Professional Responsibility

Which of the following statements concerning fee and client expense arrangements is correct under the Model Rules?

An attorney may advance the litigation expenses of a non-indigent client and make repayment of those expenses contingent on the outcome of the litigation.

which of the following statements about attorney-client relationships is TRUE and CORRECT?

Even when no attorney-client relationship is formed, an attorney may owe a non-client a duty to inform them that the lawyer is not representing that person's interests in the matter.

A lawyer represented a client who suffered injuries when a pizza delivery truck hit him. The pizza company offered incentives to its drivers to deliver the pizzas on time, which may have caused the alleged speeding. Drivers received bonuses for on time delivery. The lawyer seeks to interview several possible witnesses before filing suit. The pizza company has hired outside counsel to represent them in this potential dispute. The lawyer does not plan to ask permission of the outside counsel to speak with these individuals Which interview is permissible under the Model Rules?

The lawyer interviews a former employee who was a driver for the company for 5 years. Correct. Under Comment 7 to Model Rule 4.2, a lawyer may interview a former employee without obtaining permission from the former employer's lawyer.

A lawyer represented a company that sold wine directly to consumers. The federal regulatory agency for wine production filed suit against the company, alleging the sale of wine without proper testing of its alcohol content. The company admitted to the lawyer that it had failed to use modern testing equipment in order to cut costs, but that it had purchased the necessary equipment for future production. The company asked the lawyer to file a motion with the court to delay the proceeding on the merits, because most if not all of the wine in litigation would be sold in the next two weeks and therefore out of the control of the company. The lawyer filed a motion with the court asking for a one week delay, falsely claiming the lawyer needs the extra time to prepare the case. Is the lawyer's request for delay consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the delay was achieved by the lawyer's false claim and financial benefit to the client did not render such a false representation proper. Correct. Comment 1 to Model Rule 3.2 expressly notes that it is not permissible for a lawyer to use the financial benefit of the client to excuse otherwise impermissible delay.

A corporate winery hired a lawyer to represent it in obtaining a loan from a bank. The bank asked the winery for an evaluation of the winery's compliance with state and federal liquor laws. The winery's lawyer agreed to provide the representation because he believed it was consistent with the representation. The winery consented to the evaluation representation. The lawyer examined the client's compliance policy with the state and federal alcohol laws and found substantial safeguards in place. After providing the report to the bank, a bank officer called the lawyer and asked whether the winery had secured its master vintner's employment with a long-term contract. The lawyer did not know whether a nonresponsive answer would be more damaging than the truth. He also knew that knew that this information was relevant to the security of their investment. Without consulting with the client, the lawyer told the bank that the company had not yet signed a long term contract with the vintner. The winery considers the details and nature of its employment agreement with the vintner to be confidential. Should the lawyer have answered the question from the bank?

No, because the lawyer disclosed confidential client information to the bank without obtaining the client's informed consent. Correct. Model Rule 2.3(a) permits attorneys to prepare opinions if they are compatible with the attorney's representation of the client. But Model Rule 2.3(c) makes it clear that the lawyer's duty of confidentiality for matters outside the authorized opinion protects this information from disclosure without the client's informed consent.

A transactional lawyer in a 100 person firm located in State A represented a chain of pawn shops that had locations in State A and State B. The corporate headquarters of the pawn shops was in State A. The lawyer, who was only licensed in State A, monitored pawn shop transactions to ensure that they did not violate state usury laws. Her work involved frequent travel to the pawn shop locations, including those in State B. In order to facilitate her work, the lawyer's firm opened an office in State B. This office was used only to perform work on the pawn shop usury issues; it was not open to the public. No other attorneys worked in this office in State B and the law firm did not register its office with the state bar authorities in State B. Is the lawyer's practice in State B proper?

No, because the lawyer established a continuous and systematic presence in State B, a jurisdiction in which she was not licensed to practice law. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.5(b)(1), a lawyer may not establish a systematic and continuous presence in State B. Opening an office in State B constitutes such a presence.

A lawyer represented a criminal defendant charged with embezzlement at her workplace. The client asserted her innocence and the lawyer believed that she was targeted by a manager who was disciplined when shortages were discovered in his department. At the outset of the trial, the lawyer in an opening argument stated that the evidence will show that the prosecution does not have direct evidence linking the defendant to the shortages. During the trial, the lawyer cross examined prosecution witnesses by asking them to recall other incidents in the workplace at the time of these alleged thefts. He sought to prove that the witnesses did not have a strong recollection of events at similar times. In the closing argument, the lawyer argued that he had had a chance to get to know the defendant personally and in his personal opinion she was not involved in these crimes. The lawyer also argued that all of the evidence produced in the trial applied equally to his client's manager. Is the lawyer's conduct regarding his trial conduct consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer in closing argument stated a personal opinion as to his client's innocence. Correct. Model Rule 3.4(e) prohibits a lawyer from stating a personal opinion about the innocence of the accused. In this case, the lawyer made such a statement and the lawyer may be disciplined for making this statement to the jury.

A lawyer in a law firm overheard his nonlawyer assistant talking on the telephone about a law firm matter. The lawyer heard the assistant disclose confidential client information during the telephone call. The assistant's conversation drifted to other personal topics that made the lawyer suspect that the other person on the call was not a law firm employee. The lawyer did not ask his nonlawyer assistant but asked several lawyers whether they had ever witnessed any similar incidents with this nonlawyer assistant and she received no information that would make her believe there was an ongoing problem. The lawyer continued to casually monitor the assistant's phone calls and did not notice any new improper conversations. The lawyer decided not to confront the assistant and instead chose to view this as an isolated incident. The lawyer never notified the client about the possible breach of confidential information by the law firm. Was the lawyer's conduct in this situation consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer possessed knowledge that a potential breach of confidential information occurred by the assistant and the lawyer did not confront the paralegal to be sure that the breach of confidentiality did not have adverse consequences for the client and that such a breach would not happen again. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.3(b) & (c), a lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that individuals they supervise conform to the rules of professional conduct. The lawyer's first step should have been to talk to the assistant and to determine whether the other party on the telephone call was permitted to receive the information. If the other party was another member of the firm, the call might have been authorized. If the party was someone outside of the firm, the lawyer could take steps to avoid or mitigate any harm done. And, the lawyer should counsel the assistant to make sure that this does not occur in the future.

A lawyer represented a client selling a small business operated by a family. The business sold unique toys to children and had a significant following in the local community. The business operated at a reasonable profit, but nothing extraordinary for businesses in this price range. The client offered the business for sale on an as-is basis. A potential buyer who was not represented by counsel approached the lawyer to negotiate a purchase price. In a negotiation, the lawyer provided the last year's financial statements. The lawyer offered to provide earlier information if the purchaser wanted it, but did not provide it because the seller did not ask and the prior year was slightly more profitable than the earlier years. The lawyer stated, "It is a dream of every mother and father to operate such a business that makes kids happy and makes an attractive profit on your investment." The buyer purchased the business. Later, when the buyer examined the financials, the buyer complained that the lawyer misled him into believing that the business was highly profitable. Did the lawyer violate the Model Rules in negotiating the sale of the business with the buyer?

No, because the lawyer's verbal statements about the value of the business were statements in negotiation relating to value that are not considered to represent a material fact. Correct. Under Model Rule 4.1, a lawyer may not make a false statement of fact or law to a third person. But Comment 2 notes that general statements about value are not treated as statements of material fact. This does give the lawyer some license to puff about how great a deal the buyer is receiving. Too much puffing might be a misrepresentation but this business was making a profit and the statement did not cross the line.

A large law firm in a populous Western State opened an office in a Southwestern State. The managing partner of the office was licensed in the Southwestern State. The law firm also sent five lawyers from the home office to help represent new clients in the Southwestern State, but those lawyers chose not to become licensed in the Southwestern State immediately. They continued to represent clients, hand out business cards with their names and new office address, and hold out to the public that they were licensed in the Southwestern State. The law firm worked solely with Fortune 100 corporations, and those entities were willing to hire lawyers to represent their interests worldwide regardless of licensure. These lawyers believed that because the office was supervised by a licensed attorney, their transactional work in the Southwestern State was authorized. May the lawyers who moved to the Southwestern State properly continue to offer legal services in the new office?

No, because the lawyers who moved from the home office held themselves out to the public as attorneys licensed in the Southwestern State. Correct. When the out of state lawyers moved to the Southwestern State, they continued to represent clients, handed out business cards with their names and new office address, and did not inform clients about their lack of a local license. This conduct amounts to holding themselves out as licensed in the Southwestern State when in fact they were not. It was clearly the unauthorized practice of law under Rule 5.5(b)(2) and a violation of Model Rule 5.5(a).

A law firm specialized only in enforcing child support agreements for a contingent fee of 15%. A similar service was provided for no cost by the State Attorney General's office and the division was called "State Child Support Enforcement." The law firm used the name, The State Child Support Enforcement Law Firm. Is it proper for the lawyers in the firm to use this name?

No, because the name implies an association with the State and therefore clients could believe that the firm was part of a State Agency or affiliated with the State Government. Correct. The name used here implied a connection with the State, and adding the Child Support Enforcement phrase implies a connection with the state division of the Attorney General's office that performs these services. See Comment 5 to Model Rule 7.1.

The partners in a real estate law firm owned a title company called US Title Insurance, which operated as a separate entity delivering title insurance policies to clients of the law firm and the general public. The company did not have any nonlawyer owners. The partners routinely referred all law firm clients who needed a title insurance policy to US Title, without disclosing that the partners owned this nonlaw service. Because most lay individuals knew that title insurance was not the practice of law, the partners also did not disclose that US Title was a separate and distinct entity that offered nonlegal services and therefore that the protections of the rules of professional conduct did not apply to its services. The prices charged to law firm clients were identical to the prices charged to the general public. Is this arrangement proper?

No, because the partners in the real estate law firm failed to inform their clients that they owned US Title and failed to comply with the business transactions with client rule. Correct. The partners of the real estate law firm owed a duty to clients to inform them that they own US Title and that the entity is separate and delivers nonlaw services that do not fall within the protections of the rules of professional conduct. Under Comment 5 to Model Rule 5.7, a lawyer who controls an nonlaw entity and who refers clients to that outside entity must comply with Model Rule 1.8(a). Their failure to comply with the business transactions rule that renders the lawyers' practice improper.

A recently licensed will and estates lawyer sought to increase her business in the following ways: Which one of the following would violate the Model Rules prohibition on solicitation?

The lawyer overheard a stranger in an elevator mention that she needed a will, so the lawyer stopped the stranger and offered her legal services to the person. Correct. Under Rule 7.3(a), the act of solicitation depends upon who initiates the contact and whether the lawyer knows specific person needs legal services in a matter. If the person in the elevator had said, "Is there a lawyer on this elevator," there would be no solicitation. But since the lawyer offered her legal services to the stranger unsolicited, this conduct would violate Model Rule 7.3(b) on solicitation. The ban on solicitation is designed to prevent lawyers from contacting prospective clients in person or by live telephone contact because it involves unequal bargaining power and improper pressure on the prospective client to hire the lawyer.

A client asked an employment lawyer to file a lawsuit against his employer who had fired all employees who went on strike because of a reduction in benefits. The client sought damages and a reinstatement of his employment. The lawyer researched the law and determined that every court that had examined such a discharge had held for the employer. The cases consistently dismissed employee lawsuits identical to the facts of this client. Those cases were affirmed uniformly by the appellate courts throughout the country, but the Supreme Court had never taken a case on this issue. The lawyer did not reasonably believe that he could make a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. The lawyer accepted the representation because he believed that every person deserved a day in court and filed the lawsuit for the client. The complaint disclosed to the judge that no court had ever held for the client on similar facts. Did the lawyer violate the Model Rules in filing this lawsuit?

Yes, because the lawyer filed a frivolous lawsuit. Correct. Under Model Rule 3.1, a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding unless there is a basis in law and fact that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. In this case, the lawyer did not believe that he could make such an argument, therefore the case is frivolous.

A lawyer represented a plaintiff seriously injured in an automobile accident. The man suffered back injuries that prevented him from walking. Early medical diagnosis at the hospital considered this condition likely to be permanent. Defense counsel confirmed this fact during discovery of hospital records. Three months later, the lawyer visited the man at home, discovered that the man could walk normally, and was likely to regain employment. The lawyer immediately called the defense counsel to begin settlement negotiations. The defense counsel reasonably believing that the man could not walk, offered a generous settlement to the plaintiff. At no time did the plaintiff's lawyer refer to his filing or the man's present condition in the negotiations. The plaintiff accepted a settlement of over $1 million from the defendant. Was the lawyer's conduct in the negotiations permissible under the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer made no false statement to the opposing lawyer. Correct. Model Rule 3.3(a)(1) requires that a lawyer correct statement of material fact or law made to the court that the lawyer learns were false when made. The lawyer only has a duty not to misrepresent to the other side, Model Rule 4.1(a). The defendant's attorney should have asked about the defendant's condition before commencing the settlement negotiations. At that time, the plaintiff's lawyer would need to give a truthful statement.

