority and is not readily available to the public, but may be available through channels like the Freedom of Information Act B. Information that was gained under public authority and which the government is prohibited from revealing, or has a privilege not to reveal, and which is not otherwise available to the public

B. Information that was gained under public authority and which the government is prohibited from revealing, or has a privilege not to reveal, and which is not otherwise available to the public. Except when expressly permitted by law, a government lawyer who receives confidential government information about a person must not later represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person, when the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person. The rule covers only information actually received by the government lawyer, not information that could be fictionally imputed to the lawyer. "Confidential government information" means information that is gained under government authority and which the government is prohibited from revealing, or has a privilege not to reveal, and which is not otherwise available to the public. If information is available to the public through a channel like the Freedom of Information Act, it isn't considered confidential government information.

Caroline receives a phone call from Lacey, a prospective client who wants to talk about a pending case. Lacey tells Caroline that she is already represented by an attorney in the case, but she is thinking of firing him. Caroline and Lacey have a brief consultation. Is Caroline subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

B. No The rule against communicating with persons who are already represented by an attorney in a matter only applies where the communicating lawyer represents a client in that matter. Here, Caroline wasn't representing any client in Lacey's case, so it was proper for Caroline to speak with Lacey even though Lacey was represented.

Jamie violates a rule of professional conduct while representing Hunter. Hunter suffers loss due to Jamie's conduct in the case and sues Jamie for legal malpractice. How will Jamie's ethics violation impact the malpractice case? A. It creates a presumption that Jamie committed malpractice B. It is relevant evidence that Jamie's conduct was below the appropriate standard of care C. It is irrefutable proof that Jamie committed malpractice D. It will not be considered by the court under any circumstances

B. It is relevant evidence that Jamie's conduct was below the appropriate standard of care The rules of professional conduct are for disciplinary purposes. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability, and a lawyer's breach of an ethics rule does not automatically or presumptively mean that the lawyer has committed malpractice. Courts generally do, however, regard an ethics violation as relevant evidence that the lawyer's conduct was below the appropriate standard of care

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act imposes additional obligations on securities lawyers who come across evidence of a material violation of the securities laws by their client. How does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act differ from the ethical rule relating to violations by organizational clients? A. It requires a securities lawyer to report a violation to the SEC if the company's highest authority fails to act (whereas the ethical rule permits, but does not require, lawyers to report to outside authorities) B. It requires a securities lawyer to report a violation to specific authorities within the company (whereas the ethical rule gives lawyers some discretion on who to report it to)

B. It requires a securities lawyer to report a violation to specific authorities within the company (whereas the ethical rule gives lawyers some discretion on who to report it to). If a securities lawyer becomes aware of credible evidence that her client is materially violating a federal or state securities law, she must report the evidence to her client's chief legal officer ("CLO"). The same reporting duty applies to credible evidence that one of her client's personnel has breached a fiduciary duty under federal or state law, or has committed a "similar material violation" of federal or state law. If the securities lawyer believes that the CLO didn't achieve an appropriate response from the client, the securities lawyer [ report the evidence to either the client's board of directors, the audit committee of the board, or a committee made up of outside directors. Note that the Sarbanes-Oxley inside reporting rule is specific, unlike the ethical rule, which requires the lawyer to act to protect the organization but gives the lawyer some discretion on how to proceed and who to report it to. When an appropriate response is not taken, the securities lawyer may reveal to the SEC any confidential information that is reasonably necessary to: (i) stop the client from committing a violation that will cause substantial financial injury to the client or its investors; (ii) rectify such a financial injury if the lawyer's services were used to further the violation; or (iii) prevent the client from committing or suborning perjury in an SEC matter or lying in any matter within the jurisdiction of any branch of the federal government. As with the disciplinary rule for organizational lawyers, outside reporting is permitted but not required.

Justin is representing Dana in a personal injury lawsuit. Dana tells Justin that she intends to give false testimony at trial. Justin tries and fails to convince her otherwise. Which statement is true? A. Justin may refuse to call Dana as a witness B. Justin must refuse to call Dana as a witness C. Justin must allow Dana to tesify

B. Justin must refuse to call Dana as a witness A lawyer must refuse to offer evidence that he knows is false. When a lawyer in a civil matter learns that his client has testified falsely or is about to testify falsely, the lawyer's path is clear. If the client hasn't yet testified, the lawyer can't call the client to the stand. If the client has testified and the lawyer learns that the testimony is false, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures (try to persuade the client to cooperate in withdrawing or correcting the false evidence; consider withdrawal; and disclose the situation to the judge if all else fails). Here, Justin knows that Dana intends to testify falsely because she told him so. Thus, Justin can't call Dana as a witness.

Miguel and Brendan are brothers-in-law and are both lawyers. One day, Brendan pulls Miguel aside at a holiday gathering and tells Miguel he needs legal advice. Miguel agrees to help, and Brendan tells Miguel that he has been stealing small amounts of money from many clients to support his gambling addiction. Miguel tells Brendan to hire another lawyer. What should Miguel do next? A. Report Brendan's violation to the appropriate disciplinary authority, because it raises a substantial question as to his honesty and fitness to practice law B. Keep the information confidential

B. Keep the information confidential Brendan's misconduct raises a substantial question as to his honesty and fitness to practice law. Ordinarily, another lawyer who learns of such conduct must report it to the appropriate professional authority. However, this rule does not require disclosure of information protected by the duty of confidentiality to a client. Here, Miguel knows of Brendan's conduct only because Brendan consulted him for legal advice—Miguel was acting as a lawyer, not a brother-in-law. Miguel has a duty of confidentiality to Brendan, even though they did not continue their attorney-client relationship.

Kerry represents A-Corp, a drug manufacturer, in various matters. Kerry learns that one of the research teams is conducting a clinical trial in a manner that violates federal safety regulations, which could result in severe fines. Additionally, the participants in the trial could suffer brain damage or even death from the drug's side effects, which, among other consequences, would result in terrible publicity for A-Corp. Kerry presents his findings to the president and then the board of directors, but they fail to act. Kerry reasonably believes that A-Corp will suffer substantial injury if he does not report the information to an outside authority. Which of the following statements is true? A. Kerry may report the information to an outside authority, but only if an exception to the duty of confidentiality applies B. Kerry may report the information to an outside authority, even if it would otherwise be protected by the duty of confidentiality C. Kerry must report the information to an outside authority

B. Kerry may report the information to an outside authority, even if it would otherwise be protected by the duty of confidentiality If the lawyer for an organization learns that a person associated with the organization has acted, or is about to act, in a way that violates a duty to the organization, or a law in a way that might be imputed to the organization, and if the violation is likely to cause substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer must proceed as is reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the organization. Usually, this means reporting the violation up the chain within the organization (e.g., to the president and board of directors). If necessary, the lawyer must report it to the organization's highest authority (e.g., a corporation's outside directors). However, the lawyer does have a narrow range of discretion--she need not report the violation if she reasonably believes that the organization's best interests don't require the violation to be reported. If the lawyer reports the violation to the organization's highest authority, but the highest authority fails to take timely, appropriate action, the lawyer may report the relevant information to appropriate persons outside of the organization if the lawyer reasonably believes that reporting is necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization. This is true even if the information would otherwise be protected by the duty of confidentiality. Thus, (B) is correct and (A) is wrong. (C) is wrong because outside reporting is permitted, not required.

Rita is representing Bradley against Stan in a contract dispute. Stan, who is represented by counsel in the matter, happens to live in Rita's apartment building. One night, Rita and Stan end up in the same elevator and Rita talks to Stan about their local election results. Is Rita subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

B. No The rule against communicating with persons who are already represented by an attorney in a matter only applies where the communication is related to the matter.

Talia represents Gene in his divorce. She has already prepared and submitted documents relating to Gene's finances based on information from Gene. Later in the case, Gene admits to Talia that he had been hiding significant assets in offshore accounts to prevent his wife from receiving a larger settlement. Talia encourages Gene to let her amend the financial documents, but he refuses. Talia withdraws and sends an e-mail to the wife's counsel disaffirming any financial documents she had sent on Gene's behalf. Is Talia subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

B. No A lawyer may reveal the client's confidential information to the extent necessary to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial financial harm to someone, if the client is using or has used the lawyer's services in the matter. The same is true if the client has already acted, and the lawyer's disclosure can prevent or mitigate the consequent financial harm. Gene was hiding significant assets and using Talia's services to do so. Talia acted properly by disclosing information reasonably necessary to prevent substantial financial injury to the wife.

Five years ago, Lynette regularly represented ApartmentCo in breach of contract lawsuits against tenants who had violated their leases. However, the representation ended when ApartmentCo transferred their cases to in-house counsel. Mariah now wants Lynette to defend her in a breach of contract lawsuit brought by ApartmentCo concerning a lease that she signed six months ago. Is there a conflict? A. Yes B. No

B. No A lawyer must not represent one client whose interests are materially adverse to those of a former client in a matter that is substantially related to a matter in which the lawyer represented the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. Matters are "substantially related" if: (i) they involve the same transaction or legal dispute, or (ii) there is a substantial risk that confidential factual information as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the new client's position. However, if a lawyer routinely handled a type of problem for a former client, the lawyer may later oppose that former client in a factually distinct problem of the same general type. Lynette handled breach of contract lawsuits for ApartmentCo five years ago. Mariah is asking her to challenge a lease that she signed six months ago. The representation would involve a factually distinct problem—whether Mariah broke her lease. There is no conflict here, and Lynette may proceed without ApartmentCo's consent.

Heather is representing Vincent in a burglary prosecution. Heather suspects that Joe, a witness, will testify falsely at trial. She calls Joe to testify anyway. Is Heather subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

B. No A lawyer must refuse to offer evidence that she knows is false. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that she reasonably believes is false, except for a criminal defendant's testimony on his own behalf. Here, Heather suspected--but did not know--that Joe's testimony would be false. This is a criminal case, but Joe isn't the defendant. Thus, Heather had the option of refusing to call Joe as a witness. However, she won't be subject to discipline for calling him because she didn't know that his testimony would be false.