A lawyer licensed in State A represented a local corporate client that sought to file a lawsuit in State B challenging State B regulations over the corporation's supply contracts in State B. The lawyer travelled to State B to interview corporate employees in order to better prepare her case before filing the lawsuit. Once the lawyer had enough information, the lawyer filed a complaint in a court in State B and was admitted pro hac vice for this lawsuit. Is the lawyer's practice in State B proper?

Yes, because the lawyer reasonably believed that he would become authorized to conduct the litigation in State B through a pro hac vice motion. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.5(c)(2), a lawyer may provide temporary services in a state in a litigation matter in which the lawyer is not licensed to practice law if the lawyer reasonably anticipates that the lawyer will receive permission to practice under pro hac vice authority.

A lawyer represented a criminal defendant who had hit a pedestrian while driving a car and who then fled from the scene of the crime. The police have not yet found the hit and run driver and the defendant asked the lawyer for advice. The lawyer told the defendant to take his car and to park it in a barn (defendant lives on a farm) and cover up the car with hay. He added not to take the car to any body shops because the police would be looking for a car with front damage. Did the lawyer's advice to the defendant violate the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer's advice to the client counseled the concealment of the car having potential evidentiary value. Correct. Model Rule 3.4(a) prohibits a lawyer from obstructing another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal anything of evidentiary value. Telling the client to park the car in a barn was obstructing access to the vehicle which had evidentiary value.

A large law firm offered lobbying services to its clients through a related entity owned in part by lawyers in the firm and in part by the nonlawyer lobbyists who worked in the entity. Clients of the law firm who needed lobbying services would be informed that they had a choice to use the related entity or any other lobbyist, that lobbying was not the practice of law and that the protections of the Model Rules did not apply to services provided by the lobbying entity. The lawyers in the firm also informed the clients that the lobbying entity was owned in part by the lawyers of the firm and in part by some of the lobbyists who worked in the entity. Is this arrangement proper?

Yes, because the lawyers in the law firm have chosen to offer these ancillary services, which are not prohibited as unauthorized practice of law when provided by a nonlawyer, through a separate and distinct entity and the clients are informed that lobbying is not the practice of law protected by the rules of professional conduct. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.7, lawyers may offer ancillary services through an outside entity as long as clients are informed that those services are not legal services and the protection of the rules of professional conduct do not apply to those nonlaw services. In this case, the law firm properly structured the lobbying services for clients.

A man took several individuals hostage and ended up surrounded by law enforcement. The man asked the police officer if he could speak with defense counsel. The police reasonably believed that time was important to save the hostages and no defense lawyer was readily available. Therefore, the police told the local prosecutor, who was at the scene, that the hostage taker wanted to speak to a public defender. None was around, so the police asked whether the prosecutor would be willing to speak with the man. The prosecutor got on the phone and said, "I am a licensed lawyer, and it's my job to help you, and I am available to help answer any questions you may have." The man reasonably believed that the prosecutor was a defense counsel, so the man gave the prosecutor confidential information. The prosecutor managed to convince the man to turn himself in and he did so. Did the prosecutor violate the Model Rules by speaking with the man?

Yes, because the prosecutor made a false statement of fact to the man when he pretended to be a defense counsel. Correct. The prosecutor misrepresented his identity when he began speaking with the man who reasonably believed that the person on the phone was a defense counsel. Model Rule 4.1(b).

A senior partner in a law firm had a client, a widower without children, who wanted to leave the partner a bequest in his will in the amount of $25,000. Because the senior partner and the client were not related, the partner asked a junior partner in the firm to prepare the will for the client. This law firm was located in a rural area in Alaska with no other wills and estates lawyers for a 500-mile radius. The junior partner told the senior partner that this would not solve the ethics issue, but the senior partner responded, "No one will complain because this client has no relatives." The senior partner said, "Draft a clause in the bequest saying that if anyone objects, I will give the money back." The senior partner did not inform any other partners about his conduct in the matter. Is the senior partner subject to discipline?

Yes, because the senior partner ordered the junior partner to draft the will giving the senior partner a bequest. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.1(c)(1), the senior partner is responsible for the junior partner's drafting of the will because he ordered the junior partner to draft it. None of the reasons given by the senior partner lessen the fact that doing so violated Model Rule 1.8(c),and Rule 1.8(k) imputes the prohibition of Rule 1.8(c) to the entire firm.

A purchaser hired an outside lawyer to evaluate the legal issues and risks of the seller's manufacturing plant. The lawyer did not inform the seller that she was conducting the evaluation. The lawyer obtained all of the publicly filed documents relating to the plant and interviewed former employees of the seller. In the end, the lawyer prepared an opinion that recommended against the purchase of the plant. The opinion focused upon a series of filings that indicated that the seller had not adopted the newest technology to prevent pollution. May the lawyer prepare the opinion for the purchaser?

Yes, because this legal work did not involve an evaluation of the client for use by a third party. Correct. Comment 2 to Model Rule 2.3 addresses this situation. This is an investigation of the seller's business by the buyer's lawyer, not an evaluation done by the seller's lawyer for the benefit of the buyer. Therefore, Model Rule 2.3 has no application to this situation.

Which one of the following payments would subject the lawyer to discipline under the prohibition against fee sharing with a nonlawyer?

A lawyer pays an outside accountant a bonus of 1% of the fees earned from a case the accountant worked on during the past year in recognition of the work performed on the case. Correct. Nonlawyer independent contractors cannot be paid a fee from a law firm that is calculated based upon attorneys' fees received in one or more law firm cases. This is the general ban of Model Rule 5.4(a).

Attorney represents the Defendant in a criminal trial. Defendant tells Attorney during the course of Attorney's representation of Defendant on an armed robbery charge that several years ago he killed two women and describes the location of the bodies. Attorney does nothing to report the two murders to the authorities and the two bodies are not discovered during the course of Defendat's armed robbery trial. Defendant is convicted of the armed robbery charge. During the sentencing phase of the trial. Attorney puts Defendant on the stand and asks him about his past violent criminal activity. Defendant answers that the armed robbery is the only violent criminal act that he has ever committed. Attorney continues with the direct examination of the client during this sentencing phase. The sentencing issue is presented to the judge, without any further action by Attorney. The judge sentences the Defendant to ten years in prison. Which of the following is the most likely basis under the Model Rules for disciplining Attorney?

Attorney's questioning of Defendant during the sentencing phase of the armed robbery trial concerning his past violent criminal activity and continuing on without seeking to correct the false testimony and then, if not corrected, informing the court of the fraud.

A lawyer licensed only in State One who practiced personal injury law used many creative ways to identify prospective clients. She would travel to State Two where she would engage in personal solicitation of prospective clients involved in an accident. Which state's lawyer disciplinary authority has jurisdiction over this lawyer's in person solicitation?

Both State One and State Two have jurisdiction over the lawyer's conduct and the lawyer could be punished in both states for the same conduct. Correct. Model Rule 8.5(a) gives both a state of licensure and a state where the lawyer's conduct took place jurisdiction over the lawyer for purposes of discipline.

The Acme Law Firm, a national law firm of 1000 lawyers has 20 partners and 980 associates. Acme has offices in 30 states; 20 of the offices are managed by a partner and 10 are managed by an associate. Each of these partners and associates is licensed in the state where their office is located. None of the managing lawyers is licensed in more than one state. The firm uses one letterhead in all of its offices under the heading, The Acme Law Firm, Representing Clients Across the United States. The letterhead lists all of the cities of the law firm offices and the names of the 20 partners and 10 associates of the firm that manage the offices. The letterhead does not provide any information about the licensure of the 30 managing lawyers listed. The lawyers in the firm have represented clients in all 50 states, associating with other counsel in states in which they do not have an office. The law firm also includes one toll free number that routes calls to the office in the state of the calling party. Which of the following would subject Able and Baker to discipline for its communication efforts?

Failing to include information on the letterhead about the 30 managing lawyer's licensure restrictions. Correct. Under Comment 5 to Model Rule 7.1, a law firm listing names of lawyers on the letterhead in an office of the firm must indicate any limitations on their licensure. By listing 30 locations, and no limitations on the lawyers' licensure, the letterhead implies that all 30 lawyers are licensed in all 30 states.

Mother and Son are partners in two different law firms in the same city. mother represents a client that intends to file a tort suit against a defendant rerepesented by son. they expect to be each directly involved in their client's cases. Mother and Son have a strong parent-child relationship, but they do not discuss their legal cases with each other and they do not have access to each other's files. Mother and Son disclose the fact that the opposing side will be represented by a close relative, they describe the relationship with the relative, and obtain their clients' informed consent. Which of the following statements is correct under the model rules?

In addition to informed consent of the clients confirmed in writing, mother and son must reasonably believe that they will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to their clients.

A 200-person law firm, organized as a professional corporation, specialized in intellectual property. It had many nonlawyer employees working in the firm who brought science expertise into the law practice. A majority of the law firm clients were involved in the technology industry. The partners of the firm elevated a nonlawyer, a woman who had a PhD in Computer Science, to the law firm's board of directors. Such action was taken because the law firm board played an integral role in client development and the partners needed the judgment of the computer scientist. No clients were informed that the law firm included a nonlawyer on the corporate board of directors. May the partners in the law firm elevate this scientist to the law firm's board?

No, because the partners of the firm may not practice in the entity with a nonlawyer as a corporate director. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.4(d)(2), a lawyer may not practice law in an entity that has a nonlawyer corporate director. There are no exceptions for intellectual property law firms, for individuals who have earned a doctorate degree, or for any of many other characteristics of a nonlawyer that might help the firm serve clients more effectively.

The Chief Executive Officer of a computer company asked its in-house lawyer to investigate leaks of confidential information from board of directors' meetings to a newspaper reporter. Without informing the board of directors, the lawyer accepted the task. The lawyer hired a private investigation firm to obtain evidence about the leaks. The firm the lawyer hired had a reputation for coming close to the edge of legality (or crossing the edge) in its work. The private investigator informed the lawyer that it discovered a way to obtain the cellular telephone records of all members of the board of directors, illegally. The in-house lawyer knows that access to the private telephone records of the directors is a violation of federal law, but the lawyer read the records and identified the member of the board of directors who was disclosing board information to the press. Which aspect of the lawyer's conduct violated the Model Rules?

The lawyer used methods of obtaining evidence that violated the legal rights of a third person. Correct. Model Rule 4.4(a) prohibits a lawyer from using means of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of a third person. The lawyer should have stopped the investigator when she learned that he had obtained the cellular telephone records illegally. Using an agent to violate the legal rights of a third person is a violation of Model Rule 4.4(a).

A partner in a law firm orders an associate to draft a will in which the partner will receive a lake house from a client who has no relationship to the partner. The partner admits this violates the Model Rules, but tells the associate, "I, as partner, take full responsibility for this violation. This is my call. The client really wants me to take this gift and it is impolite to reject it." The associate followed the partner's orders and did not inform anyone else in the firm about this incident. Is the associate subject to discipline?

Yes, because the associate followed the orders of the partner on what the associate knows is a clear violation of the Model Rules. Correct. When a partner orders an associate to violate the Model Rules (in this case, Model Rule 1.8(c)),the associate is responsible for the violation unless the facts fit into the safe harbor of Model Rule 5.2(b). Here, the question is not arguable. It is clear, therefore, that the associate is subject to discipline for following the partner's orders.

Able and Baker were lawyers in the firm, Able & Baker, LLC, formed as a limited liability corporation. These lawyers often referred to the firm as The People's Law Firm, because they represented individuals in tort actions against corporations. The lawyers created a website under the domain, www.thepeopleslawfirm.com, which included information about the law firm and its practice. The top of the first page of the website and every other page listed the name of the firm as "Able & Baker, The People's Law Firm" with no other information. Able and Baker were listed as the partners in the firm responsible for the content of the website. The website listed the areas of practice handled by the firm, the location of the office, and an email address. No fax number was included. Which aspect of their advertising and communication would subject Able and Baker to discipline?

The website does not violate the Rules of Professional Responsibility assuming that the factual statements are in fact true. Correct. The website complies with Comment 7 to Model Rule 7.1. The Rules do not forbid lawyers from organizing as an LLC. Able & Baker are, in fact, "practicing law together as a firm."

attorney represented both buyer and seller in a real estate transaction involving a small house where all of the details of the transaction were previously negotiated by the parties. both of the clients consented to the multiple client representation. in such a dual representation, which of the following acts would not violate the model rules?

failing to make an independent determination that the lawyer could adequately represent the clients diligently and competently

Jones and Smith were lawyers in the firm, Jones & Smith, LLP, formed as a limited liability partnership. Now, Jones has left and is no longer practicing with the firm. Under which of the following scenarios would it be proper for the remaining lawyers in the firm to continue to use the name Jones & Smith?

Jones retires and is no longer available to practice law for clients of the law firm. Correct. Under Comment 5 to Model Rule 7.1, a law firm may continue to use the name of the lawyers who retire from practice and who are not available for employment by clients of the firm. Essentially, the firm name becomes a trade name.

Lawyer Def represented a defendant in a products liability lawsuit involving an automobile. In settlement negotiations, Lawyer Def and Lawyer Pl (representing plaintiff) were emailing proposals back and forth. Lawyer Def received a proposal in an email from Lawyer Pl. Lawyer Def reasonably believed that Lawyer Pl send the proposal inadvertently, because it was only half finished, full of typos, and included obvious grammatical errors. Without notifying his automobile company client, Lawyer Def informed Lawyer Pl that it looked like Lawyer Pi sent the email inadvertently. Did Lawyer Def violate any of the Model Rules?

No, because Lawyer Def promptly informed Lawyer Pl about the inadvertent disclosure of the letter. Correct. Model Rule 4.4(b), Comment 2, requires the lawyer to inform the other side of the receipt of apparently inadvertently sent document.

A lawyer licensed in State One represented a State One promoter who put together a limited partnership in State Two. The limited partnership included properties from State Two and the majority of the investors were residents of State Two. The lawyer associated with local counsel in State Two for the local law issues. In the limited partnership agreement, the lawyer included a provision that stated, "The parties agree that State Three's ethics rules will govern the transaction. The investors to this partnership are encouraged to seek independent advice of counsel in evaluating whether to accept this provision." This provision was included because State Three's ethics rules are more favorable to the promoter's interests, and the lawyer explained this to the investors. But the lawyer did not detail how such rules might impact the investor's interests. Was it proper for the lawyer to include this choice of professional responsibility clause in the partnership agreement?

No, because State Three had no relationship to the transaction. Correct. Most likely, under Model Rule 8.5, State Two's ethics rules will apply because that is the jurisdiction where the predominant effect occurs. Under Model Rule 8.5, no provision allows a party to a transaction to choose a jurisdiction's ethics rules when the transaction has no connection to the jurisdiction.

A products liability lawyer represented a client against an automobile manufacturer for injuries sustained when a steering wheel separated from the car in an accident. The manufacturer offered, and the plaintiff accepted, a settlement of $5 million conditioned on the products liability lawyer never representing another plaintiff in a case involving a defective steering wheel. The $5 million represented an amount that was reasonable in light of the factual and legal difficulties in the case. Was it proper for the products liability lawyer to participate in negotiating a settlement agreement with this provision?

No, because a lawyer may not participate in making an agreement as part of a client settlement that involves a restriction on the lawyer's right to represent clients in future cases. Correct. Model Rule 5.6(b) prohibits lawyers from making or participating in an settlement that includes a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice law. The rule is expressly designed to prohibit agreements like the one in this problem.

Recent government investigations identified an individual involved in war crimes during the Vietnam era. The individual was arrested and charged with several heinous crimes involving torture and execution of innocent citizens. The individual did not have an attorney and a public defender's office sought to locate a lawyer to handle the case. A lawyer with criminal experience volunteered to accept the representation for no fee. The individual confided in the lawyer that he had engaged in such conduct but wanted to plead not guilty. The lawyer received significant public criticism for accepting the representation. Does the lawyer's representation of the individual in the war crimes case involve an endorsement of the client's position?

No, because an attorney representation of a client does not necessarily constitute endorsement of the client's activities. Correct. A lawyer's representation does not "constitute the endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities." Model Rule 1.2(b).

A lawyer represented a client who was charged with possession and distribution of cocaine. The client told his lawyer that he was in fact a cocaine dealer and the substance that had been seized was cocaine. Before the criminal trial, the cocaine seized by the authorities disappeared. The lawyer took the client's case to trial, the client pled not guilty, and the lawyer argued that the government did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The lawyer did not disclose to the court that his client had confessed to committing the crime. Did the lawyer violate the Model Rules in entering a plea of not guilty for his client?

No, because lawyers who represent criminal defendants may require that the government prove every element of the case even when the client admits involvement in the crime. Correct. In the second sentence of Model Rule 3.1, attorneys for a criminal defendant or any client involved in a proceeding in which incarceration is a penalty, may defend the proceeding to require the government to prove every element of the case.

A State Attorney General was elected to represent the state in all legal matters. Her office had 200 lawyers and 500 nonlawyers responsible for delivering legal services. Each division of the office had an Associate Attorney General and several Assistant Attorney Generals delivering legal services. One Assistant Attorney General responsible for child support services had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in several cases on behalf of the state and this resulted in the court dismissing the actions with prejudice. The State Attorney General was informed of the Assistant Attorney General's misconduct, but chose not to take any action in order to avoid bringing public attention to the situation. The Attorney General did think of instituting a training program to make reasonable assurance that the lawyers follow the ethics rules but decided against it because she thought it would look bad. Was the Attorney General's conduct proper?

No, because the Attorney General as the head of the office responsible for delivering legal services for the state is responsible for ensuring that the office has measures in place giving reasonable assurance that the lawyers the office will conform to the rules of professional conduct. Correct. An attorney managing a legal office has responsibilities under Model Rule 5.1. In this case, the Attorney General has violated Model Rule 5.1(a) and for not having a system in place to assure that other lawyers in the office comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

A personal injury law firm recorded a radio advertisement in which clients of the firm in their own voice state the dollar amount they received in settlement or verdict through the law firm's work in their case. The advertisement begins by stating the name of the firm and its phone number and area of practice. It then goes on to say, "Do not take our word for how good we are, listen to our clients." Then, three clients state how much they won in personal injury cases handled by the firm. The advertisement ends, "Let us do this for you. If you are injured, do not wait; call us. What we did for them, we will do for you." No other information is provided in the radio advertisement. Is it proper for the lawyers in the firm to use this radio ad to promote the firm's services?

No, because the advertisement by focusing on three verdicts may create unjustified expectations with prospective clients. Correct. By including three verdicts and no information about smaller settlements or losses, this advertisement creates an unjustified expectation as to the results a lawyer could achieve for a potential client who hears the advertisement. See Model Rule 7.1. The advertisement could be saved by a disclaimer included in the advertisement that states that each case depends upon the facts and the law and that just because the firm obtained these results for three clients does not mean your case will receive similar results. See Comment 3 to Model Rule 7.1 (approving disclaimer for advertisements). But no such language is included in the ad.

A law student filed an application to the bar and disclosed two criminal arrests in his past, both relating to public intoxication. The applicant provided detailed records to the bar authorities about the facts and the disposition. In the first incident, the prosecutor offered the applicant a deferred adjudication if she pled no contest. In the second incident, the prosecutor offered the applicant deferred adjudication if she enter a plea of no contest and performed 30 hours of community service. The applicant accepted both pleas and completed the required service. In the bar application process, the state bar character committee held an informal meeting on the applicant's fitness to practice law. The applicant appeared without a lawyer at the meeting and answered all questions truthfully. At some point during the meeting, the applicant realized that the bar authorities had combined the two incidents into one. The bar representative said, because the prosecutor chose to give you deferred adjudication in the incident, we approve your application. Since both incidents ended in deferred adjudication and were similar, the applicant did not correct the bar authorities on their belief there was only one incident. Was the applicant's decision not to correct the bar authorities consistent with the applicant's duties under the Model Rules?

No, because the applicant did not correct a misunderstanding known to have arisen in the bar admissions matter. Correct. Under Model Rule 8.1(b), an applicant for admission to the bar has the duty to correct a misunderstanding that the applicant knows has arisen in the matter even if the applicant was in no way at fault in presenting the information.

An associate worked on a litigation matter and identified an ethics issue relating to the disclosure of a document under a pending document production request from the opposing side. The associate researched the discovery issue and reasonably believed that the law firm was under a duty to produce the document. A litigation partner disagreed. The associate referred the matter to the ethics committee of the law firm staffed by several partners in the firm. The committee conducted research on the issue and determined that the issue of disclosure was arguable. After extensive research, the committee recommended that the partner withhold the document from discovery. This was a reasonable resolution of the issue; but it is likely that other reasonable lawyers would come to the opposite conclusion. The litigation partner ordered the associate to file the response to the document discovery without disclosing the document. If the court finds that the lawyers should have produced the document, will it also find that the associate is subject to discipline?

No, because the associate followed the reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional responsibility by the partners of the law firm. Correct. The facts in this problem fall within the safe harbor of Model Rule 5.2(b), so the associate will not be subject to discipline for this decision.

A lawyer (Defense Lawyer) represented a defendant sued by a plaintiff who fell while at the defendant's store. A jury found for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed. After the jury's verdict, the defendant's president informed the Defense Lawyer that he is grateful that the Plaintiff's Lawyer never discovered that on the day of the accident, the store manager had an improper cleaning solution on the floor that made it slippery. The Defense Lawyer remembered that the Plaintiff's Lawyer had questioned the manager about the products used on the floor and the answer was a bleach solution. The president admitted that the manager had lied on the stand to protect the company. The Defense Lawyer decided not to pursue this issue further because the trial was over and the issue was not likely to arise on appeal. Was the Defense Lawyer's decision not to inform the judge consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the case is not over, it is still on appeal, and the Defense Lawyer failed to take reasonable remedial measures to urge the client to disclose the false testimony or to consider informing the tribunal. Correct. When a client's manager lies on the stand in a civil trial, the presentation of that witnesses in the proceeding is a fraud on the tribunal under Model Rule 3.3(b). The lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. This duty lasts until the conclusion of the proceeding, which in this case includes the appeal of the decision by the plaintiff.

A lawyer (Lawyer #1) represented a personal injury plaintiff who was involved in a car accident. The defendant's attorney (Lawyer #2) quickly sent Lawyer #1 three low offers of $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000. Although Lawyer #1 and the plaintiff had not discussed settlement ranges, Lawyer #1 reasonably believed that the case was worth $100,000 or more. Because Lawyer #1 reasonably believed that no plaintiff would ever accept such a low offer, he did not communicate these offers to the client. Did Lawyer #1's conduct regarding the settlement offers comply with the Model Rules?

No, because the client had an absolute right to decide whether to settle the case and Lawyer #1 needed to communicate those offers to the client. Correct. Model Rule 1.2(a) requires that attorneys abide by client decision to settle a matter. The authority of the client to consider settlements correspondingly requires the lawyers to communicate those offers unless an alternative agreement has been made. The lawyer needed to communicate the offers to the client. See Model Rule 1.4, Comment 2.

A lawyer represented a criminal defendant charged with murder. When considering whether to accept the representation, the lawyer examined the client's criminal record and determined that the client had such a poor criminal history that he should never take the stand to testify at trial. Therefore, the lawyer inserted a clause in the attorney-client agreement that stated that the client agreed that he would not exercise his right to testify at trial. During trial, the client decided that he wanted to testify and he so informed his lawyer. The lawyer reminded the client of his agreement not to do so and the client unhappily honored this agreement. Did the lawyer's conduct requiring the agreement not to testify comply with the Model Rules?

No, because the client has an absolute right to decide whether to testify in a criminal case. Correct. Model Rule 1.2(a) clearly states that the lawyer must abide by a client's decision to testify in a criminal trial.

A lawyer represented a client as a plaintiff on a contingent fee basis in the trial of a contract dispute. The judge dismissed the client's case in a motion for summary judgment and the lawyer urged the client to appeal. The lawyer was certain that the trial judge's decision would be reversed. The client was frustrated with the legal system and did not want to appeal. The lawyer offered to represent the client on appeal for no fee, and to lower the original contingency fee by 10%, but the client still refused. The lawyer will only be compensated if the appellate court reverses the decision and if the subsequent trial results in a verdict or settlement for the client. May the lawyer file an appeal for the client in this case?

No, because the client has the right to decide not to appeal the case. Correct. Model Rule 1.2(a) establishes the client's right to set the objectives in the representation and this includes the right not to appeal the summary judgment decision. The lawyer may use his or her persuasive power to influence the client's decision but may not override it.

An international law firm with 5,000 lawyers practiced in 50 countries. One of the lawyers in the Wyoming office represented a mining company on a gold venture five years ago and the matter is now closed. The New York office represents a bank that seeks to bring a lawsuit against the same mining company. The new matter is substantially related to the one on which the Wyoming office worked five years ago, but the Wyoming and New York offices have no contact with each other. No confidential information is typically shared between them and the lawyers working on the cases have never met each other. However, the mining company will not consent to the international law firm's representation of the bank. Under the Model Rules, may the New York office of the international law firm represent the bank against the mining company, its former client?

No, because the conflicts of the Wyoming office are imputed to all of the lawyers in the international law firm. Correct. Model Rule 1.10 imputes a conflict of one lawyer to all lawyers in the law firm. In this case, the conflicts of the Wyoming office lawyers are imputed to all lawyers in the New York office. Therefore, the law firm cannot represent the bank against the former client in a case that is substantially related to the former representation.

A criminal defense lawyer represented a man charged with murder and held in custody without bail. The victim's body had not yet been discovered and the lawyer asked the client confidentially about his involvement in the crime. The client informed the lawyer about the crime and how this event had occurred. The lawyer felt sorry for the victim's family and wanted to disclose the location of the body to give the family closure, but the lawyer also knew that disclosure could provide forensic evidence that would link the client to the crime. The authorities were expending significant funds in trying to find the victim's body. However, the client did not wish to cooperate and instead wanted to take his chances at trial. Do the Model Rules permit the lawyer anonymously to disclose the location of the body?