Attorney Selin suspects that Phil, her supervisor, is stealing from clients because he suddenly purchased several luxury items and seems "off." Selin does not report this to a disciplinary authority. Is Selin subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

B. No A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has violated the rules of professional conduct in such a way that it raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer must report the violation to the appropriate professional authority. "Knowledge" means actual knowledge, and although knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances, it has to be more than mere suspicion. Stealing from clients would raise a substantial question about Phil, but because Selin only suspects that Phil is stealing, there is no mandatory duty to report.

Nick is a partner at a law firm. Three years ago, Nick's then-partner Beth worked on a variety of tax and business matters for Herbert. Only Beth and an associate Alan worked on Herbert's legal matters. Beth subsequently left the firm, and Herbert followed Beth to her new practice. Alan decided to stay with Nick's firm. Sara, Herbert's wife, approaches Nick and asks him to represent her in her divorce from Herbert. May Nick represent Sara without Herbert's consent? A. Yes B. No

B. No A lawyer's former firm is prohibited from representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client of the formerly associated lawyer if: (i) the matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and (ii) a lawyer remaining in the firm has material confidential information about the matter. The conflict can be waived with informed consent, confirmed in writing, from the firm's former client. Here, the matters are "substantially related" because Beth normally would have received confidential information about Herbert's finances while representing him, and such information could materially advance Sara's position in the divorce case. Because an associate who has information about Herbert's matters is still with the firm, Nick cannot represent Sara in the divorce case without Herbert's informed consent, confirmed in writing. (Note, however, that if no lawyer remaining in the firm had material confidential information about the tax and business matters, there would have been no conflict.)

Claire, a solo practitioner, rents out office space to George. At the beginning of the lease term, George asks Claire if he can pay her the full year's rent in advance. Claire agrees and deposits the funds in her personal checking account. Is Claire subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

B. No All money that a lawyer receives in connection with a representation (whether from the client or a third party) must promptly be placed in a client trust fund account, separate from the lawyer's own personal and business accounts. When a client pays advance legal fees, such an advance must be put into the client trust account because the lawyer must refund any unearned fees to the client. However, the rules of professional conduct relating to the handling of funds (the prohibition on commingling, recordkeeping requirements, etc.) do not apply when the funds are not held in connection with any legal representation. Claire is acting as George's landlord, not his lawyer, so she won't be subject to discipline for commingling his funds with her own.

A firm is named "Glover, Peele, & Yang." Glover and Yang are living partners. Peele was a partner but moved to a firm in a different state last year. Is the name proper? A. Yes B. No

B. No Although a firm name may continue to use the names of deceased or retired partners, Peele is alive and practicing law elsewhere. The firm's continued use of her name is misleading.

Bruce hires Aubrey to file a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor, but Aubrey misses the statute of limitations and Bruce's claim is barred. Bruce's claim against the doctor was baseless, but Aubrey had no reason to know that when she missed the statute of limitations. Is Bruce likely to prevail in a malpractice claim against Aubrey? A. Yes B. No

B. No As in any tort case, the plaintiff in a professional negligence case has to prove that the defendant's conduct was the legal cause of the plaintiff's injury. That is, the injury would not have happened but for the defendant's negligence, and furthermore, that it is fair to hold the defendant liable for unexpected injuries (or for expected injuries that happen in unexpected ways). This means that to have a good malpractice claim, Bruce has to be able to show that he had a good claim in the first place. Since his claim was baseless, his malpractice claim will not prevail.

Caitlin and Rico are partners in a law firm. A plaintiff hires Caitlin to file a lawsuit against his neighbor. When the neighbor receives the complaint, she calls Rico and asks him to represent her in the lawsuit. Caitlin and Rico both believe they can competently and diligently represent their clients despite the conflict. They notify the clients of the situation and obtain their informed consent, confirmed in writing. Can Caitlin and Rico proceed with representing their clients in the lawsuit? A. Yes B. No

B. No Either Caitlin or Rico has to get out of the case. Even with client consent, a lawyer must not represent a client if it would involve asserting a claim against another client represented by that lawyer in the same litigation (or other proceeding before a tribunal). In other words, the lawyer can't. be on both sides of the same proceeding. Lawyers within a firm are treated as a single unit for conflicts purposes. Therefore, Caitlin and Rico can't be on opposite sides of the same litigation.

Angela used to work as a state prosecutor but moved on to private criminal defense work three months ago. Joanne has been charged with murder and she wants Angela to represent her at trial. The charges were filed while Angela was working at the prosecutor's office. Angela did not work on the case or obtain any confidential government information about it. Must Angela seek the consent of the prosecutor's office before representing Joanne? A. Yes B. No

B. No Except when expressly permitted by law, a lawyer who leaves government service and enters private practice must not represent a private client in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in government service, unless the government agency gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. The term "personally and substantially" doesn't include work that is trifling, and it doesn't include mere supervisory responsibility. Because Angela did not work on the case personally and substantially, she is not disqualified from representing the Joanne in the same case.

A firm is named "Domino, Peterson, & Keller." Domino and Peterson are partners, and Keller is the firm's head paralegal. Is the firm name proper? A. Yes B. No

B. No It is misleading to include the name of any nonlawyer in a firm name.

A limited partnership in which Judge Janine's aunt works as an administrative assistant appears as a party in Judge Janine's courtroom. Must Judge Janine disqualify herself? A. Yes B. No

B. No Judge Janine need not disqualify herself. A judge must disqualify herself if a relative within the third degree is a party or an officer, director, general partner, managing partner, or trustee of a party. Her aunt is a relative in the third degree but is not a general or managing partner. A judge must also disqualify herself if the judge's spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child (wherever residing), or any other member of the judge's family who resides in the judge's household has an economic interest in the outcome. The judge's aunt who works at the partnership is not one of the relatives covered by this rule

Judge Jemma belongs to and is very active in her church. Her church has a congregation of only 100 members. A member of Judge Jemma's church congregation appears as a party in Judge Jemma's courtroom. Judge Jemma has no contact with this member outside of church functions. Must Judge Jemma disqualify herself from the case? A. Yes B. No

B. No Judge Jemma need not disqualify herself. Unlike friends, acquaintances appearing as parties do not require a judge to disqualify herself from the case. Fellow church congregants are acquaintances.

Judge Jordan and lawyer Paulo have mutual friends and have met and chatted at various gatherings at the homes of their mutual friends. Paulo appears as a lawyer in a case in Judge Jordan's courtroom. Must Judge Jordan disqualify himself from the case? A. Yes B. No

B. No Judge Jordan need not disqualify himself. Unlike friends, acquaintances appearing as parties do not require a judge to disqualify himself from the case. People who see each other socializing with mutual friends are acquaintances.

A corporation in which Judge Kim's first cousin sits on the board of directors appears as a party in Judge Kim's courtroom. Must Judge Kim disqualify himself? A. Yes B. No

B. No Judge Kim need not disqualify himself from the case. While the rule is that the judge must disqualify himself if a relative within the third degree is a party or an officer, director, general partner, managing partner, or trustee of a party, a first cousin doesn't come within that relationship under the CJC. The rule applies to the judge's great-grandparents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, and nephews--not cousins

Angela, a prospective client, visits John's office and says, "I want advice on how to embezzle money and get away with it." John advises Angela not to carry out her plan and they do not move forward with an attorney-client relationship. Angela embezzles money from her employer, and John is subpoenaed to testify at Angela's criminal trial. Is John's conversation with Angela privileged? A. Yes B. No

B. No The attorney-client privilege applies to consultations with prospective clients, but the attorney-client privilege doesn't apply if the client is seeking the attorney's services to engage in or assist a future crime or fraud.

Holly is representing Deena in a murder case. Deena brings her journal to Holly's office and tells her it contains entries from the days before the murder. She asks Holly to keep it safe during the trial. Is the journal privileged? A. Yes B. No

B. No The attorney-client privilege covers both oral and written communications, but the client can't protect a preexisting document or thing from discovery simply by turning it over to the attorney. If the document or thing would be discoverable in the client's hands, it's equally discoverable in the attorney's hands. Note, however, that their conversation about the journal would be privileged.

Anne is representing Caila in a personal injury lawsuit. Anne visits the home of Barbara, an eyewitness, and interviews her about the case. Anne makes it clear that she is representing Caila and that she is looking out for Caila's interests. At the end of the interview, Barbara tells Anne, "If you have any further questions for me, you can contact my attorney. Here's his card." Anne is shocked to hear that Barbara is represented by counsel in the matter. Is Anne subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

B. No The rule prohibiting contact with a represented person only applies where the communicating lawyer knows that the person is represented by counsel. Anne had no reason to know that Barbara was represented by counsel and had no duty to investigate, so the rule for communicating with unrepresented person applies. Anne acted properly during their conversation because she didn't state or imply that she was disinterested and didn't give her any legal advice.

Albert has not done any pro bono work in the past year. Is Albert subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

B. No The rules of professional conduct state that a lawyer should spend at least 50 hours on pro bono work. However, failing to do so is not grounds for professional discipline.

A private personal injury firm located in City B calls itself "City B Legal Aid Clinic." Is the name likely proper? A. Yes B. No

B. No Trade names are generally permitted as long as they aren't false or misleading. A geographical trade name like "City B Legal Aid Clinic" usually requires an express disclaimer that it isn't a public legal aid organization.

Bailey is representing Raj in an excessive force lawsuit against the local police department. Raj's sister Malia, who does not have a lawyer, was also present during the altercation at issue. Malia asks Bailey whether she might also have a claim against the police department. Bailey truthfully advises Malia that she probably does not have a claim, but that she should seek the advice of an attorney. Is Bailey likely subject to discipline? A. Yes, because she gave legal advice to Malia B. No, because Malia's interests are not likely to conflict with Raj's interests

B. No, because Malia's interests are not likely to conflict with Raj's interests When a lawyer knows or should know that her client's interests are likely to be in conflict with those of an unrepresented person, the lawyer can't give legal advice to that person (other than to get a lawyer). Bailey did give legal advice to Malia, who is unrepresented. However, there is no indication that Raj and Malia are likely to have conflicting interests, so Bailey wasn't prohibited from giving advice.