No, because the duty of confidentiality protects information about past events provided to the lawyer by the client. Correct. All information given to the lawyer by the client is protected by the duty of confidentiality and the lawyer may not violate that duty without consent or without meeting one of the exceptions to the rule under Model Rule 1.6(b). None of the exceptions were implicated by this fact pattern, so the lawyer who chose to disclose the location of the body would violate the duty of confidentiality to the client.

A lawyer in a large firm represented a corporation that sold food products to grocery stores. One of the corporation's managers discovered that the company had failed to include all of its ingredients on a list of ingredients reported to the state regulatory authority for one of its product lines. The corporate officers asked the lawyer to research the issue and to propose a solution. The lawyer discovered that state law required amending the original filings, but there was no punishment for failing to file the amended filings. Of course, the law required that all current and future filings be accurate and did punish violators for knowingly withholding information on state filings. The company's president told the lawyer that they would file correct statements from now on, but the company would not correct the prior filings. The lawyer urged the president to file amended filings but the lawyer did acknowledge that the failure to do so would not subject the corporation to any significant legal or financial harm. The lawyer did not urge the president to seek a second legal opinion about the issue. The lawyer informed the corporation's board of directors about the president's decision not to prepare amended filings to the state regulators. However, the board reaffirmed the decision of the president. Was the lawyer's disclosure to the board of directors required by the Model Rules?

No, because the failure to prepare amended filings did not expose the corporation to substantial financial or legal injury. Correct. Model Rule 1.13(b) sets forth a lawyer's obligation to protect an entity when a constituent acts in a manner that is reasonably certain to cause substantial injury to the entity. Because the law does not provide for any punishment for a failure to prepare amended filings with the regulatory agency, however, the corporation in this case was not at risk of any substantial harm. Therefore, the lawyer was not required to take the matter up to the board of directors.

An in-house lawyer for a developer personally approached a couple who owned 1,000 acres of land. The couple invited the lawyer to come into their home and, within 5 minutes, the couple told the lawyer that they had retained an attorney to represent them in all real estate transactions. The lawyer informed the couple that he could not speak to them without permission of the lawyer. The couple said, "We waive that requirement. Don't worry; if you give us a proposed contract, we will not sign it until our attorney to look at it." The lawyer accepted the couple's waiver and continued to negotiate a land transaction. Was it proper for the in-house lawyer to communicate with the couple about a possible real estate transaction under the Model Rules?

No, because the in-house lawyer continued to speak to the couple after he discovered that they had already hired a lawyer to represent them in real estate transactions. Correct. Model Rule 4.2 prohibits a lawyer's speaking about the subject matter of a representation with anyone the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter. Only the opposing person's lawyer or the order of a court can waive that prohibition. See Comment 3 to Model Rule 4.2.

A lawyer who was representing a foreign government client as a defendant in human rights litigation was fired by the client. The lawyer did not give the client names of other lawyers who could take over the representation. The lawyer filed the necessary papers for withdrawal with the court, and the judge refused to grant the lawyer's motion. The judge ordered the lawyer to stay in the case. The lawyer informed the client about the judge's order and the client reaffirmed the termination of the lawyer's services. May the lawyer withdraw from the litigation representation under the Model Rules?

No, because the judge ordered the lawyer to stay in the case. Correct. Notwithstanding the fact that the lawyer has been fired, Model Rule 1.16(c) requires a lawyer to stay in a case when a judge orders the lawyer to continue to represent the client.

A law firm represented one large bank (Large Bank) and several small banks in the state. Because the Large Bank generated significant business for the law firm, the firm would always ask new small bank clients to consent to future conflicts of interest that might arise with other clients including the Large Bank. The clause in the standard retention agreement stated: "The small bank agrees not to disqualify the law firm from representing any other client of the firm if a conflict arises. The small bank agrees to obtain new counsel for any matter related to the conflict of interest. And, if the small bank chooses to terminate its relationship with the law firm, the law firm will return all fees on any matters that have not been completed." May the law firm rely on the advance consent agreement to address conflicts with small bank clients under the Model Rules?

No, because the language of this advance consent clause is too open ended and applies to all future conflicts that may arise with a small bank client. Correct. Comment 22 to Model Rule 1.7 notes that advance consent to future conflicts is unlikely to be valid when the language is broad and applicable to conflicts that are unknown at the time of the agreement.

A lawyer served as a law clerk to a judge for a one-year term. About half way through the year, the lawyer asked the judge whether she could begin to interview for law firm employment. The judge said yes and the law clerk applied to three law firms for jobs. One of the firms represented a plaintiff with a case before the judge and the law clerk had worked personally and substantially on this litigation in her clerkship. The clerk notified the judge about her application. She subsequently informed the judge that she had planned to make an office visit to the law firm with the case pending before the judge. The judge consented to allow the law firm to negotiate for employment with the law firm that had a pending case before the judge. Is the law clerk subject to discipline for interviewing with a law firm that had a pending case before the judge?

No, because the law clerk informed the judge about her application and her interview. Correct. Model Rule 1.12(b) permits a lawyer law clerk to interview for employment with a law firm with a pending case before the court in which the clerk has worked personally and substantially if the clerk notifies the judge of the interview. Most judges will ask the clerk to stop working on the case and assign it to another clerk, but that is not required by the Rule.

A plaintiff sued a corporation and its president for their conduct in an accident involving the president driving a corporate vehicle. Because the corporation had a comprehensive insurance policy (with a small self-insurance component) that covered all possible losses from the accident, the corporation's vice president interviewed several law firms and settled on one firm. That law firm examined the possible conflict of interest between the entity and the president and determined that the firm could represent both clients. The lawyers in the firm explained the conflict to the vice president and the president and reasonably determined that they could provide competent and diligent representation to both clients. In the end, the president gave his consent to the multiple client representation on his behalf and on behalf of the corporate entity. Did the law firm comply with the Model Rules in accepting the representation of the corporation and its president?

No, because the law firm needed to obtain the corporation's consent to the conflict of interest from someone other than the individual who was also to be represented. Correct. Model Rule 1.13(g) provides that when an entity is involved in consenting to a multiple client representation, the consent must come from someone other than the person to be represented along with the entity. Here, the president consented for the corporation and for himself and that is not permitted by the Rule.

A wills and estates lawyer had accepted so many pending will drafting matters that when a prospective client approached the lawyer to inquire about a will drafting representation, the lawyer had to inform the client that he would need a month to complete a draft of a will. The lawyer would not consider representations where such a delay would prejudice the client's interest, such as where the client was clearly near death. And, even after finding delay was not inappropriate in the client's individual case, the lawyer always would obtain the client's informed consent to the delay. Does the lawyer's approach to delay in preparing wills for new clients violate the lawyer's duty of diligence to the client?

No, because the lawyer analyzes the prospective representation to determine whether the month delay would prejudice the client's interests and then obtains the client's informed consent to the delay. Correct. The duty of diligence is a requirement to act with "reasonable diligence and promptness." That standard is ultimately based on the effect of the delay on the client. A month delay in preparing a will is not so dilatory that it would prejudice most clients. However, in some cases, a month delay would be improper. The lawyer in this question analyzes the effect of the delay upon the client's interests and obtains the client's informed consent. That makes this lawyer's approach proper under the duty of diligence.

A lawyer represented a client who lost money with an investment adviser when the adviser put the client's investments into an energy fund that failed. The lawyer and the client suspected that the investment adviser received improper commissions from the energy fund, but they did not have specific evidence of such a practice. Without such evidence, it was likely that the client would not prevail in the litigation. The lawyer filed the complaint with the statement that discovery would seek to learn all influences on the investment adviser's decisions including all payments from whatever source. Even though the lawyer believed that this was a difficult case, the lawyer believed in good faith that discovery would secure the necessary evidence. Did the lawyer violate the Model Rules in representing this client in a civil case?

No, because the lawyer believed in good faith that he could develop the vital evidence through discovery. Correct. Under Model Rule 3.1, Comment 2, this statement accurately reflects what the lawyer must be able to do in order to avoid filing a frivolous case. Having all discovery before the case is filed is not practical. Lawyers can believe in good faith that facts will be developed through formal discovery.

A criminal defense lawyer's mother was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol and the lawyer visited his mom at her home. The lawyer did not ask his mother if she had hired a lawyer. After offering to represent her for free, the lawyer begged his mom to listen. The mom said that she was so embarrassed that she did not want to talk about it. The lawyer came back the next day and called on the third day. He kept bothering the mother even though she kept telling him to leave her alone. Was it permissible for the lawyer to contact his mother in this manner under the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer continued to contact the mother after she made it known that she did not want to be contacted by the lawyer. Correct. Under Rule 7.3(c)(1), permissible targets of solicitation become impermissible once they make it known to the lawyer that they no longer want to be solicited. The contacts about representing the mother must cease. This would apply whether the lawyer sought to approach a relative, a former client, or a close personal friend who informed the lawyer that he or she wanted to be left alone.

A sole practitioner lawyer represented a wealthy woman in connection with tax matters for her the fashion business. Another law firm handled all her other legal work. During the representation, the lawyer learned from the woman's assistant that the woman had violated state employment law by firing all individuals over a certain age. The lawyer asked the woman about this and she told him that he was only her tax lawyer and not her employment lawyer. She confessed to continuing to violate state employment laws, but asked him to keep this information confidential. The lawyer did not disclose this information to anyone. Did the lawyer violate the Model Rules by keeping this information confidential?

No, because the lawyer did not assist the client in any crime or fraud relating to employment. Correct. The lawyer performed tax work for the client and did not in any assist her in the employment matter. Also, the client did not commit a crime or fraud. She violated the age discrimination rules. Thus, he has no duty to disclose the information to anyone.

A lawyer represented all of the major oil companies in various transactions with landowners. Congress initiated an investigation of potential overreaching by oil companies in transactions with unrepresented individuals. The lawyer felt strongly that the federal legislature should not be involved in regulating private transactions. In conversations with one oil company client, the president told the lawyer that the company would gladly pay any legal fees if the lawyer would testify before Congress on this issue. The lawyer accepted the engagement and prepared a statement for submission to Congress. Because she believed that a personal statement would be more powerful, the lawyer decided not to inform Congress that she was appearing in a representative capacity. The lawyer believed that her personal belief that Congress should stay out of this issue made her statement personal rather than that of a representative of a client. Was the lawyer's appearance before the congressional committee consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer did not disclose that an oil company client was paying for her appearance before the committee. Correct. Model Rule 3.9 requires a lawyer to disclose that she is appearing in a representative capacity. That was not done here and therefore the lawyer's conduct violated the Model Rules. Thus, "No" is the correct answer.

A lawyer represented indigent and low income individuals in criminal cases. The lawyer was running on a trail the park when she ran into a local criminal trial judge who was also on the trail. The judge informed the lawyer that, if she wanted more court appointments that brought a generous statutory lawyers' fee, the lawyer would need to donate $1,000 a month to the judge's campaign. The lawyer expressed dismay at the suggestion and the judge said, "I have half of the criminal bar supporting my campaign through these payments, so if you do not want the cases, others will gladly take them." Afterwards, the lawyer considered informing a prosecutor or a state judicial commission about this information, but she thought that such a reporting could prejudice her clients. The lawyer did not report the judge's conduct to anyone. Did the lawyer's decision not to report the judge's conduct comply with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer had knowledge of a judge's violation of the code of judicial conduct. Correct. When a judge approaches a lawyer for contributions to the judge's campaign in exchange for court appointments, it is a violation of Rule 4.1(A)(8) of the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct and calls the judge's honesty and integrity into substantial question.

A lawyer represented several public utility companies that provided electricity to residential and industrial customers. Recently, Congress became interested in passing laws relating to a national electricity grid. The lawyer's clients suggested that the lawyer become involved in law reform, not as a fee paid matter, but as an interested lawyer who has experience in the industry. The lawyer joined a national bar association, Electric Grid Reform Group, an organization that sought to promote expanding the electric grid. The lawyer worked on preparing papers for presentation to Congress. At no time did his clients compensate him for his work, but he clearly advocated for positions that would materially benefit his clients. The lawyer did not inform the reform group when certain policies would materially benefit his clients. In fact, he believed that on balance the proposals had both beneficial and detrimental effect upon his clients. Was it proper for the lawyer to work on law reform for an organization that would benefit some of his clients?

No, because the lawyer did not disclose to the Electric Grid Reform Group when his clients would be benefited by a position of the organization. Correct. The lawyer violated Model Rule 6.4's requirement that he inform the Electric Grid Reform Group that certain clients would be benefited by a legal position taken by the group. Lawyers are encouraged to join such organizations, but when a matter on which the lawyer works for the organization, will benefit a client of the lawyer, the lawyer is required to disclose that fact to the law reform organization.

A lawyer represented a client in a real estate sale and the client stopped paying the lawyer's monthly bills. The fee agreement stated that the lawyer would charge the client an hourly fee of $200 an hour, billed monthly, and the client had to pay the bill within 20 days. The lawyer billed the client for the month of June on July 1 and on August 1, the June bill had not been paid. On August 1, the lawyer billed the client for July hours and on August 20th, the client still had not paid the bill. On August 31, the lawyer sent the client a letter stating that he was withdrawing from the representation immediately because two bills had not been paid. The lawyer had not sent any other communications to the client during this time and the client had not consented to the lawyer's withdrawal. Was the lawyer's withdrawal from the representation consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer did not give the client reasonable warning that unless the client made the payment promptly, the lawyer would withdraw from the representation. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.16(b)(5), a lawyer may withdraw if the client has failed to pay monthly bills, but only after the lawyer has given the client a reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the client fulfills the obligation to pay the fee. In this case, no notice was provided to the client. Such notice must be provided when the withdrawal is based upon the client's failure to meet an obligation to the lawyer. If the client pays the lawyer, the lawyer may not withdraw from the representation.

A real estate lawyer was approached by two large corporate clients, one a seller of an industrial plant and one seeking to buy the plant. The corporations wanted the lawyer to represent each of them in negotiating the price and terms of the transaction, drafting the documents, and in closing the transaction. The lawyer knew the parties were sophisticated and capable of making informed decisions. But the lawyer also knew there were many conflicts in how this deal could be structured and the lawyer was uncertain as to whether she could represent both clients. The lawyer concluded that she did not have a reasonable degree of confidence that she could deliver competent and diligent representation to the corporate clients but she wanted to leave the final decision to the clients. The management of the two corporations agreed to waive the conflicts and have the lawyer represent both entities in negotiation of the price and terms of the deal. As sophisticated clients and experienced users of legal services, they explicitly took all of the risk to protect themselves in the transaction. May the lawyer represent the two corporations in this complex real estate transaction?

No, because the lawyer did not have a reasonable belief that she could deliver competent and diligent representation to both clients. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.7, the lawyer must reasonably determine that she can provide competent and diligent representation to each client. Because the complexity of the transaction and the avenues that a client could take to address these issues mean that she does not reasonably believe she can do so, the lawyer must decline the representation.

A lawyer sought to purchase a painting from client. The client was an experienced art collector. The lawyer proposed to pay the client a price equal to the appraised value by any independent art expert chosen by the client. The client arranged for an expert to appraise the painting and the value was assessed at $10,000. The lawyer asked the client to consult with his friends to make sure that he wanted to sell the painting. The client said, "The price is fair and let me sell it to you." The lawyer paid the client $10,000 for the painting, a fair and reasonable price. Was the lawyer's conduct in this transaction consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer did not prepare a writing that described the transaction in terms the client could understand, that warned the client to consult with independent legal counsel, and that the client signed. Correct. This transaction fails to satisfy Model Rule 1.8(a). The price was fair and reasonable, but the lawyer in this case satisfied none of the other requirements of Model Rule 1.8(a).

A lawyer represented a client who became unreasonable about communication requests. The client called the lawyer daily about whether there were any updates in a judicial proceeding in which the lawyer represented the client. The lawyer sent the client a note that asked the client to stop calling daily and informed the client that he would call him immediately if he had any updates on the case, but the client still continued to call. When the lawyer sent his note to the client, the client reported the lawyer to the state disciplinary authorities. The state disciplinary authorities initiated an investigation of the complaint and they contacted the lawyer for an explanation of the lawyer's position on communicating with the client. The lawyer was extremely upset at this investigation and he chose not to respond. He continued to represent the client in the matter. Is this an appropriate response to the state disciplinary authorities under the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer did not respond to the disciplinary authorities with an explanation of his interaction with the client. Correct. When a lawyer receives an inquiry about a disciplinary matter, the lawyer must respond to lawful requests for information. Model Rule 8.1(b). The response here was inadequate given the facts and the bar's questions. The lawyer should have explained generally his interaction with the client.

A lawyer was court-appointed to represent a homeless man in a proceeding initiated by the state to commit the man to a state mental health facility. The lawyer accepted the court appointment without obtaining the man's consent. The man was detained in a facility pending the hearing. The lawyer obtained the medical reports from the facility's doctors and determined that the man suffered from a severe psychiatric disorder. The lawyer understood that he represented a man with a diminished capacity. Because the man did not have health insurance, the lawyer reasonably believed that it would be in the best interests of the man to accept the civil commitment. The lawyer did not meet with the man until thirty minutes before the hearing. The lawyer told his client to listen to the proceedings and he would understand what is happening. "Moreover," the lawyer said, "if you have trouble understanding something, I will explain it during the break." The lawyer told the judge that the state civil commitment was the best option to get the man care for his condition. Was the lawyer's conduct consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer did not seek to maintain a normal attorney client relationship by meeting with the client in advance of the hearing and seeking to determine the man's objectives. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.14(a), the lawyer must seek to maintain as normal a relationship as possible with this client and that means meeting the client and assessing the client's objective with respect to the civil commitment proceeding.

A lawyer represented a car collector client who had arranged to sell a $500,000 antique car to a buyer. The client (who had to take an emergency flight to see his ill mother) asked the lawyer to take possession of the car and deliver it once the funds had cleared from the buyer. The client provided no instructions on where to store the car. The lawyer parked the car for one week in the public parking lot connected to the law firm. The lawyer did not ask the client where he should store the car. Had the lawyer done some research, he would have discovered that a professional who possessed such a car would store it either in a closed trailer or in a secure garage so that it is not exposed to weather, theft, or possible damage. In this instance, no damage occurred to the car and the lawyer delivered possession when the funds cleared. Did the lawyer's conduct regarding the possession of the car comply with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer did not store the car in an enclosed trailer or in a secure garage. Correct. A lawyer must hold client property as a fiduciary would do and in this case leaving a $500,000 antique car in a public parking lot exposed the car to risk of harm. The lawyer should have placed the car in an enclosed trailer or secured garage.

A lawyer represented a man who owned a small coal oven factory. A plaintiff sued the man under a theory of products liability. The man had used many engineers in the past to help him perfect his coal oven and he reasonably believed that it was safe and effective. The plaintiff's attorney served standards document production request asking for all design information and testing of the oven. In order to save legal fees, the lawyer sent the document production to the man and asked him to gather all potential documents that it could cover. The man was not legally trained, the man did not have an in-house attorney, and Lawyer did not instruct the man on how to proceed other than saying, "use your best judgment." The man produced documents that he believed were covered and sent them to the lawyer. The lawyer forwarded them to the court and plaintiff. The man had omitted a letter from an engineer asking for a redesign in the past year. The lawyer did not know such a letter existed, yet the letter clearly should have been produced in the discovery. Is the lawyer's conduct regarding discovery consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer failed to exercise reasonable diligence in complying with a legally proper discovery request. Correct. When a lawyer represents a client with little or no experience with complying with discovery requests, the lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that what is produced in response to a document request is complete. The lawyer failed to do that in this situation.

A lawyer represented a plaintiff in a personal injury matter. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and the lawyer filed a memorandum supporting the plaintiff's position. Two days after all filings were in, the judge granted the defense motion and dismissed the case. The lawyer was shocked and decided to withhold the decision from the client for two weeks until after the client paid her for the work to date. The trial judge was a friend and the lawyer believed that the client would insist that the lawyer seek to disqualify the judge and terminate the lawyer if she disclosed the ruling. Under the local rules, the time to move to disqualify was one week after the ruling and the time for appeal was 30 days. Was the decision to delay sharing the judge's opinion with the client consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.4(a)(3), a lawyer has a duty to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter. Dismissal of the case was a critical development that had to be disclosed as soon as reasonably possible.

A lawyer represented a plaintiff in a personal injury matter on a contingent fee basis. The plaintiff was extremely interested in the law and asked the client details about the law and procedure in the case in order to evaluate any proposed settlement. The lawyer explained the basics, but after three meetings with the client, the lawyer told the client that in the future the client should research the law on her own. The client's desire to learn as much about the case as possible was motivated by wish to obtain information as to the value of the case with reference to potential settlement offers. The lawyer told the client, "I know you are not unreasonable, but I will let you know when we have a settlement offer that I think you should consider. Under a contingent fee arrangement, I cannot spent time giving you details about your representation." Was the lawyer's decision to stop providing the client with detailed information about the law and procedure of the case consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer failed to respond to reasonable requests for information of a client who did not know the law and procedure in the representation. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.4(a)(2), a lawyer has a duty to keep the client informed about the means the lawyer is using the accomplish the client's objective and, under Rule 1.4(b), the lawyer has a duty to explain matters to the client to the extent that the client needs information to make adequately informed decisions. The lawyer must respond the reasonable request for information from the client. Many lawyers would prefer to have a client who does not ask many questions, but if the client does and if the requests are reasonable, the lawyer must respond.

A personal injury lawyer charged a client a 40% contingent fee to represent him in an accident case. The case settled for $2 million and the client was very happy with the lawyer's representation. The client told the lawyer that he would be going to Vegas at the end of the week to celebrate. The lawyer reasonably believed that the client was not sophisticated in money matters and thought that he might spend a large part of the settlement proceeds gambling. Thus, when the lawyer received the check for $2 million on Monday, the lawyer directed his assistant to place it in the client trust account. The lawyer did not notify the client of the receipt of the funds and waited two weeks from the receipt of the funds until the client came back to town before he asked the client to come into the office. At the office, the lawyer gave the client free lessons on money management and at that time delivered the client's share of the settlement proceeds. The lawyer informed the client that he had delayed notifying the client in order to protect the client. Was it proper for the lawyer to delay notification of the receipt of the funds to the client?

No, because the lawyer had to duty to promptly notify the client of the receipt of the funds and to arrange for an accounting and a prompt delivery of the funds to the client. Correct. Model Rule 1.15(d) requires that when a lawyer receives money belonging to a client, the lawyer must promptly notify and promptly deliver the funds to the client. In a contingent fee case, the lawyer must prepare an accounting under Model Rule 1.5(c). The lawyer did not do any of these required tasks.

A lawyer participated in a weekend pro bono program sponsored by a court to help low income individuals injured during employment to receive limited legal services. The lawyer met a woman who worked for ABC Corporation, a company represented by the lawyer and his law firm. The woman suffered an injury on the job and has been unable to return to work. Because the court program is limited to answering questions and not taking any action on behalf of individuals who come to the program, the lawyer decided to provide the woman with basic information about her rights to sue ABC Corporation. He did not inform her about his relationship with her employer. Is the lawyer's decision to provide basic information to the woman proper under the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer knew that the woman sought advice about an accident that arose in the employment of a current client of the lawyer and his law firm. Correct. Under Model Rule 6.5, the ABA permits lawyers to enter into a limited legal services engagement to answer basic questions at a program sponsored by a court or a nonprofit organization designed to assist persons in addressing their legal problems. Once the lawyer learns that the woman seeks legal advice about an accident that took place in a client of the lawyer or his law firm, the lawyer needs to decline to provide the advice.

A lawyer represented a large commercial landlord, Landco, for many years. During that time, Landco shared confidential information with the lawyer about incentives that it offered its anchor tenants that were instrumental in keeping anchor tenants in the complex for the duration of the lease. Those incentives were memorialized in the agreements prepared by the lawyer. One year ago, Landco stopped using the lawyer and gave all of its legal business to a new law firm. Recently, the lawyer began to represent a new commercial landlord and the lawyer would like to disclose Landco's confidential information about its anchor tenant incentives to the new client. May the lawyer disclose Landco's confidential information to the new client under the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer owes the former client a duty of confidentiality and no relevant exceptions to the duty exist under the Model Rules. Correct. A lawyer's duty of confidentiality to a former client is defined in Model Rule 1.9(c). Under this provision, a lawyer may not disclose confidential information unless the Model Rules permit or require disclosure. The lawyer could ask the client for informed consent to disclose the information, but that was not done here.

Able, a lawyer, worked at the ABC law firm in the tax department. While at the ABC firm, Able participated as a member of a team representing an aggressor corporation in an attempt to take over a target corporation. Able attended meetings and prepared memos for the aggressor corporation, and Able acquired information about the aggressor corporation that is protected by the ethical rule of confidentiality. One day, Able decided to leave the ABC law firm and to join the XYZ law firm. The XYZ law firm is representing the target corporation in that same corporate takeover fight. Able has been asked to participate in representing the target corporation. The aggressor corporation will not consent to Able's representation of the target corporation. May Able represent the target corporation under the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer performed work for the aggressor corporation while at the ABC law firm and the work he proposes to do is for the target, a client with interests materially adverse to the former client in connection with the same hostile takeover. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.9(b), a lawyer who worked on a matter at the ABC law firm cannot represent a new client in the same matter if that client's interests are materially adverse to those of the former client. This is clearly such a case.

A lawyer represented a husband and wife in their acquisition of assets, their wills, and their employment contracts. Five years after the lawyer ceased to represent the husband and wife as a couple, the wife asked the lawyer to represent her in a divorce from the husband. The lawyer possessed confidential information from the past representations of the couple that would be material to knowing the assets of the husband in the divorce. The husband will not consent to let the lawyer represent the wife. May the lawyer represent the wife in this divorce under the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer possessed confidential information from the prior representation that would be material to knowing the husband's assets. Correct. When a lawyer represents a couple in the acquisition of assets, in estate planning, and in employment arrangement, the facts the lawyer learns will be relevant if the marriage is ever dissolved. Therefore, the lawyer possessed confidential information from the representation of the husband that would be relevant in representing the wife in the divorce. Unless the husband consents to allow the lawyer to represent the wife, the lawyer will not be able to do so because the matters are substantially related.