Becca is a criminal defense attorney who also owns a dog grooming business. On one occasion, Becca failed to supervise a new employee, and a dog was seriously injured. Is Becca subject to discipline? A. Yes, unless she had warned the dog's owner that the protections of the attorney-client relationship do not apply B. No, because grooming dogs is not a law-related service

B. No, because grooming dogs is not a law-related service Law-related services are services that might reasonably be performed in conjunction with (and are related to) the provision of legal services and that are not prohibited as unauthorized practice of law when provided by a nonlawyer. If a lawyer provides nonlegal services through an entity that isn't her law office but that she controls (either alone or with other lawyers), that lawyer must take reasonable steps to assure that people who receive the nonlegal services understand that those services aren't legal services and that the rules of professional conduct don't cover those services. If the lawyer doesn't take those reasonable steps, then the lawyer is subject to the rules of professional conduct with respect to the nonlegal services. Dog grooming is not a law-related service. Thus, the rules of professional conduct won't apply even if Becca fails to make this clear to her customers.

Lance is negotiating a settlement for his client in a personal injury case. The client has authorized him to settle the case for $60,000 but would prefer a settlement in the $80,000 range. Lance begins the negotiation by telling opposing counsel, "My client won't settle for anything less than $100,000." Is Lance subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he made a false statement of material fact B. No, because he used an acceptable negotiation technique

B. No, because he used an acceptable negotiation technique A lawyer must not make a false statement of material fact to a non-client, and this includes statements in settlement negotiations. However, under generally accepted conventions in negotiation, certain types of statements ordinarily are not taken as statements of material fact. Estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction are ordinarily regarded as mere puffery, and so is a statement of a party's intentions as to settlement of a claim. Therefore, it was proper for Lance to "puff" on his client's settlement intentions.

Zachary is representing Kayla in the sale of her farm. Kayla asks Zachary to evaluate her legal title to the farm and send the evaluation to Barry, a prospective buyer. Zachary evaluates Kayla's legal title to the farm and finds no problems with it. He simultaneously sends copies of his evaluation to both Kayla and Barry. Is Zachary subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he did not get Kayla's informed consent before sending the confidential information to Barry B. No, because he was impliedly authorized to send the evaluation to Barry

B. No, because he was impliedly authorized to send the evaluation to Barry A lawyer may evaluate a client's affairs for the use of a third person if the lawyer reasonably believes that making the evaluation is compatible with the lawyer's other responsibilities to the client. The rules of confidentiality apply to information gained during the evaluation, but where disclosure would serve the client's interests, the lawyer is impliedly authorized to disclose the information. The information in Zachary's evaluation would not harm Kayla, so Zachary was authorized to furnish that information to Barry.

A lawyer MUST withdraw from a case when: (1) the client fires the lawyer; (2) the representation would require the lawyer to violate the law or the rules of professional conduct; or (3) __________________. A. The lawyer has a fundamental disagreement with the client's position B. The lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs their ability to represent the client C. The client previously used the lawyer's services to commit a crime or fraud D. The client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent

B. The lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs their ability to represent the client A lawyer must withdraw from a case when: (i) the client fires the lawyer; (ii) the representation would require the lawyer to violate the law or an ethics rule; or (iii) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to continue representing the client. The other grounds listed are some of the permissive grounds for withdrawal.

Bree, a lawyer, recently filed her taxes and was very impressed with her accountant, Owen. At their final meeting, Owen proposed a nonexclusive agreement in which Bree would recommend Owen to clients who needed help with their taxes, and Owen would recommend Bree to clients who needed legal help. Bree and Owen agreed that they would fully inform each client of the agreement between them, and that their agreement would be binding until one of them died or retired from practice. Was the agreement proper? A. Yes, because it was not exclusive, and clients would be informed B. No, because it was intended to last until death or retirement C. No, because Owen is not a lawyer

B. No, because it was intended to last until death or retirement A lawyer generally may enter into a reciprocal referral agreement with another lawyer, or with a nonlawyer professional, if the agreement isn't exclusive and the referred person is told about the agreement. However, such an agreement shouldn't be indefinite in duration. The agreement between Bree and Owen is effectively indefinite because it will last until one of them dies or retires. This is improper, so (B) is correct and (A) is wrong. (C) is wrong because a lawyer may enter into an agreement with a nonlawyer or a nonlawyer professional, and accountants are nonlawyer professionals.

Caleb and Jeremy are running for district attorney. Lorelei used to work with Jeremy, and she writes an editorial endorsing Caleb. In the editorial, she gives her honest and candid opinion that Caleb's opponent, Jeremy, does not have the temperament required for the job. Is Lorelei subject to discipline? A. Yes, because she disparaged a candidate for public legal office B. No, because she gave her truthful opinion C. No, because Jeremy is not a judge or judicial candidate

B. No, because she gave her truthful opinion A lawyer must not make a statement that the lawyer knows is false about the qualifications or integrity of a judge, hearing officer, or public legal official, or about a candidate for a judicial or legal office. The same rule applies to statements made with reckless disregard as to truth or falsity. However, this rule doesn't prohibit a lawyer from giving an informed and candid opinion, so (B) is correct and (A) is wrong. (C) is wrong because the rule applies to public legal officials and candidates for those positions as well as to judges and judicial candidates.

Taylor and Scott are partners in different offices of the same firm. Taylor represents Books-R-Us in real estate matters. Knowing this, Scott accepts a representation of The Book-Bin, a direct competitor of Books-R-Us, in a copyright matter. None of Taylor's matters for Books-R-Us involve The Book-Bin, and Scott's matter for The Book-Bin does not involve Books-R-Us. Neither Scott nor Taylor obtain informed consent from their client. Are Scott and Taylor likely subject to discipline? A. No, because they work in different offices B. No, because the clients are not legally adverse C. Yes, because the clients are economically adverse

B. No, because the clients are not legally adverse The two clients are head-to-head adversaries in an economic sense, but their interests are not adverse in any legal sense—Taylor is not representing Books-R-Us against The Book-Bin, and Scott is not representing The Book-Bin against Books-R-Us. If Taylor and Scott can disclose the situation to their respective clients without revealing confidential information, they may do so for the sake of client goodwill, but they wouldn't be subject to discipline for failing to do so. Therefore, (B) is correct and (C) is wrong. (A) is wrong. If a lawyer does have a conflict, it is generally imputed to everyone in the firm, even to lawyers in different offices.

MediaCorp hires Linda to investigate alleged violations of federal privacy regulations by its employees. Linda conducts an investigation and finds serious violations that would result in substantial fines and bad publicity for MediaCorp. Linda reports her findings to the board of directors, and they thank her for her work but do not seem willing to take action. Assuming an exception to the duty of confidentiality does NOT apply, may Linda report the information to an outside authority? A. Yes, if she believes disclosure is necessary to prevent substantial injury to MediaCorp B. No, she is prohibited from reporting the information

B. No, she is prohibited from reporting the information If an organization's lawyer reports a legal violation to the organization's highest authority, but the highest authority fails to make timely, appropriate action, the lawyer may report the relevant information to appropriate persons outside of the organization if the lawyer reasonably believes that reporting is necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization. This is true even if the information would otherwise be protected by the duty of confidentiality. However, the authority to report to outsiders does NOT apply to a lawyer who is hired by the organization to investigate an alleged violation or law or to defend the organization or its constituents against a claimed violation of law. Linda was hired to investigate the alleged violations, so she wasn't authorized to report her findings to an outside authority under this rule (and there is no apparent confidentiality exception that would allow her to disclose the information).

After Elizabeth hears about a hit-and-run car accident on the news, she sends her paralegal to the hospital to tell the victim about Elizabeth's firm. This is: A. Proper solicitation B. Prohibited solicitation C. Not solicitation

B. Prohibited solicitation A lawyer can't use an agent to do what the lawyer isn't permitted to do, and this is prohibited live person-to-person solicitation.

Josie previously sent a letter offering her services to several patients of a hospital who suffered life-threatening infections. One of the victims calls Josie and asks to be removed from the list because he already has a lawyer. Josie sends that victim another letter providing additional details of her expertise in medical malpractice cases. This is: A. Proper solicitation B. Prohibited solicitation C. Not solicitation

B. Prohibited solicitation This is prohibited solicitation. Although a letter doesn't constitute live person-to-person contact, the second letter is still prohibited because the victim had made it known to Josie that he didn't want to be solicited by Josie.

Jolie receives an email from Debra, the opposing counsel in one of Jolie's cases. Jolie realizes that the email was clearly meant for Debra's client rather than Jolie and contains confidential information. What must Jolie do? A. Delete the email and promptly notify Debra B. Promptly notify Debra C. Nothing

B. Promptly notify Debra When a lawyer receives a document, and she knows or reasonably should know that it was sent by mistake, she must promptly notify the sender so that the sender can take protective measures. Nothing else is required under the Model Rules, which don't address some related questions on which state law is split (e.g., whether the recipient must return the document to the sender or delete electronically stored information, or whether the inadvertent disclosure of the document waives a privilege that would otherwise protect it).

Prosecutor Neve is preparing for the high-profile murder trial of Dylan, who allegedly killed his wife. Neve learns that the sheriff is planning to hold a press conference to inform the public that Dylan was carrying on multiple extramarital affairs before his wife's death. What must Neve do? A. She must not make public statements about the affairs herself, but she had no duty to prevent the sheriff's press conference because she is not his supervisor B. She must take reasonable care to prevent the sheriff's press conference

B. She must take reasonable care to prevent the sheriff's press conference A prosecutor is subject to the general rule against making statements that are likely to prejudice a trial. Furthermore, except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, a prosecutor must not make extrajudicial statements that have a "substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused." A prosecutor also must take reasonable care to prevent investigators, police, employees, and others assisting in a case from making statements that violate these rules. So, Neve must try to prevent the sheriff from making the statement about Dylan's extramarital affairs. Note, however, that Neve isn't subject to discipline if she takes reasonable care, for example by cautioning the sheriff against the press conference, and her efforts fail.