A litigator represented the plaintiff in a contract dispute that was currently being tried in a local court. The litigator was at a grocery store when she encountered the defendant in the contract dispute. The defendant approached the litigator and asked about the weather and a local sports team. The litigator and defendant did not discuss the litigation matter. The litigator did not inform the court about the encounter with the defendant. Did the litigator violate the Model Rules by speaking with the defendant?

No, because the litigator and the defendant did not discuss any aspect of the litigation. Correct. Model Rule 4.2 only applies when the lawyer and a party represented by counsel discuss the subject matter of the representation. Here, they expressly avoided discussion of any aspect of the litigation.

A lawyer worked in a state antitrust agency as the head of a section responsible for investigating anticompetitive conduct by large corporations. The agency was investigating a matter involving price fixing of lumber, but no decisions or actions in that industry came before the lawyer during his period of government service, and he did no work on the investigation. On one occasion, however, the lawyer read a confidential government memorandum, prepared for the investigation and not released to the public, that examined different markets in lumber and what informants said about the conduct of leading firms in the industry. The memorandum was used to guide the agency in deciding which cases to pursue. Ultimately, the lawyer left the government and joined a law firm. One law firm client, a national lumber company, asked the lawyer to represent it as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the companies that were the subject of the government investigation. The information that the lawyer learned from the memorandum could be very helpful to the plaintiff's case and used to the disadvantage of the defendant company. The government will not be involved in this litigation in any way. May the lawyer represent the national lumber company against the defendant corporations?

No, because the lawyer possesses confidential government information that could be used to the disadvantage of the defendant corporations in the litigation for the plaintiff client. Correct. Model Rule 1.10(c) addresses the situation when a former government lawyer possesses confidential government information that would be used to the disadvantage of a private party. In such a situation, the lawyer is prohibited from representing the private client. The rule would permit screening the former government lawyer, but no exceptions exist to permit the lawyer to accept the representation personally.

Two neighbors were challenging a homeowner association's right to change the bylaws. One homeowner (called "Fence") wanted to construct a pool that would violate the proposed bylaws and the other homeowner (called "Pool") wanted to build a fence that would violate the proposed bylaws. Neither homeowner opposed the other's proposed action because their homes were one mile apart and they did not have an opinion about the other homeowner's issue. In fact, their complaints were rather similar. Pool hired Lawyer Alpha to appear before the homeowner's association meeting. Fence, the nonclient homeowner, scheduled his case at the same meeting. Fence asked Lawyer Alpha several legal questions and advice on how to best present the fence case to the association. Lawyer Alpha, who told Fence that he represented Pool, reasonably believed that the Fence's interests did not conflict with the interests of his client, Pool, so he gave legal advice to Fence, the unrepresented nonclient homeowner. The lawyer did not obtain the consent of Pool to give legal advice to Fence. Did the lawyer violate the Model Rules by meeting with and giving legal advice to the nonclient homeowner?

No, because the lawyer reasonably believed that the nonclient's interests were not in conflict with the client's interest. Correct. Ordinarily, lawyers should not give legal advice to unrepresented persons, but if the nonclient's interests are not in conflict with the client's interests, the lawyer can give such advice. See Model Rule 4.3, Comment 2.

A litigation partner represented a trucking company in a lawsuit brought by the state regulators. The lawsuit involved the imposition of civil penalties for violating safety inspection requirements. Several weeks before trial, the management of the trucking company asked the partner to write an opinion examining the chance of success in the lawsuit and the possible range of sanctions if the litigation was unsuccessful. A potential buyer of the company asked the management for this opinion. The lawyer reasonably believed that such an opinion would need to include significant confidential information that was not known by anyone outside the entity and possible disclosure of that information would be harmful in the litigation. May the lawyer prepare the tax opinion for the company?

No, because the lawyer reasonably believed that the opinion would require disclosure of confidential information that would be harmful to the litigation position of the client. Correct. Model Rule 2.3(a) permits attorneys to prepare opinions if they are compatible with the attorney's others responsibilities to the client. A litigator should not issue an opinion if that document would jeopardize success in the litigation. Also, under Model Rule 2.3(b), if the lawyer knows that the evaluation is likely to affect the interests of the client in a material and adverse way, the lawyer needs to get the informed consent of the client. In this case, the litigation with the regulators would likely be adversely affected by the disclosure of the information.

A lawyer represented a woman seeking to obtain a temporary restraining order against her former boyfriend. The boyfriend was not represented by counsel and failed to appear for the court proceeding on the restraining order. The court asked the woman many questions about the boyfriend's conduct and the answers supported her case. The judge asked the lawyer and the woman whether they had any information about the boyfriend's attempt to address his anger issues. The lawyer had information from the boyfriend that the boyfriend had entered counselling for anger management and that he had made much progress. But the lawyer did not disclose this information to the court because it would undermine the client's motion for a restraining order. The lawyer did not ask the client for permission to disclose this information to the court. Was the lawyer's decision not to inform the judge consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer represented a client in an ex parte proceeding. Correct. Under Model Rule 3.3(d), the lawyer in this case had a duty to inform the court in an ex parte proceeding about the boyfriend's participation and progress in a counselling program even though such information was adverse to the client's motion for a temporary restraining order. When the opposing party is not represented and not present in the proceeding, the court needs all factual information that it can obtain to make a decision. This Model Rule changes the normal position that lawyers do not need to disclose adverse facts in a proceeding.

A lawyer represented a famous actor arrested for possession of illegal drugs. At a hearing to determine bail, the judge asked the lawyer whether the client had travelled outside the country in the last 5 years. The actor was not present at the hearing. The lawyer had never discussed this question with the actor, but he had no knowledge that his client had taken trips outside the country. Thus, the lawyer said to the judge, "I can from personal knowledge say No, your honor." The lawyer reasonably believed that he needed to answer this question without equivocation in order to help his client's case for a reasonably bail. Was the lawyer's response to the judge consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer said he knows the answer unequivocally and that was not true. Correct. A lawyer who makes a statement to a tribunal without knowledge is not being accurate. A statement made without knowledge or without inquiry is simply not proper. The lawyer could have said, "not to my knowledge, but I will check with the client." But the lawyer cannot made this unequivocal statement to the judge.

A lawyer represented a client in litigation against an employer for gender discrimination. The client fee agreement stated that the client agreed to cooperate with the lawyer during the representation. The lawyer had a difficult time communicating with the client. The client took a long time to locate documents for the lawyer. And, the client often did not respond to lawyer phone calls and emails. Given the difficulty the lawyer had communicating with the client, the lawyer warned the client that he would need to withdraw unless the client became more responsive. The client did not change his behavior and therefore the lawyer sent the client a letter stating that he would withdraw in two weeks. Just after the lawyer sent the letter, the opposing counsel filed a motion for summary judgment. The response to that motion was due one week after the anticipated withdrawal date. Because the lawyer had given the client warning, he pushed forward with the withdrawal and did no work on the motion to oppose summary judgment. When the time came to argue the summary judgment motion, no substitute counsel had made an appearance. The lawyer withdrew and one week later the time passed for any response from the client for the motion for summary judgment. The judge subsequently granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Was the lawyer's withdrawal from the representation consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer withdrew from the representation while a motion for summary judgment was pending without taking steps to protect the client's interests. Correct. Whenever a lawyer withdraws from a representation, the lawyer must take reasonable steps to protect the client's interests. Any pending proceedings such as this motion for summary judgment must be considered during the withdrawal process. The lawyer must inform the client of the need to file a motion to oppose the defendant's summary judgment filings. And, the lawyer could either prepare the motion and file it, ensure that new counsel prepare the motion, or seek postponement of the deadlines because of the imminent change of counsel. The lawyer did not take any steps in this case to address this pending motion and therefore the lawyer violated Model Rule 1.16(d).

A sole practitioner worked in the area of small accident cases and during the course of a month she would deposit and withdraw hundreds of thousands of dollars. The monies were deposited into a client trust account. Every month the bank assessed a $50 fee for maintaining the account. The lawyer deposited $1,000 of her money into the client trust account to cover the service charges for the foreseeable future. The lawyer informed her clients in the fee agreement that she planned to deposit her money into the client trust account to pay the bank service charges. Was it proper for the lawyer to deposit $1,000 into the client trust account?

No, because the lawyer's deposit of $1,000 into the client trust account was in excess of what was necessary to pay the $50 monthly bank service charges. Correct. Model Rule 1.15(b) permits a lawyer to deposit personal or law firm funds into a client trust account to pay bank service charges, but only in an amount necessary to pay those fees. The deposit of $1,000 was unreasonably in excess of what was needed to pay these bank service charges.

A criminal defense lawyer sought to expand his business to hire profile clients and he informed the professional sports franchises that he was available to represent players charged with crimes on extremely favorable terms. When a player approached the lawyer, the lawyer assessed whether the player had the means to pay his hourly rate of $300 an hour. In cases in which the lawyer believed that the player did not have the resources to afford his rate, the lawyer would propose a fixed fee payable at the end of the representation only if the player did not receive a prison sentence. If the player client received a prison sentence, the lawyer would not collect a fee. The lawyer reasonably believed that such a fee structure enabled players without financial resources to obtain counsel. And, the lawyer tied the payment to the ability of the player to work and earn money to pay the fixed fee. May the lawyer charge athletes on the fixed fee structure described above?

No, because the lawyer's fixed fee structure contained a contingent feature that forgave payment if the client received a prison sentence. Correct. Model Rule 1.5(c) outlines the requirements for contingent fees in a legal representation. Model Rule 1.5(d)(2) prohibits a lawyer from charging a contingent fee in a criminal case. This arrangement forgives the fee if the player client received a prison sentence. Thus, it offers the client a fee that is contingent upon the outcome of the case.

A lawyer specializing in the banking industry represented several banks in a city. The lawyer represented the banks in closing loans and in bringing foreclosure actions against borrowers who were in default. Bank A was having trouble with ACME, a local company that was in financial distress. ACME was in arrears in several payments and the lawyer (who represented Bank A) was in negotiations to get the company on track. The financial problems of ACME were not generally known in the community. Another client of this same lawyer, Bank B, was considering lending money to ACME and the lawyer was responsible for negotiating the loan. Using the information learned from Bank A's case with ACME, but not disclosing it, the lawyer asked ACME for special collateral to guarantee the Bank B loan. Bank B normally would not ask for such terms and ACME's dedication of the collateral to Bank B's loan ended up weakening Bank A's ability to collect its loan. Was the lawyer's use of Bank's A's information for Bank B consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyer's use of Bank A's information was to the disadvantage of Bank A. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.8(b), a lawyer may not use information of one client to benefit another client if it is to the disadvantage of the first client to do so. Here the use of the information injured the ability of the Bank A to receive repayment of its loan from the company.

An associate at Law Firm A worked on the representation of the plaintiff in antitrust litigation. Then, the associate moved to Law Firm B, the firm that represented the defendant in the same litigation. The associate possessed confidential information from the plaintiff that was material to the litigation. Before the associate joined Law Firm B, the lawyers in that firm notified the lawyers in Law Firm A in an open hearing that the associate would not work on the antitrust litigation. When the associate joined Law Firm B, that firm did not permit the associate to attend meetings about the litigation and did not ask her to perform any work on the case. May Law Firm B continue to represent the defendant in the antitrust litigation under the Model Rules?

No, because the lawyers in Law Firm B did not give notice to any affected former client in writing and did not implement appropriate screening of the associate from working on the antitrust case. Correct. Model Rule 1.10(a)(2) addresses the lawyer who switches firms and the imputation of conflicts that arises for the lawyer's new law firm. This provision allows screening if required procedures are followed. The firm must notify the former client in writing, must adopt screening procedures in writing, must give the court and other parties an opportunity to question the law firm's procedures and, at reasonable intervals, must certify compliance with the screening requirements. Since the law firm did not put the notice in writing and did not formally adopt screening procedures, it cannot rely on Model Rule 1.10(a)(2) process to continue the representation. The associate's conflict is imputed to the law firm and it is disqualified from representing the defendant in the litigation.

Two nineteen year old teenagers, Able and Baker, were arrested for vandalizing a park sign. The crime was a felony that carried potential jail time, but in all probability, a prosecutor would seek misdemeanor charges against the two teenagers. Able was a model student with no prior involvement in prior crimes, while Baker had been convicted of several drug charges in the past. Therefore, the two teenagers were likely to have different plea bargaining and sentencing options. However, because both teenagers were under the age of 21 years old they would be able to expunge and seal any convictions once they turned 21 years old. Under the Model Rules, may one lawyer represent both Able and Baker in their criminal defense?

No, because the matter involved a criminal case with two prospective clients with different prior criminal histories and thus would involve plea negotiations that could be inconsistent and in conflict with each other. Correct. The different criminal histories of Able and Baker create problems in charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing and therefore it will be difficult for one lawyer to represent each affected client with competence and diligence. The lawyer will be under pressure either to sacrifice the possible lighter treatment of Able to help Baker or to hurt Baker to help Able. The best answer is that the lawyer may not represent both defendants. See Model Rule 1.7(b)(1) and Comment 23.