Abby is licensed to practice in State A but received "pro hac vice" permission from State B to represent a client in a lawsuit in State B court. During the State B litigation, Abby does something that violates the rules of professional conduct of State B. However, the action is permitted under State A's rules. State B's choice of law rule follows the ABA model rule. Which state's rule will apply to Abby's conduct? A. State A, because that is where Abby is licensed B. State B, because that is where the litigation took place C. Each state can apply their own rule and discipline Abby

B. State B, because that is where the litigation took place Although each state can discipline Abby, a lawyer's particular conduct is governed by only one set of disciplinary rules. Therefore, (C) is wrong. The choice of law rules are as follows: If the conduct in question occurred in connection with a proceeding that was pending before a tribunal, the ethics rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits will be applied, unless the tribunal's rules provide otherwise. For any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the predominant effect of the conduct occurred will apply (but note that if the lawyer reasonably believed that the predominant effect would be somewhere else, the lawyer won't be subject to discipline if the conduct would have been proper in that other jurisdiction).

LeAnn is representing Paul in a personal injury lawsuit on a one-third contingency basis. She receives a letter from Gerard, Paul's chiropractor, informing LeAnn that he has obtained a lien for $10,000 of any proceeds from Paul's case. After settling the case, LeAnn receives a check for $30,000 and places the funds into the client trust account. She notifies Paul of the settlement and reminds Paul that she is taking $10,000 for her legal fee. Paul agrees, but when she reminds him of Gerard's lien, Paul demands that she give him his full $20,000 and promises to pay Gerard on his own. What must LeAnn do? A. Take $10,000, and send $10,000 to Gerard and $10,000 to Paul B. Take $10,000, send $10,000 to Paul, and keep $10,000 in the client trust account C. Take $10,000 and keep $20,000 in the client trust account D. Take $10,000 and send $20,000 to Paul E. Keep the entire $30,000 in the client trust account

B. Take $10,000, send $10,000 to Paul, and keep $10,000 in the client trust account If there is a dispute over funds (between the lawyer and the client, or between the client and some third person), the lawyer must keep the disputed portion in the client trust account until the dispute is resolved. Sometimes a third party has an interest in funds that come into the lawyer's possession on behalf of the client. Statute, common law, or contract may require the lawyer to protect the third party's interest against interference by the client; accordingly, when the third party's claim is not frivolous, the lawyer must refuse to surrender the funds to the client until the third party has been paid. Here, Paul agreed that LeAnn should get her $10,000 legal fee, so the disputed amount is $10,000--the amount of Gerard's lien. The remaining $10,000 belongs to Paul. Therefore, LeAnn must take her $10,000 fee, distribute $10,000 to Paul, and keep $10,000 in the trust account until the dispute is resolved.

Lyle represents Rebecca and BigCorp in separate lawsuits. Rebecca wants Lyle to take a certain position on a legal issue in her case, and BigCorp wants Lyle to take the opposite position in their case. Which statement is most accurate regarding whether there is a conflict of interest? A. Taking inconsistent legal positions in separate cases always poses a conflict that must be addressed by getting informed consent, confirmed in writing, from each client B. Taking inconsistent legal positions in separate cases poses a conflict in certain circumstances, such as when a decision favoring one client will create a precedent that will seriously weaken the other client's position C. A lawyer must never take inconsistent legal positions in separate cases, even if the clients consent

B. Taking inconsistent legal positions in separate cases poses a conflict in certain circumstances, such as when a decision favoring one client will create a precedent that will seriously weaken the other client's position. Generally, a lawyer may take inconsistent legal positions in different tribunals at different times on behalf of different clients, and that on its own doesn't create a conflict of interest. However, a conflict exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer's action on behalf of one client will materially limit the lawyer's representation of another client in a different case: for example, when a decision favoring one client will create a precedent likely to seriously weaken the position taken on behalf of the other client.

Riley tells her client that she is a specialist in toxic tort cases, even though she has only handled three other cases of this type. Riley then makes a serious error in the client's toxic tort case. If the client sues Riley for negligence, what standard of care will be applied to Riley? A. The competence and diligence normally exercised by lawyers in similar circumstances B. The competence and diligence normally exercised by lawyers who specialize in toxic tort cases

B. The competence and diligence normally exercised by lawyers who specialize in toxic tort cases Generally, the standard of care for an attorney is the competence and diligence normally exercised by attorneys in similar circumstances. However, if an attorney represents to a client that she has greater competence (e.g., is a specialist) or will exercise greater diligence than that normally demonstrated by attorneys undertaking similar matters, she is held to that higher standard

Henry hires Lola to represent him on a contingent fee basis. They agree that Lola will take 30% of any recovery. Midway through the case and after Lola had done hundreds of hours of work, Henry fires Lola without cause and gets another lawyer. What fee, if any, is Lola entitled to? A. None, because she assumed the risk of a contingent fee agreement B. The reasonable value of her services, once Henry prevails in the case C. The reasonable value of her services, immediately D. 30% of whatever Henry recovers

B. The reasonable value of her services, once Henry prevails in the case When a client hires a lawyer on a contingent fee basis and then fires the lawyer before the case is over, the lawyer is still entitled to quantum meruit recovery for the reasonable value of the work done before the firing. However, the lawyer's claim doesn't arise until the contingency comes to pass.

Partners A, B, and C practice law together in the ABC Law Firm, which is set up as a general partnership. Partner A commits legal malpractice. What is the extent of B's and C's personal liability for A's malpractice A. They are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the judgment, but only if they ordered, ratified, or failed to mitigate A's conduct B. They are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the judgment C. They have no personal liability

B. They are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the judgment Under partnership law, each partner in a general partnership is jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the partnership, including the torts of another partner or employee committed in the ordinary course of the partnership business. Joint and several liability means that any partner may be held personally liable for the entire judgment even if they had nothing to do with the negligent act. Thus, (C) is wrong and (B) is correct. (A) Is wrong. The language about ordering, ratifying, or failing to mitigate A's misconduct is relevant to whether they are ethically responsible for the misconduct, but it isn't relevant to their financial liability

A lawyer engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with their client is subject to discipline: A. Regardless of the circumstances B. Unless the relationship existed prior to the representation C. Unless the client initiated the relationship D. Only if the relationship materially limits the representation

B. Unless the relationship existed prior to the representation A lawyer must not have a sexual relationship with a client; the sole exception is when the lawyer and client had a consensual sexual relationship before the lawyer-client relationship began. Thus, (B) is correct and (A) is wrong. (C) and (D) are wrong because the prohibition on engaging in a sexual relationship with a client applies even if the client initiated the relationship, and even if the client isn't harmed. Note that even if the relationship predates the representation, there still may be a general "material limitation" conflict if the relationship will affect the representation.

Maria is working on a class action lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company. Which members of the class could Maria sue on behalf of another client in an unrelated matter without obtaining any type of consent? A. Both named and unnamed class members B. Unnamed class members only C. Neither named nor unnamed class members

B. Unnamed class members only In class action litigation, the unnamed members of a class ordinarily are not regarded as clients for purposes of the "direct adversity" conflicts rule. Therefore Maria can sue an unnamed class member in an unrelated matter without obtaining their consent.

Lawyer Winnie receives an e-mail from a witness in a case. The e-mail contains details of the witness's private conversation with Winnie's client. The e-mail is protected by: A. The attorney-client privilege only B. Winnie's duty of confidentiality only C. Neither the attorney-client privilege nor Winnie's duty of confidentiality D. Both the attorney-client privilege and Winnie's duty of confidentiality

B. Winnie's duty of confidentiality only The attorney-client privilege applies only to communications between the lawyer and client (and their respective agents). It wouldn't cover this witness's conversation with Winnie's client. By contrast, the duty of confidentiality applies to all information relating to the representation, regardless of its source, so Winnie may be subject to discipline if she discloses the information.

A start-up company hires Larry to incorporate its business. The start-up is low on cash and proposes giving Larry stock in the company in exchange for his services. Is this proper? A. No, because it constitutes a proprietary interest in the representation B. Yes, as long as Larry meets the requirements for a business transaction with a client

B. Yes, as long as Larry meets the requirements for a business transaction with a client A lawyer must not take a proprietary interest in a cause of action or in the subject matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client. This is not a litigation matter; Larry is merely incorporating the start-up company. A lawyer may accept property, such as stocks, in lieu of money as long as the requirements for a business transaction are met.

Yvonne hired Luther to draft a will that left a substantial financial sum to her best friend, Bonnie. Unfortunately, Luther was not aware that state law required two witnesses, and Yvonne signed her will in front of only one witness. When Yvonne died, the will was held invalid and Bonnie received nothing. Does Bonnie have a malpractice claim against Luther? A. No, because Bonnie was not Luther's client B. Yes, because Bonnie was intended to benefit from Luther's services

B. Yes, because Bonnie was intended to benefit from Luther's services When it comes to malpractice claims, a lawyer generally does not owe a legal duty to non-clients. However, a lawyer may owe a duty to non-clients in certain circumstances, including when the non-client was intended to benefit from the lawyer's services. Because Bonnie was clearly intended to benefit from Luther's services, and because the potential for harm to Bonnie should have been obvious, Bonnie has a good malpractice claim against Luther.

Benji is representing Genevieve in the sale of her car to Hank, who does not have an attorney. Hank and Genevieve discuss the terms amongst themselves, and Benji then prepares the contract and mails a copy to Hank for his review and signature. Hank calls Benji and asks, "If I sign this contract, is it actually binding? How do I get out of it if I don't like the car?" Benji explains to Hank that he is Genevieve's lawyer in the matter and is acting in her interests only. He then truthfully tells Hank that based on legal precedent, it would be very difficult to get out of the finalized contract. Is Benji subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he did not tell Hank to get an attorney B. Yes, because he gave Hank legal advice C. No, because he did not state or imply that he was disinterested D. No, because his advice was truthful

B. Yes, because he gave Hank legal advice When a lawyer knows or should know that their client's interests are likely to be in conflict with those of an unrepresented person, the lawyer must not give legal advice to that person (other than to get a lawyer). Benji is subject to discipline because he gave legal advice to Hank, an unrepresented person who is on the opposite side of the transaction. (Note that although a lawyer may explain the effect of a document, such as each party's obligations under the contract, Benji went beyond that and gave legal advice as to Hank's options.) Thus, (B) is correct. It is immaterial that his advice was truthful, so (D) is wrong. (A) is wrong because a lawyer isn't required to tell an unrepresented person to get an attorney. Rather, that is the only permitted advice that a lawyer can give, if the person's interests conflict with those of the lawyer's client. (C) Is wrong becasue it only addresses part of the rule for communicating with unrepresented persons. Even though Benji didn't claim to be disinterested, he still gave legal advice to someone whose interests conflicted with Genevieve's interests

Tabitha asks her lawyer, Javier, to file a personal injury lawsuit against FurnitureCo. Javier has been FurnitureCo's real estate lawyer for years and has steadily represented them in various real estate matters. However, the last matter ended two weeks ago, and he has no pending matters open for them. Javier decides that when FurnitureCo sends him the next matter, he will decline it. Without seeking consent from FurnitureCo or Tabitha, Javier accepts the representation of Tabitha and files the complaint. Is Javier subject to discipline? A. No, because the matters are not substantially related B. Yes, because his representation of Tabitha is directly adverse to FurnitureCo

B. Yes, because his representation of Tabitha is directly adverse to FurnitureCo If FurnitureCo were a former client, there would be no conflict here because the personal injury lawsuit and the real estate closings are not substantially related. However, it doesn't appear that Javier clearly ended his longstanding relationship with FurnitureCo. Thus, the rules for conflicts between current clients apply. A lawyer must not represent a client if the representation will be directly adverse to another current client, unless the lawyer reasonably believes he can competently and diligently represent them both, and both clients provide informed consent, confirmed in writing. Because Javier is representing Tabitha against FurnitureCo, and failed to get consent from either client, Javier is subject to discipline.

Prosecutor Yuri is working on a burglary case. The defendant, Telly, claims that he was nowhere near the victim's house on the day in question. During the investigation, the victim's neighbor calls the police department and tells them that she remembers seeing a short redheaded man lurking around the victim's house on the day of the murder. Telly is tall and does not have red hair. Yuri saw the report of the neighbor's interview in the police file but dismissed it because other evidence in the case points to Telly. Is Yuri subject to discipline for failing to disclose the neighbor's interview to the defense? A. No, because Telly's attorney could have located and interviewed the neighbor B. Yes, because the evidence tends to negate Telly's guilt

B. Yes, because the evidence tends to negate Telly's guilt A prosecutor must timely disclose to the defense all evidence and information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the degree of the offense. This is true even if the defense could have obtained such evidence themselves.

Judge Jun does not belong to a country club. His friend belongs to an exclusive golf club that does not permit women or gender nonconforming individuals to join. His friend invites the judge to a fundraiser for the children's hospital at the country club. The event is open to everyone. Is it proper for Judge Jun to attend? A. Yes, because the event is open to everyone B. Yes, because the fundraiser is an isolated event that would not be construed as the judge endorsing the club's practices C. No, because a judge must not use the facilities of an organization that the judge knows practices a form of invidious discrimination D. No, judges are not permitted to attend fundraisers.

B. Yes, because the fundraiser is an isolated event that would not be construed as the judge endorsing the club's practices (B) is correct. A judge may attend an event in a facility of an organization that engages in discriminatory practices if his attendance is an isolated event that could not reasonably be perceived as an endorsement of the organization's practices. (A) is wrong because the fact that an event is open to everyone is not enough. For the judge to be able to attend, it would have to be an isolated event and not look as though the judge were endorsing the club. (C) is wrong because an isolated event like this one is an exception to the rule that a judge must not use an organization's benefits or facilities if he knows or should know that it practices one of the prohibited forms of invidious discrimination. (D) is wrong because a judge is permitted to attend a charitable fundraiser that isn't law-related as long as he isn't speaking, receiving an award, being featured on the program, or allowing use of his title in connection with the event. For those actions, the fundraiser must be related to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.

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 temperament and fitness C. No, because this occurred on the judge's own time and was not related to his judicial duties D. No, because his reaction was reasonable given the provocation

B. Yes, because the judge acted in a manner that reflected adversely on his temperament and fitness The judge is subject to discipline because the judge's actions gave the appearance of impropriety. An "appearance of impropriety" arises when a judge's conduct would create a reasonable perception that he has violated the CJC or acted in some other manner that reflects adversely on his honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness as a judge. Engaging in a drunken brawl reflects adversely on the judge's temperament and fitness. (A) is wrong because a judge can have drinks at a public place, provided he doesn't act in a way that raises an appearance of impropriety. (C) is wrong because the prohibition on the appearance of impropriety isn't limited to actions related to judicial duties. A judge must at all times comply with the law and promote confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. (D) is wrong because the fact that the judge was provoked does not excuse the appearance of impropriety.

Arie, a tax attorney, meets with client Chloe to prepare her taxes and provide legal advice. Arie makes a serious error on the tax return, resulting in a costly audit. Could Arie be subject to discipline for incompetently completing Chloe's tax return? A. No, because preparing a tax return is a nonlegal service B. Yes, because the legal and nonlegal services were provided together

B. Yes, because the legal and nonlegal services were provided together If a lawyer provides nonlegal services in circumstances that aren't distinct from the provision of legal services, then the rules of professional conduct apply to both the legal and nonlegal services. Consequently, Arie can be disciplined for the mistake on Chloe's tax return.

Ted is on trial for burglary. Ted's uncle has hired Ellen to represent Ted and is paying for Ted's legal fees. Ted's uncle wants to approve any major decisions with regard to Ted's defense. Ellen obtains Ted's informed consent to this arrangement. Is Ellen subject to discipline? A. Yes, because a lawyer must not represent a client if a third party is paying the client's legal fees B. Yes, because the uncle is seeking to interfere in the case C. No, because the uncle is Ted's family member D. No, because Ted gave informed consent to the arrangement

B. Yes, because the uncle is seeking to interfere in the case Ellen is subject to discipline for agreeing to represent Ted under these conditions. A lawyer may accept compensation from a third person for representing a client, as long as: (i) the client gives informed consent, (ii) the third person doesn't interfere with the lawyer's independence or the representation of the client, and (iii) the arrangement doesn't compromise the client's confidential information. By requiring his approval of all major decisions, Ted's uncle seeks to interfere with Ellen's independence in representing Tom, and this is unacceptable, so (B) is correct. Tom providing informed consent wouldn't solve this conflict of interest, so (D) is wrong. (C) is wrong because the rule applies even where the third party is the client's family member. (A) is wrong because it is too broad; if a third party is paying the client's legal fees, the lawyer may generally accept the representation as long as the conditions are met.

Moira represents LocalQuik, a convenience store. LocalQuik asks Moira to attend a city council meeting and argue against a proposed tax on soft drinks. Moira attends the meeting and presents both legal and economic arguments against the tax. LocalQuik urges Moira to "keep their name out of it" if she can. Must Moira volunteer to the city council that she is acting in a representative capacity? A. Yes, and she must identify LocalQuik as her client B. Yes, but she is not required to identify her client C. No, because LocalQUick asked her not to reveal their involvement D. No, because Moira is not appearing in front of a tribunal

B. Yes, but she is not required to identify her client When a lawyer appears on behalf of a client before a legislative body or administrative agency, the lawyer must disclose that she is acting in a representative capacity (not on her own behalf), but she isn't required to identify the client. Thus, (B) is correct and (A) is wrong. (C) is wrong because Local Quik's instructions are irrelevant. (D) is wrong. This rule applies specifically to non-adjudicative proceedings in front of legislative bodies and administrative agencies (like the city council meeting here). Also, note that even though the lawyer appearing in this capacity is not in front of a tribunal, they still must follow many of the same rules that apply in a tribunal (e.g., must not make false statements of fact or law, offer evidence known to. be false, obstruct access to evidence, knowingly violate the rules and orders of the legislative or administrative body, seek to use undue influence, or engage in disruptive conduct.)

Chad runs a fantasy baseball league that he belongs to with several friends, some of whom he represents in legal matters. When the friends sent Chad their entrance fees at the beginning of the season, Chad put the fees into his own bank account. Chad knows that his friends are not diligent about monitoring their players' statistics, so he falsifies the score reports to ensure that he wins the pool of money at the end. Is Chad subject to discipline? A. Yes, for commingling funds with the clients' funds only B. Yes, for acting deceitfully only C. Yes, both for commingling his funds with his clients' funds and for acting deceitfully D. No, because he did not hold the funds in connection with a representation

B. Yes, for acting deceitfully only Chad didn't hold the funds in connection with any representation of his friends (even though some of them are his clients), so Chad isn't subject to the prohibition on commingling funds. However, Chad is still subject to the general prohibition on conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, which applies even where a lawyer isn't acting in connection with any legal representation

Yolanda regularly reviews vendor contracts for ComCorp. A few months ago, they agreed that Yolanda would bill $500 per contract, but they have not had any conversations about fees lately. On Wednesday, Yolanda receives a contract from ComCorp, does the work, and then bills them $500. On Thursday, Yolanda receives a contract from ComCorp that is twice the normal length. She does the work and then bills ComCorp $1,000, with an explanation that the contract was unusually long. Assuming both amounts are reasonable, is Yolanda subject to discipline? A. No, because ComCorp is a regularly represented client B. Yes, for her actions on Thursday only C. Yes, for her actions on both Wednesday and Thursday

B. Yes, for her actions on Thursday only A lawyer must, before or within a reasonable time after commencing a representation, communicate the basis or rate of the fee and the expenses for which the client will be responsible. However, if the lawyer regularly represents the client and will be charging the same basis or rate as in other matters, the lawyer need not communicate the fee arrangement each time. A lawyer also has an ongoing duty to communicate any changes regarding the fee arrangement. On both Wednesday and Thursday, Yolanda failed to communicate the basis or rate of her fee before or within a reasonable time of beginning her work. However, Yolanda's actions on Wednesday were proper because she was charging ComCorp the same amount as always—$500 for a single contract. But on Thursday, she doubled her usual charge. Even though the total amount was reasonable, she was required to reach out to ComCorp, explain the change in circumstances, and come to an agreement before proceeding. Because she only explained the change after doing the work, she is subject to discipline.