A prisoner confessed to committing a crime for which another person was convicted and imprisoned. The prisoner informed the warden, who informed the prosecutor about the location of a weapon used in the crime. The prosecutor knew that the prisoner was not represented by counsel at the time of his discussions with the warden. The information was new, credible, and material because the prosecutor knew that the prisoner had information only someone close to the crime could have known. This information created a reasonable likelihood that the person convicted of the crime did not commit the offense. The conviction of the person had taken place in a neighboring jurisdiction, so the prosecutor informed the person's lawyer about the new evidence, and assumed that would be sufficient to address the situation. The person's lawyer was still representing the person on a collateral attack on the conviction. Were the prosecutor's efforts to remedy the possible wrongful conviction consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the prosecutor did not inform the court or other authority in the jurisdiction where the person was convicted. Correct. Under Model Rule 3.8(g), a prosecutor who knows of "new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted... shall promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority." The facts of this case impose these duties upon the prosecutor and the prosecutor did not meet them in this case.

A lawyer represented a defendant in employment litigation with a former employee. The lawyer knew that the plaintiff's case depended heavily upon the testimony of a witness who was about to leave the country for a long business trip. The lawyer asked the court for delay stating that more time was needed to prepare the case, but that was not correct. The lawyer's real reason was primarily her knowledge that the witness would not likely be available to testify in person for the plaintiff. The lawyer had discussed the motion for delay with her client but the lawyer did not obtain the client's permission to file the motion for delay. Is the lawyer's request for delay consistent with the Model Rules?

No, because the request is based upon the lawyer's knowledge that a plaintiff's witness will not be available if the delay is granted. Correct. Comment 1 to Model Rule 3.2 expressly notes that it is not permissible for a lawyer to use delay to frustrate an opponent's access to evidence. On these facts, the real reason for the request for delay is to frustrate the plaintiff's access to the witness' testimony. The lawyer does not need more time for preparation.

A promoter hired a lawyer to form a limited partnership that the promoter planned to sell to investors. An investor interested in the limited partnership asked whether she could meet with the lawyer. The promoter and the lawyer met with the investor and the investor asked the lawyer many questions about the structure of the partnership. Although the promoter made it clear to the investor that the lawyer was only representing the promoter, the lawyer later suspected, as the conversation got more detailed, that the investor might misunderstand the lawyer's role in the matter. Therefore, the lawyer again informed the investor that she only represented the promoter and that she was not permitted to give the investor legal advice. For such advice, the lawyer told the investor, he needed to seek the advice of independent counsel. Did the lawyer's during the interaction with the investor violate any of the Model Rules?

No, because when the lawyer later noticed that the investor might be misunderstanding his role in the matter, the lawyer made clear, again, that he represented the promoter only and that he was unable to provide legal advice to the investor. Correct. Model Rule 4.3 specifically addresses this situation. When a lawyer knows or reasonably should know that unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer should take reasonable efforts to clarify the misunderstanding. The lawyer in this case clarified the misunderstanding.

A lawyer licensed in State One drafted all of the supply contracts for a corporate client in State One, but the client produced all of the products in State Two. The lawyer included a provision in all of the contracts that disputes arising under the agreement would be resolved in trial courts of State Three (Delaware), the place of incorporation of the corporate client. Another lawyer represented the buyer whose business is in State Four. A dispute arose between the buyer and the corporation over the production quality of the goods and the parties filed suit in State Three. Which state's ethics rules will apply in the State Three trial court?

State Three's ethics rules because the matter is pending before a trial court in State Three. Correct. Under Model Rule 8.5(b)(1), in a case before a tribunal, the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits is the determinative factor of the choice of ethics rule, unless the tribunal's rules select another set of rules.

A recently licensed lawyer seeks to attract clients to his newly opened personal injury law firm. At this point, the lawyer has not yet tried a case in court, but he had extensive experience in conducting mock trials in law school and he has taken a class offered by a national trial advocacy organization. In fact, he is a member of this national organization. The lawyer takes the following actions to advertise his law practice to prospective clients. Which one of the following actions is prohibited by the Model Rules?

The lawyer appears in a television advertisement in which he is shown arguing a case to the jury and completing closing argument. At the end, a jury foreperson announces a large verdict. The ad, prepared as a dramatization of his skills as a lawyer, does not disclose it was a dramatization. At the end, a voice-over says, "You've seen what he can do for you." Correct. Under Model Rule 7.1, a lawyer's advertisement must not contain false or misleading statements. The television ad dramatizing the lawyer in a trial arguing to the jury and the jury deciding in his client's favor implies that the lawyer has actually tried a case. Since he has not yet done so, this advertisement is considered false or misleading.

An in-house lawyer for an oil company visited a rancher couple at their home. The couple owned some property the oil and gas company wanted to lease. The lawyer did not ask the couple whether they had hired a lawyer to represent their interests in leasing oil gas interests, but it turned out that no lawyer represented the couple. The oil company lawyer said, "I am here to make you and my company wealthy once we find oil and develop your land. We have the same interests at heart." The lawyer presented a company lease to the couple and went over the details of the clauses. The contract clearly stated that the lease was prepared by the lawyer for the oil company. When the couple asked the lawyer about whether they would receive tax benefits from the lease, the lawyer said you will need to ask your tax attorney or accountant about how this affects your taxes. Which aspect of the lawyer's conduct in meeting with the couple violated the Model Rules?

The lawyer began his negotiations by stating, "I am here to make you and my company wealthy once we find oil on your property. We have the same interests at heart." Correct. Model Rule 4.3 prohibits a lawyer who is interacting with an unrepresented party from stating or implying that the lawyer is disinterested. This statement "I am here to make you and my company wealthy" implies that the company and the couple have the same interests. They have some similar interests (making money) and some divergent interests (e.g., the royalty payments). By claiming the interests of his client and the rancher couple were the same further confuses the lawyer's representation in this matter.

A personal injury lawyer sought to represent clients whose relatives were killed in an airplane crash. The lawyer took the following actions to attract clients: Which one of the following acts would be impermissible under the rules against solicitation under the Model Rules?

The lawyer employs a nonlawyer to approach those who get off airplanes and ask them whether their relative was involved in the recent crash. If the targeted individual answers yes, the nonlawyer would tell them to go to see the lawyer in the nearby office. No pressure is placed upon individuals to go to see the lawyer. Correct. Under Model Rule 8.4(a), the lawyer cannot use a nonlawyer agent to do what the lawyer could not do directly. In this case, the lawyer could not speak to those leaving airplanes to see if their relatives were involved in the crash. Therefore the nonlawyer also could not speak to them in person. See Model Rule 7.3(a). This conduct violates the prohibition against solicitation.

A lawyer lived next door to a law student and the two families were friends. When the law student was in high school, he was involved in an accident outside of the lawyer's house. The lawyer witnessed the accident and the lawyer saw the student arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol after a field sobriety test. The law student and the lawyer never had an attorney-client relationship in the matter. The charges were dismissed after the law student agreed to perform community service. The law student listed the lawyer on his application to the state bar as a reference, and the lawyer received a letter from the bar asking if knew whether the student had any arrests or convictions. Which response is consistent with the lawyer's duties to the bar under the Model Rules?

The lawyer must disclose his knowledge about the law student's arrest. Correct. Under Model Rule 8.1, a lawyer who receives a letter from the bar about an applicant must provide all information unless such information is protected by Model Rule 1.6 (client confidentiality).

Client's building burned down. Lawyer represented Client in Client's insurance claim. The lawyer obtained all of the information about the value of the building and contents, and an assessment of the damage. She submitted all forms and supporting documentation to the insurance company. Several weeks later, Client informed Lawyer that the building fire was not an accident. The Client paid someone to start the fire. Which one of the following course of conduct is consistent with the Model Rules?

The lawyer must inform the insurance company that his submission contained false information to avoid assisting the client in a criminal act. Correct. The analysis under Model Rule 1.6(b) alone is permissive and (b)(2) and (b)(3) are implicated on these facts. But Model Rule 4.1(b) requires lawyer disclosure to avoid assisting a client crime or fraud against a third person unless Rule 1.6 prohibits disclosure, which is not true on these facts. The physical act of delivering false documents to an insurance company was active assistance that now must be withdrawn.

A lawyer worked as general counsel for a hospital group and she received a request from a state disciplinary authority asking for information about an applicant to the bar. The bar sought all information about the medical history of the applicant to determine whether the applicant was fit to practice law. The applicant had signed a permission to authorized a treating physician to discussion his medical condition, but the permission did not directly authorize the hospital to release medical records to the bar authorities. Federal and state laws protect medical records of patients and the general counsel reasonably believed that such laws prevented her release of the documents to the bar authorities. Which response of the general counsel is consistent with the lawyer's duties to the bar under the Model Rules?

The lawyer must not disclose the information and may inform the bar authorities that she believes that the request for information is not lawful. Correct. Once the general counsel reasonably believes that the request for information is not "a lawful demand," she should refuse to comply with it. This is a permissible reason for noncompliance with the general requirement of disclosure under Model Rule 8.1 and a requirement for the general counsel's competent representation of her hospital client. She may properly inform the bar authorities of her belief in order to avoid being charged with willfully withholding required information.

in the Nona byington case study that we studied, the judge ordered the production of the map that showed where Cathy Henderson had buried the baby. which of the following theories was used by Judge Wisser to compel production?

The map was drawn at a time when the lawyer and Cathy Henderson wanted to disclose it to the authorities

A real estate lawyer was approached by his neighbor to help the neighbor oppose the rezoning of a nearby tract of land. The lawyer agreed to conduct the representation for $150 an hour plus actual expenses. This rate was commensurate with other lawyers in the community. The lawyer and client met and the lawyer communicated the fee agreement and expenses arrangement orally. The lawyer did not memorialize any aspect of the agreement in a writing. The lawyer agreed to bill the client on a monthly basis with no advance retainer. The client agreed to the arrangement and the lawyer commenced working for the client. The lawyer completed the work within four months and the client gladly paid the lawyer the monthly billed fees. Was the lawyer's fee arrangement with the client consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, although the lawyer preferably should have memorialized the fee arrangement in a writing before or shortly after commencing the representation. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.5(b), lawyers should "preferably" memorialize the fee arrangement before or shortly after commencing the representation. The lawyer's fee agreement in this case was communicated orally to the client and the lawyer should have followed up with a letter confirming the details of the arrangement. Rule 1.5(b) uses the word "preferably" because this language reflects the inability of the ABA to agree to a mandatory rule.

A lawyer participates in a weekend pro bono program offered by a nonprofit lawyers' organization. The lawyer meets with individuals seeking information about their rights under employment law in their work for corporate organizations. As a general matter, the lawyer does not perform any conflicts checks before providing such individuals with legal information to determine whether a conflict may exist with the clients of the lawyer's law firm. The service is limited to answering questions; the lawyer does not agree to represent the clients in their employment law matter. Is it proper for the lawyer to provide answers to employment law questions without performing a conflicts check?

Yes, as long as the lawyer does not know that the individual's questions relate to a current or former client of the firm, the lawyer may answer such questions in providing a limited legal service in the weekend clinic. Correct. Under Model Rule 6.5, the ABA permits lawyers to enter into a limited legal services engagement to answer basic questions at a program sponsored by a court or a nonprofit organization designed to assist persons in addressing their legal problems. Unless a lawyer knows that the individual is asking information relating to a current or former client of the lawyer, no conflicts check needs to be performed.

A sole practitioner lawyer represented a newly formed pest control company seeking to obtain a loan from a bank. The bank asked the company for an opinion letter examining whether the company has complied with all state and federal environmental laws. The bank was particularly concerned whether the company only used approved chemicals in its operations. The company asked the lawyer to prepare the opinion for the bank. The lawyer explained to the company management the new role the lawyer would be assuming as evaluator of its compliance with the environmental laws. She examined whether there would be any limitations on her inquiry, and at the time, the company had no ongoing litigation or investigations about its environmental practices. The client orally consented to have the lawyer evaluate its practices for the limited purposes of preparing this opinion. May the lawyer prepare the environmental opinion for the bank?

Yes, as long as the lawyer reasonably believes that the evaluation is compatible with the other aspects of his representation of the company. Correct. Model Rule 2.3 expressly authorizes a lawyer to perform an evaluation for a client to be used by a third person if that evaluation is otherwise compatible with the representation of the client. On these facts, the company needs a loan and the bank wants the opinion and you have no reason to believe that the evaluation will disclose adverse information to the third person.

A lawyer represented a promoter who was seeking to market interests in an oil and gas venture. The promoter needed a tax opinion that would show potential investors the tax benefits under the Internal Revenue Code that they would receive as oil and gas interest owners. The promoter asked the lawyer to prepare an opinion that would only examine the tax benefits of the venture. He did not want the lawyer to opine about other legal issues such as ownership of the oil and gas produced, compliance with oil and gas regulations, or environmental law. Although the lawyer knew that most investors would want a comprehensive opinion on all possible risks, the lawyer understood the promoter's limitations were motivated by cost considerations rather than an attempt to mislead the investors. The lawyer explained that he would have to write an opinion that properly examined the issues, opining that some were clear and others were subject to possible challenge by the tax authorities. The lawyer also noted that he would state that the opinion only covers tax matters and no other legal issues involved in the venture. For those other issues, the opinion would advise prospective investors that they should seek independent counsel. May the lawyer prepare the tax opinion for the promoter?