Michelle is an estate planning lawyer. She wants to ask her client Pierre to make her the executor of his estate, which promises to be a lucrative position. Michelle and Pierre have no family relationship. May Michelle proceed? A. No, because a lawyer must not solicit a substantial gift from a client unless they are related B. Yes, provided Michelle addresses any "material limitation" conflict based on her personal interest in obtaining the position.

B. Yes, provided Michelle addresses any "material limitation" conflict based on her personal interest in obtaining the position. The conflicts rule for gifts from clients doesn't prohibit a lawyer from seeking to have herself or her colleague named as executor of an estate or counsel to the executor or to some other fee-paying position. There may be a general conflict, though, if the lawyer's interest in obtaining the appointment will materially limit the lawyer's judgment in advising the client concerning the choice of an executor or other fiduciary. In that situation, Michelle would need to get Pierre's informed consent, confirmed in writing, and explain her financial interest as well as the availability of alternative candidates for the position.

The requirements for business transactions with clients (e.g., must be fair and reasonable to client; must obtain informed consent in a signed writing) have to be met in all of the following situations, EXCEPT: A. A lawyer accepts non-monetary property as a legal fee B. A lawyer who owns a separate title insurance business sells title insurance to the client C. A lawyer who represents a bank takes out a standard home loan from that bank D. A lawyer buys a client's boat E. A lawyer leases their second home to a client.

C. A lawyer who represents a bank takes out a standard home loan from that bank The rule for business transactions and adverse financial interests does not apply to: (i) an ordinary fee agreement between a lawyer and client, or (ii) standard commercial transactions in which the lawyer buys goods or services that the client routinely markets to the public. If a lawyer takes out a standard home loan from a bank that is also a client, it would be considered a standard commercial transaction. The lawyer would have no advantage in this situation, so the usual requirements for business transactions don't need to be met. The other choices are subject to the normal requirements.

Jin is a well-known patent lawyer with a busy schedule. Harold pays Jin $20,000 so that Jin will be available to represent him in an upcoming patent dispute. Subsequently, Harold and Jin enter into a "nonrefundable retainer agreement." In accordance with the agreement, Harold pays Jin $100,000 for legal fees up front, to be credited against Jin's hourly rate. Mid-way through the case, Jin has done $50,000 worth of work. Harold decides he wants a new lawyer, fires Jin, and demands a refund. What, if anything, is Jin required to give back to Harold? A. Nothing B. $20,000 C. $50,000 D. $70,000 E. $100,000 F. $120,000

C. $50,000 A lawyer may require their fee to be paid in advance, but they must refund any unearned part of the advance if they withdraw or are fired. Harold has made an advance payment of $100,000 for legal fees. Jin has done $50,000 of work, which means that $50,000 of the payment is unearned. This is the amount that Jin must refund to Harold. It is immaterial that their agreement was deemed "nonrefundable" and a "retainer"—the terminology is not controlling. A true retainer fee is something different—it is money paid solely to ensure the availability of the lawyer. A lawyer who is fired or withdraws generally need not refund a retainer fee. The $20,000 that was initially paid solely to ensure Jin's availability was a retainer fee, and Jin is not required to return it to Harold.

For which action would a lawyer be subject to discipline? A. A client admits to her lawyer that she plans to rob a store. She asks about the different penalties for armed robbery versus unarmed robbery. The lawyer gives the client accurate information on the sentencing guidelines. B. A client comes to a lawyer for advice regarding a zoning statute that is probably unconstitutional, but the client doesn't have legal standing to challenge it. The lawyer advises the client that one way to obtain standing is to disobey the statute. C. A client instructs the lawyer to take a course of action that seems to constitute money laundering, although the client does not seem aware of this. The lawyer says no, and when the client asks why not, the lawyer refuses to discuss the matter further and tells the client to get another attorney.

C. A client instructs the lawyer to take a course of action that seems to constitute money laundering, although the client does not seem aware of this. The lawyer says no, and when the client asks why not, the lawyer refuses to discuss the matter further and tells the client to get another attorney. (A) is wrong. A lawyer must not advise a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, or assist the client in such conduct. However, the lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct. So, the lawyer here wouldn't be subject to discipline for giving information about the sentencing guidelines for different crimes. (B) is wrong. A lawyer may also counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law. One way to do this is by violating a statute to test its validity or scope in an enforcement proceeding. Thus, the lawyer here wouldn't be subject to discipline for telling the client that one way to get legal standing is to disobey the statute. (C) is correct. If the client expects the lawyer to do something that is illegal or unethical, the lawyer must consult with the client and explain why he can't do what the client wants. The lawyer should have explained that the action amounted to money laundering and he was unable to assist the client in criminal or fraudulent conduct.

A lawyer could properly make a reciprocal referral agreement with: A. An owner of a clothing store B. A computer salesperson C. A dentist

C. A dentist A dentist would fall within the generally accepted meaning of "nonlawyer professional." Dentistry requires a high level of training and dentists are licensed and regulated.

Which of the following does NOT pose a conflict that would require the consent of all parties to the case? A. A former judge in the case wants to represent a party in the case B. A former mediator in the case wants to represent a party in the case C. A former partisan arbitrator for a party in the case wants to represent that party in the case D. A former judicial law clerk who worked on the case wants to represent a party in the case

C. A former partisan arbitrator for a party in the case wants to represent that party in the case A lawyer must not represent a private client in a matter in which the lawyer has earlier participated personally and substantially while serving as a judge or other adjudicative officer (e.g., a referee or special master) or as a law clerk to such person, or as an arbitrator, mediator, or other third-party neutral, unless all parties to the proceedings give informed consent, confirmed in writing. However, an arbitrator who is selected as a partisan of a party in a multi-member arbitration panel may subsequently represent that party. This is because a partisan arbitrator is not expected to be neutral.

A lawyer is subject to discipline for bringing a frivolous proceeding, asserting a frivolous position in the defense of a proceeding, or taking a frivolous position on an issue in a proceeding. Which of the following actions would violate this rule? A. Asserting a position without fully understanding the facts B. Asserting a position without vital evidence but with the hope that such evidence will be uncovered through discovery proceedings C. Asserting a position the lawyer believes is justified, even though it is not supported by existing law and there is no good faith basis for changing the law D. Asserting a position with the belief that it will probably fail

C. Asserting a position the lawyer believes is justified, even though it is not supported by existing law and there is no good faith basis for changing the law A lawyer is subject to discipline for bringing a frivolous proceeding, asserting a frivolous position in the defense of a proceeding, or taking a frivolous position on an issue in a proceeding. A "frivolous" position is one that cannot be supported by a good faith argument under existing law and that can't be supported by a good faith argument for changing the existing law. In that situation, the position is frivolous even if the lawyer subjectively believes otherwise. Thus, (C) is correct. (A) is wrong because it isn't frivolous to assert a position without first fully substantiating all the facts. (B) is wrong because it isn't frivolous to assert a position knowing that vital evidence can be uncovered only through discovery proceedings. (D) is wrong because it isn't frivolous to assert a position even though the lawyer believes that the position won't ultimately prevail.

Bea's client, Sally, suffers a traumatic brain injury. Bea learns that Sally's son, Ivan, is planning to have Sally sign over her house to him. Sally previously told Bea that Ivan has a severe gambling problem and she did not want him to have any control over her affairs in the future. When Bea visits Sally at a rehabilitation center, Sally tells her to let Ivan do what he wants. However, it is clear to Bea that Sally is unaware of her surroundings and unable to make an informed decision. What can Bea do in this situation? A. Bea must do nothing, because Sally told her not to B. Bea can take protective action, but she must not disclose any confidential information about Sally's relationship with Ivan, Sally's condition, or anything else C. Bea can take protective action, and she can disclose confidential information to the extent reasonably necessary to protect Sally's interests.

C. Bea can take protective action, and she can disclose confidential information to the extent reasonably necessary to protect Sally's interests. When the client has diminished capacity and faces a risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harm, the lawyer may take reasonable actions to protect the client. These actions include consulting with people or entities that can protect the client, and, when appropriate, seeking the appointment of a guardian or similar surrogate. When taking protective action, the lawyer has implied authority to reveal the client's confidential information, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client. Sally is at risk of substantial harm because she will lose her house. Therefore, Bea is allowed to take protective action, and is authorized to disclose Sally's confidential information to the extent reasonably necessary to protect Sally's interests.

Calvin is admitted to practice in State A but received "pro hac vice" permission from State B to represent a client in State B court. During the State B litigation, Calvin commits misconduct. Which state can discipline Calvin for his misconduct? A. State A only B. State B only C. Both states

C. Both states A lawyer is subject to regulation by each state in which the lawyer is admitted to practice, regardless of where the lawyer actually practices law or where the lawyer's conduct occurred. A lawyer is also subject to discipline in any other state where the lawyer provides or offers to provide legal services. Calvin is admitted to practice in State A and was practicing on a temporary basis in State B. Calvin is subject to discipline in both states.

Which of the following survive the client's death? A. The attorney-client privilege only B. The duty of confidentiality only C. Both the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality D. Neither the attorney-client privilege nor the duty of confidentiality.

C. Both the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality Both the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality survive termination of the representation, and even the client's death.

Which of the following apply to discussions with someone who comes in to talk about hiring the lawyer but decides not to do so? A. The attorney-client privilege only B. The duty of confidentiality only C. Both the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality D. Neither the attorney-client privilege nor the duty of confidentiality.

C. Both the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality For purposes of the attorney-client privilege, a "client" means a person that seeks legal services from an attorney. The privilege covers preliminary communications leading up to an attorney-client relationship, even if no such relationship develops. Similarly, the ethical duty of confidentiality applies to information gained during consultations with prospective clients.

While in private practice, Owen represented BuildCo in their application for a building permit. Owen now works as a lawyer for the local government agency that is evaluating BuildCo's application. Under what circumstances can Owen work on the BuildCo matter? A. If BuildCo consents B. If the government agency consents C. if BuildCo and the government agency both consent

C. If BuildCo and the government agency both consent The ordinary conflict rules apply to a lawyer who enters government service after private practice or other nongovernmental work. Owen has a former-client conflict with BuildCo, because he is working on the other side of a matter in which he represented BuildCo. Thus, he needs BuildCo's consent. Additionally, if a lawyer worked personally and substantially on a matter in private practice or other nongovernmental employment, the lawyer must not work on that same matter when he later enters government service, unless the government agency gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. Therefore, Owen needs the agency's consent as well.

A lender and a borrower want Ashley to represent them in a loan transaction and have already agreed on the major terms. Ashley reasonably believes that she can competently and diligently represent them both. She obtains each client's informed consent on the telephone, and then promptly sends a confirmatory e-mail. She then proceeds with the representation. Is Ashley subject to discipline? A. Yes, because she did not obtain the clients' consent in a signed writing B. Yes, because a lawyer must never be on opposite sides of the same matter C. No, because she properly handled the conflict

C. No, because she properly handled the conflict A conflict exists because Ashley will be representing two directly adverse clients in the same matter. A lawyer must never be on opposite sides of the same litigation (or other proceeding pending before a tribunal), but this is a transactional matter, so (B) is wrong. If there is a conflict between current clients, a lawyer may undertake the representation if she reasonably believes that she can competently and diligently represent each affected client despite the conflict, and each client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. The clients' signatures are not required. Therefore, (C) is correct and (A) is wrong.

Bennie asks Ayanna to represent him in his contentious divorce from Janet. Ayanna represented Janet a few years ago in various tax matters relating to her business and personal finances. May Ayanna accept the representation of Bennie without Janet's consent? A. Yes, because Ayanna does not currently represent Janet B. Yes, because the matters are unrelated C. No, because the matters are substantially related D. No, because a lawyer must not oppose a former client

C. No, because the matters are substantially related A lawyer must not represent one client whose interests are materially adverse to those of a former client in a matter that is substantially related to a matter in which the lawyer represented the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. Matters are "substantially related" if: (i) they involve the same transaction or legal dispute, or (ii) there is a substantial risk that confidential factual information as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the new client's position.

Prior to Judge Jesse being appointed to the bench, his firm worked on a case for X-Corp. Judge Jesse had no involvement in the case. The X-Corp case is now before Judge Jesse. Judge Jesse discloses on the record the reason for his disqualification. He then turns to the parties and asks whether they can agree that he should not be disqualified. Both parties agree to waive the disqualification. May Judge Jesse properly remain on the case? A. Yes, because Judge Jesse disclosed the basis for disqualification on the record, and the parties agreed to waive it B. Yes, because Judge Jesse was not involved in the X-Corp case while at the law firm C. No, because the parties were not permitted to meet privately outside the presence of Judge Jesse D. No, because this is the type of disqualification that cannot be remitted.

C. No, because the parties were not permitted to meet privately outside the presence of Judge Jesse (C) is correct. Jesse may not properly remain on the case because the grounds for disqualification were not properly waived. To remit (waive) grounds for disqualification, the judge disclosing the grounds on the record is only one step in the process. The lawyers must be able to consult privately with their clients, and the parties must be able to meet outside the presence of the judge. Here, the judge asked the parties for an immediate answer, depriving them of an opportunity to meet privately, outside his presence. Thus, (A) is wrong. (B) is wrong because a judge must disqualify himself if he previously was associated in law practice with a person who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter at the time they practiced together. It doesn't matter that Judge Jesse wasn't personally involved. (D) is wrong because the only grounds that can't be waived are personal bias concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of relevant evidentiary facts. The grounds that the judge associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during the association is a waivable ground for disqualification.

Lucy practices in State A and has extensive experience and training in the field of Internet privacy law. Her bio page on her firm's website includes the following statement, which reads, in total: "I specialize in Internet privacy law. The standards for certification in State A are very high, and only the most experienced and highly trained practitioners receive this honor." Is the statement proper? A. Yes, provided she has been certified as a specialist by an organization approved by State A B. Yes, because a lawyer may state that she specializes in a field of law based on her experience, specialized training, or education C. No, even if she has been certified as a specialist approved by State A.

C. No, even if she has been certified as a specialist approved by State A. A lawyer can't state or imply that she is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law, unless: (i) the lawyer has in fact been certified as a specialist by an organization that has been approved by an appropriate state authority or by the ABA, and (ii) the name of the certifying organization is clearly identified in the communication. Although Lucy didn't literally say that she was a "certified" specialist, she implied that she was certified by following up her statement of specialization with: "The standards for certification in State A are very high, and only the most experienced and highly trained practitioners receive this honor." Even if Lucy was in fact certified, she failed to clearly name the certifying organization, so (C) is correct and (A) is wrong. (B) is wrong. It is true that a lawyer may state that she specializes in a field based on her experience, specialized training, or education as long as the statement isn't false or misleading. However, there are additional requirements when claiming to be a "certified" specialist, and the second sentence of Lucy's bio implies that Lucy has been certified as a specialist.

Jamila sends an e-mail to all members of her tennis club and encourages them to contact her for discounted services if they ever need a lawyer. This is: A. Proper solicitation B. Prohibited solicitation C. Not solicitation

C. Not solicitation There is no indication that the members of Jamila's tennis club were known to need legal services in a particular matter, so this is advertising, not solicitation.

Gunther's website states, "NEED A DIVORCE LAWYER? FILL OUT THE CONTACT FORM BELOW." This is: A. Proper solicitation B. Prohibited solicitation C. Not solicitation

C. Not solicitation This website is directed to the general public, and Gunther hasn't initiated contract with anyone known to need legal services in a particular matter. This is advertising, not solicitation.

Ginny wants to advertise that she is a specialist in a particular field of law. May she properly do so? A. No, unless she practices patent or admiralty law B. No, unless she (1) has been certified as a specialist by an organization approved by the ABA or a state authority, and (2) clearly identifies the certifying organization in the advertisement C. Yes, as long as the statement is based on her experience, specialized training, or education and is not false or misleading

C. Yes, as long as the statement is based on her experience, specialized training, or education and is not false or misleading Any lawyer may state that she is a "specialist" in a particular field of law based on her experience, specialized training, or education as long as the statement isn't false or misleading, so (C) is correct and (A) is wrong. (B) is wrong because these requirements only apply where a lawyer states or implies that she is a "certified" specialist.

Bernie, a college professor accused of inappropriate conduct, hires Amber to represent him in front of his university's disciplinary board. Bernie proposes to Amber that if he keeps his job, he will pay her $5,000. If he loses his job, he will pay her $500. Amber agrees. Amber memorializes the agreement in writing and sends it to Bernie, but he never returns it. The representation is successful, and Bernie keeps his job. Is Amber subject to discipline? A. No, because Amber's fee was not based on any monetary recovery B. No, because there was a written agreement C. Yes, because Bernie did not sign the agreement D. yes, because a contingent fee is prohibited in this type of case

C. Yes, because Bernie did not sign the agreement All contingent fees must be in writing, contain various disclosures, and be signed by the client. Bernie never signed the agreement; thus, (C) is correct and (B) is wrong. (A) is wrong. Usually, a contingent fee is expressed as a percentage of the client's eventual recovery in the case, but it need not be; a fee can be "contingent" even if there is no res, or pool of money, from which the fee can be paid. The amount of the fee was contingent on Bernie's success in the case, so Amber was required to comply with the formalities for contingent fees. (D) is wrong. This was an employment matter, and a contingent fee is only prohibited in: (i) criminal cases, and (ii) domestic relations cases.

Kai is a new associate working on a personal injury case. Kai's supervisor, Leah, tells Kai to send an important eyewitness an "attendance fee" for testifying at trial. The rules of professional conduct in the jurisdiction forbid compensating a non-expert witness for their testimony, but Kai is not aware of this. Kai makes the payment to the witness. Is Kai subject to discipline? A. No, because making the payment was a reasonable resolution of an arguable ethics question B. No, because Kai was acting on orders from Leah C. Yes, because making the payment violated the rules of professional conduct

C. Yes, because making the payment violated the rules of professional conduct A subordinate lawyer doesn't violate the rules of professional conduct by acting in accordance with a supervisor's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty. Here, however, there was no arguable question of professional duty—the rules of professional conduct state that the payment was forbidden. It's immaterial that Kai didn't know about the rule. Orders from a supervisory lawyer are no excuse for clearly unethical conduct—a lawyer has to follow the ethics rules even when acting under the direction of another person.

Janae is representing Dave in a lawsuit against his employer. Midway through the case, Dave confesses to Janae that the claim is completely baseless, and that he only filed it to annoy his employer. Janae correctly tells Dave that continuing with a frivolous claim would violate the rules of professional conduct, so she will have to file a motion to withdraw. Dave says he understands, and that he'll find a new lawyer. The judge denies Janae's motion and orders her to continue. Janae withdraws anyway. Is Janae subject to discipline? A. No, because she was required to withdraw from the case B. No, because Dave consented to the withdrawal C. Yes, because the court ordered her to continue the representation

C. Yes, because the court ordered her to continue the representation. Withdrawal is mandatory when continued representation would require the lawyer to violate the law or rules of professional conduct, and here, continuing to represent Dave in a frivolous claim would violate the rules of professional conduct. However, when an attorney seeks to withdraw from a case and the court denies the necessary permission, the attorney has to continue the representation. This is true even if the lawyer attempted to withdraw on a mandatory ground, as was the case here. Thus, (C) is correct and (A) is wrong. (B) is wrong because Dave's consent is immaterial—Janae was required to follow the court's order.

Attorney Brad tried to murder a witness in a case he was working on. He was eventually acquitted at trial on a technicality. Is Brad subject to discipline? A. No, because he was not convicted B. No, because the crime did not involve dishonesty C. Yes, because the crime reflects adversely on his fitness as a lawyer D. Yes, because the crime was connected to his law practice E. Yes, because any crime reflects poorly on the legal profession

C. Yes, because the crime reflects adversely on his fitness as a lawyer A lawyer is subject to discipline for committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. To constitute professional misconduct, the crime must involve some characteristic that's relevant to the practice of law. For example, crimes involving dishonesty, breach of trust, substantial interference with the administration of justice, and most crimes involving violence reflect on the lawyer's fitness to practice law. Brad is subject to discipline for his serious crime of violence. (A) is wrong because a conviction is not required. (B) is wrong because the crime need not involve dishonesty. (D) is wrong because a lawyer is subject to discipline even if the crime was unrelated to the lawyer's practice. (E) is wrong because not all crimes will necessarily trigger professional discipline.

Anthony, a tax lawyer, has been asked to join a commission that has been tasked with revising the tax code. Anthony knows that the decisions of the commission may affect some of his clients. May Anthony join the commission? A. No, because he knows that its decisions may affect his clients B. Yes, but he must not participate in any decision that could affect his clients C. Yes, but he must notify the commission when any of his clients would be materially benefited by a decision, though he need not identify the client D. Yes, but he must notify the commission when any of his clients would be materially benefitted by a decision, and he must identify the client

C. Yes, but he must notify the commission when any of his clients would be materially benefitted by a decision, though he need not identify the client A lawyer may serve as a director, officer, or member of a law reform group, even though a reform advocated by the group may affect one of the lawyer's clients, so (A) is wrong. (B) is wrong because the lawyer may participate in a decision even if a client will be affected. This is the main distinction between serving on a legal service organization (where a lawyer cannot even participate in certain decisions) and working on a law reform project. However, when a lawyer is working on a law reform project and is asked to participate in a decision that could materially benefit one of the lawyer's clients, the lawyer must disclose that fact--but the lawyer need not identify the client, so (C) is correct and (D) is wrong.

Which of the following is a PROPER restriction on a lawyer's right to practice law? A. Leon takes on a new associate, Adrian. Adrian's employment agreement provides that if Adrian leaves the firm on his own accord, he will not practice law within a 10-mile radius for six months following his departure B. Leon settles a client's lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company. As part of the settlement, Leon promises not to bring any more claims against the company C. Leon takes on a new partner, Julissa. The partnership agreement provides that if Julissa leaves the firm and takes any of the firm's clients with her, Julissa must pay the firm 50% of her billings for that client for two years following her departure D. Leon sells his family law practice to Samaira and agrees to stop practicing family law in the state

D. Leon sells his family practice to Samaira and agrees to stop practicing family law in the state There are two types of prohibited restrictions on a lawyer's right to practice law. First, a lawyer can't make or offer a partnership, employment, or similar agreement that restricts a lawyer's right to practice after termination of the relationship (except for an agreement concerning retirement benefits). The agreement in (A) is a noncompete agreement and is clearly improper, even though it's a small geographical restriction and a short period of time. The agreement in (C) is also improper because it effectively restricts Julissa's right to practice law where she chooses; it also restricts the clients' right to select their own lawyer.

A state court judge typically presides over civil tort suits and an occasional breach of contract action. A shareholder suit against a corporation that involves very complex business transactions is assigned to the judge. She doesn't feel comfortable with her understanding of that area of law and asks a fellow judge with more transactional experience out for coffee to discuss it. Is the judge subject to discipline? A. Yes, because she engaged in an ex parte communication B. Yes, because she engaged in an independent investigation C. No, because buying coffee is de minimis D. No, because it is appropriate for a judge to consult with another judge

D. No, because it is appropriate for a judge to consult with another judge A judge may consult about a matter with other judges and with other court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out adjudicative responsibilities. The judge must, however, make reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that isn't part of the record and must not abrogate her responsibility to decide the matter. (A) is wrong because an ex parte communication refers to a communication between a judge and a representative from one side of a matter when no representative from the other side is present. (B) is wrong because the judge wasn't independently investigating the facts of the case; she needed advice on the law. (C) is wrong because the issue isn't whether the judge provided anything of value to her fellow judge. Clearly she did not. If the judge had somehow provided the other judge with a gift, the other judge would have a duty to report the fact that he accepted a gift.

Which payment to a trial witness would be prohibited? A. Paying a non-expert witness for their reasonable travel expenses B. Paying an expert witness for their time spent preparing testimony C. Paying an expert witness for their time spent testifying D. Paying an expert witness a reasonable bonus if the client prevails

D. Paying an expert witness a reasonable bonus if the client prevails. Paying a witness's reasonable travel expenses is generally prohibited. Additionally, a lawyer may pay a reasonable fee to an expert witness for preparing to testify and for testifying. However, the fee cannot be contingent on either the content of the testimony or the outcome of the case. Thus, a victory bonus would be improper.

Tanith and Brian work at the same law firm. Tanith is an associate and Brian is a partner, but Brian is not Tanith's direct supervisor. One day, Tanith and Brian run into each other in a courtroom hallway. Tanith mentions to Brian that she was in the middle of a trial and she had just convinced a witness to "bend the truth a little—or a lot." Brian shakes his head in disapproval but otherwise does nothing. Tanith's client wins at trial. Is Brian subject to discipline for Tanith's misconduct? A. No, because he is not Tanith's direct supervisor B. No, because he did not order or ratify Tanith's misconduct C. yes, because he is jointly and severally liable for the misconduct of everyone at the firm D. Yes, because he failed to take reasonable remedial action

D. Yes, because he failed to take reasonable remedial action A lawyer is subject to discipline for a disciplinary violation committed by a second lawyer if: (i) the first lawyer ordered the second lawyer's misconduct or knew about it and ratified it; or (ii) the first lawyer is a partner or manager or has direct supervisory responsibility over the second lawyer, and knows about the misconduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated and fails to take reasonable remedial action. (D) is correct because Brian had a duty to take reasonable remedial action (e.g., advising Tanith to strike the testimony, notifying Tanith's supervisor, etc.). (A) is wrong because every partner has this duty. It's immaterial that Brian isn't Tanith's direct supervisor. (B) is wrong because a partner need not order or ratify the misconduct; he may also be responsible if he knows about the misconduct when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated and fails to take reasonable remedial action. That's precisely what happened here. (C) is wrong. The term "joint and several liability" refers to a partner's civil liability for the firm's obligations; it doesn't refer to whether a partner is subject to discipline. Furthermore, a partner is not ethically responsible for all misconduct by firm employees.

Larry works at a corporate law firm. One of Larry's clients, Maude, is a cousin of the general counsel of a corporation that Larry would like to represent. Over lunch one day, Larry tells Maude, "If you put in a good word for me with your cousin, you've got playoff tickets coming your way." Larry's firm held season tickets for the local baseball team, and it was not unusual for lawyers to take clients to games for holidays and other occasions. Unfortunately, the local baseball team fails to make the playoffs as expected, and Maude forgets to talk to her cousin. Is Larry subject to discipline? A. No, because the tickets would have been a nominal expression of appreciation B. No, because Maude did not recommend him to her cousin C. No, because he did not give any tickets to Maude D. Yes, because he promised the tickets in exchange for a recommendation

D. Yes, because he promised the tickets in exchange for a recommendation As a general rule, a lawyer cannot compensate, give anything of value, or promise to give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services. Under the relevant exception to this rule, a lawyer may give a nominal gift or gratuity as an expression of appreciation to a person who recommended the lawyer or the lawyer's firm, provided the gift or gratuity wasn't intended or reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for recommending the lawyer's services. Such gifts must not be more than a token item that would be given for a holiday or in the course of ordinary social hospitality. Furthermore, any gift is prohibited if offered or given in consideration of any understanding that such a gift would be forthcoming or that referrals would be made or encouraged in the future. Here, Larry promised playoff tickets to Maude in exchange for recommending his services to her cousin, and this was clearly improper. (A) is wrong because even if the value of the tickets was nominal, any gift is prohibited if it was reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for the recommendation. (B) and (C) are wrong because the promise alone is enough to violate the rule--it is immaterial that the recommendation and gift never happened.

A law firm is defending a client in a personal injury case. Andrea, a senior associate, is in charge of the case. Andrea believes that the plaintiff is exaggerating his injury, so she hires Ed, a rookie private investigator, on a contract basis to "check out the plaintiff and get to the bottom of this." Instead of conducting covert surveillance as Andrea expected, Ed confronts the plaintiff at his home and tells him to drop the lawsuit. The rules of professional conduct prohibit a lawyer from communicating with a represented party without their counsel's consent. Is Andrea subject to discipline? A. No, because she is not a partner of the firm B. No, because she did not order or ratify the misconduct, and had no opportunity to take reasonable remedial action C. No, because Ed is not an employee of her firm D. Yes, because she failed to make reasonable efforts to assure that Ed's conduct would comply with her own professional obligations E. Yes, because a supervising lawyer is always responsible for the conduct of persons working on a matter

D. Yes, because she failed to make reasonable efforts to assure that Ed's conduct would comply with her own professional obligations. The partners and managers in a law firm have to make reasonable efforts to assure that the conduct of nonlawyers who are associated with the firm is compatible with the obligations of the profession. Additionally, any lawyer who directly supervises the work of a nonlawyer has the same duty with respect to that nonlawyer. Therefore, (D) is correct because Andrea is Ed's direct supervisor in the matter—she hired him and is in charge of the case. She had a duty to make reasonable efforts to assure that Ed's conduct would comply with the rules of professional conduct. For instance, she should have made sure he understood the bounds of what she wanted him to do and that, as her agent, he could not communicate with the plaintiff directly. (C) is wrong because a lawyer has this duty with respect to nonlawyers both inside and outside the firm who are working on a matter (e.g., private investigators, document management companies). (A) is wrong. It's immaterial that Andrea isn't a partner or managing lawyer at the firm—she's Ed's direct supervisor. (E) is wrong because it's too broad. If Andrea had made reasonable efforts to ensure that Ed acted appropriately, she would not have been subject to discipline. (B) is wrong. There are two ways a lawyer can be subject to discipline in relation to a nonlawyer's (or another lawyer's) misconduct. This choice refers to vicarious responsibility for the conduct itself. However, a lawyer also has a duty to prevent ethics violations by making reasonable efforts to assure that the nonlawyer's (or other lawyer's) conduct complies with the rules of professional conduct.

Judge Julius is running for re-election against a strong opponent. It is expected to be a close race, and Julius would like to run some expensive ads that will require raising some campaign funds. Judge Julius sends out a form letter on campaign stationery to a list of past donors asking for contributions to his campaign. Is Judge Julius subject to discipline? A. Yes B. No

Judge Julius is subject to discipline for soliciting campaign contributions. A judge or judicial candidate must not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions other than through a campaign committee