Yes, as long as the lawyer reasonably believes that the evaluation is compatible with the other aspects of his representation of the promoter. Correct. Model Rule 2.3 expressly authorizes a lawyer to perform an evaluation for a client to be used by a third person if that evaluation is compatible with the representation of the client. On these facts, the promoter needs a tax opinion that will be used by investors to determine whether purchasing an interest makes sense from their own tax perspective.

A tax lawyer working as a Treasury Department official drafted a regulation that revised the calculation of taxes on offshore drilling wells. The lawyer learned no confidential government information about particular companies in his work on drafting the regulation. The regulation was adopted by the Treasury and became law. Two years later, the lawyer left government practice and joined a law firm specializing in tax practice. At this law firm, the lawyer was asked to represent clients in planning around the tax regulation that he had drafted while in government. May the lawyer represent clients seeking to plan around a regulation he drafted while employed for the government under the Model Rules?

Yes, because drafting government regulations is not considered to be participating in a "matter" for purposes of the conflicts rules. Correct. Model Rule 1.11 examines conflicts of interest when a government lawyer participates in a "matter." Subsection (e) defines matter as work that involves a "specific party or parties." A lawyer's work on drafting a general regulation applicable to all oil companies does not involve such a matter and does not prohibit the kind of private lawyer work proposed here.

Lawyer Alpha was the managing partner of a small law firm that handled workers compensation cases for injured plaintiffs. The firm had two partners and five associates and it operated without a designated in-house ethics counsel. After an increase in business, Alpha hired ten new associates to help to handle the new work. The associates were recently licensed and had little or no experience. Alpha held a weekend training session for the new associates and then he assigned thirty cases to each associate. Each case was set for an evidentiary hearing within the next two weeks. Since each associate was a licensed lawyer, Alpha did not personally supervise any of the new lawyers and no other lawyer in the firm supervised their work for clients. The associates represented the clients with diligence and competence. Is Alpha subject to discipline for his conduct in managing the law firm?

Yes, because Alpha failed to take reasonable efforts to ensure that the associates conformed to the rules of professional conduct, including the ethical obligation to provide competent and diligent representation under time pressure. Correct. Lawyer Alpha failed to implement a system of supervision for the newly hired associates and therefore violated Model Rule 5.1(a). Attorneys with managerial authority need to take efforts to ensure that the firm has measures in place so that the lawyers in the firm comply with the rules of ethics. Newly hired associates, particularly those assigned to handle multiple cases under time pressure, need more than one weekend of training.

A lawyer (Alpha) participated in a state bar lawyer's assistance program in which she was asked to mentor a lawyer (Beta) who had self-reported his battle with alcohol abuse. Alpha regularly met with Beta, who was under the mentorship of the assistance program in an effort to protect his clients. During the meetings, Alpha examined the status of client files and attorney work product. In one of the cases, Alpha discovered that Beta had failed to promptly deposit a payment sent to a client from a third party. Alpha corrected the error and then Alpha expanded her mentorship to include trust account management. The client was not in any way harmed by Beta's mistake. Alpha did not report the trust fund issue to the state disciplinary authorities. Did Alpha's decision not to report the trust fund issue to the state disciplinary authorities comply with the Model Rules?

Yes, because Alpha learned about the trust fund mistake while she was mentoring the lawyer in conjunction with a state bar lawyer's assistance program. Correct. Under Model Rule 8.3, a lawyer has a duty to report misconduct if it raises a substantial question about another lawyer's trustworthiness or fitness to practice law. Such reporting is not required, however, if the knowledge was obtained by a lawyer while participating in an approved lawyer's assistance program. See Model Rule 8.3(c).

An employment lawyer (Lawyer One) represented an employee seeking reinstatement or damages because of a wrongful termination. The lawyer filed a complaint with the state and federal employment agencies. The defendant company's lawyer (Lawyer Two) asked Lawyer One if they could meet in an effort to resolve this dispute. One day before the meeting, Lawyer One received a package from Lawyer Two. She opened it and discovered a lengthy settlement memorandum outlining the details of the case and providing a range of settlement options. Lawyer One reasonably believed that this package was sent inadvertently. She took note of the information in the package. Then, Lawyer One placed the package back in the envelope and mailed it back to Lawyer Two's legal assistant. She did not inform Lawyer Two that she had received the package. Lawyer One hoped that the assistant, in an effort to save his job, might not tell Lawyer Two about the inadvertent mailing. Did Lawyer One violate any of the Model Rules?

Yes, because Lawyer One did not promptly notify the company attorney. Correct. Model Rule 4.4(b) requires a lawyer who knows that a document has been inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender. The purpose of the rule is to notify the sender that a mistake has been made and to allow the sender to take measures to protect the information thus disclosed. Sending the document to the legal assistant in an effort to keep Lawyer Two from learning about the disclosure thus would not be sufficient.

A lawyer represented a plaintiff in litigation against a supply company. The case was on the eve of trial, and jury selection was about to take place when the lawyer's grandmother died. The lawyer asked the court for permission to delay the case one day so that she could attend services for her grandmother. Is the lawyer's request for delay consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because it is proper to request a delay based upon the lawyer's personal situation. Correct. Model Rule 3.2 creates a duty to expedite litigation. Comment 1 addresses the concept of delay based upon a lawyer's request, and it says that normally advocates should not routinely ask for delay. But it does contemplate postponement for personal reasons and the death of a relative clearly falls within this concept of permissible requests.

A plaintiffs' lawyer regularly represented injured clients in City. He approached a major hospital to see if he could put an informational brochure in every waiting room in the hospital's facility. The brochure included the name of the law firm and its contact information. The lawyer asked the hospital to make sure that the brochures would be visible in a stand on many tables throughout the facility. The lawyer offered to pay the hospital $100 monthly for each brochure stand as a rental cost to distribute the advertisements to patients. The doctors and other medical personnel never endorsed the lawyer and the hospital simply viewed this as providing a forum for advertising. Was it permissible for the lawyer to make this arrangement with the hospital?

Yes, because lawyer placed a brochure in the hospital waiting areas as an advertisement. Correct. Under Model Rule 7.2, a lawyer may use written communication to advertise legal services and the placement of brochures on tables in a facility that people in need of legal services might use is permissible advertising.

A lawyer represented a wealthy elderly man in his business transactions. The man had no relatives and had an estate plan to donate all of his property to various charities. One day, the lawyer learned that the man had developed severe dementia. Over the next year, the lawyer observed that the man slowly had lost most of his memory. At some point, the lawyer, in consultation with the man's doctors, determine that the client was no longer able to make considered decisions. The lawyer reasonably believed that the man had diminished capacity, was at risk of substantial financial harm, and could not act in his own interest. Therefore, the lawyer initiated proceedings in a local court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the man. The lawyer reasonably believed that, given the client's situation, the appointment of a guardian was reasonably necessary to protect the man's interests. Was the lawyer's decision to seek to appoint a guardian ad litem for the man consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because lawyer reasonably believe that the man had diminished capacity, was at risk of substantial financial harm, and could not act in his own interest. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.14(b) and Comment 8, a lawyer's right to take reasonably protective action for a client under a disability includes the right to seek the appointment of a guardian ad litem.

A lawyer represented an elderly woman in her business transactions, including tax planning. One day, the lawyer discovered that the woman had failed to pay her taxes for the past year. When the lawyer asked the woman about her tax situation, she appeared confused. The lawyer was concerned because his woman had always understood the nuances of business including her tax obligations. The woman had one child, a daughter, and the lawyer asked whether he could talk to the daughter about the tax issue but the woman asked the lawyer not to talk to anyone. The lawyer reasonably believed that the woman had diminished capacity, was at risk of substantial financial harm, and could not act in her own interest. Therefore, the lawyer informed the daughter about the tax issue and sought her assistance in getting the woman's tax situation in order. Was the lawyer's decision to inform the daughter consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because lawyer reasonably believe that the woman had diminished capacity, was at risk of substantial financial harm, and could not act in her own interest. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.14(b), a lawyer who represents a client who has diminished capacity and who is under a substantial risk of harm because the client cannot act in her own interest, has the right to take reasonably protective action. This action includes disclosure of confidential information to third persons and applies even when the client forbids such disclosure. See Model Rule 1.14(b) and Comment 8.

A corporation hired a team of oil and gas lawyers licensed in State A and relocated them to State B, where significant development of oil and gas was occurring. The lawyers represented the corporation in advising executives and employees about how to structure corporate deals and about the federal corporate tax issues. None of the work involved interaction with third persons or the courts. State B had no licensure procedure for in house counsel. May the lawyers licensed in State A properly represent the corporate client in State B?

Yes, because lawyers employed by an entity may deliver legal services to the entity. Correct. As long as the work done by the lawyers does not require in-house registration or pro hac vice admission in the case of litigation, lawyers employed by a corporate entity may provide legal services to the entity in states in which they are not licensed to practice law. See Model Rule 5.5(d)(1).

A personal injury lawyer in a solo practice employed a staff of 20 nonlawyer workers who helped her prepare cases for trial. These nonlawyers had skills in actuarial science, damage assessment, document management, and paralegal research. The lawyer paid each nonlawyer employee a minimum wage with benefits plus a share of the firm's net profits at four month intervals. Most of the nonlawyer workers received the vast majority of their annual salary from these net profit bonuses. The lawyer also employed independent contractor lawyers to work on cases. These individuals accepted joint responsibility for the cases and they were paid solely out of net profits from the cases on which they worked. Clients were informed about the details of the compensation arrangements with the nonlawyers and lawyers who worked on their cases. In the case of employment of outside lawyers, the lawyer obtained client consent and confirmed that consent in writing. Is it proper for the lawyer to pay his lawyer and nonlawyer workers in this manner?

Yes, because lawyers may pay nonlawyer employees based upon a profit sharing plan and outside contractor lawyers a net profit bonus paid on the legal fees. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.4(a)(3), the lawyer was permitted to pay nonlawyer employees under a compensation plan based in whole or in part upon firm profits, and lawyers outside the firm as long as the lawyer met the requirements of Model Rule 1.5(e).

A company was in litigation with the environmental regulatory agency for disclosures the company made two years ago. Current law required continued and ongoing communication between the company and the environmental regulators. The company's in-house lawyer continued to file forms and to ask questions of regulatory officials with respect to current filings despite the fact that the company continued to litigate with the regulators. The in-house lawyer did not seek or obtain the consent from the lawyers for the agency for this communication with agency officials. Was it proper for the in-house lawyer to communicate with the employees of the regulatory agency while engaged in pending litigation with the agency?

Yes, because pending litigation with a government agency does not prohibit all contact with the agency. The current filings and interaction with agency officials were not part of the subject matter of the litigation. Correct. Model Rule 4.2 prohibits a lawyer from speaking to a person represented by counsel in a matter about the subject matter involved in the case. Model Rule 4.2 does apply to communication with a government agency and government officials about the subject matter of pending litigation, but it does not prevent communications about other regulatory matters during the time unrelated litigation is pending. See Comment 5.

A personal injury lawyer placed an advertisement in a newspaper seeking to attract clients who suffered injuries from a copper birth control device. The advertisement included a picture of the device, a statement that women had allegedly suffered injuries from using such a device, and a statement that clients only paid attorneys' fees from the recovery. The picture and the allegations of injuries were accurately portrayed in the advertisement. The state courts in which such cases would be filed require nonindigent clients to pay a $50 court filing fee that every nonindigent client would owe regardless of the outcome of the case. The advertisement did not mention this $50 court filing fee. In fact, the lawyer would disclose to all nonindigent clients the $50 filing fee in their first visit and would collect it before commencing the representation. Most prospective clients would sign the contract and pay the fee. Further, because the concern about a product defect was so recent, no plaintiff had yet recovered damages in such a case against the manufacturer and the advertisement did not inform prospective clients of this fact. Is the personal injury lawyer subject to discipline for advertising his services with this newspaper advertisement?

Yes, because the advertisement did not disclose the $50 court filing fee that all nonindigent clients had to pay regardless of the outcome of the case. Correct. Model Rule 7.1 regulates false or misleading statements in advertisements. A statement can be misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the advertisement as a whole not misleading. The statement about no attorneys' fees does not include information about the court filing fee that cannot be avoided if the case is lost by a nonindigent client. Discipline was upheld on similar facts in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985).

An associate discovered a very difficult conflicts issue in a representation of a potential client. Little authority existed on the issue, but the law that exists said that there was a conflict so that the law firm must decline the representation. The associate brought the issue to the senior partner who said, "In all of my years of practice, I have never seen an issue like this. We will take the position that no conflict exists because this new client represents significant fees for the firm. Call the prospective client and accept the representation. Don't bring this up to the law firm's conflicts committee because we need this client." The associate followed the senior partner's orders and did not inform anyone else in the firm about this incident. Is the associate subject to discipline?

Yes, because the associate knew that the senior partner's resolution of the conflict was not performed in a reasonable manner. Correct. Although a safe harbor exists for arguable questions of ethical duty when an associate refers a question to the partner or supervisory lawyer, that partner or supervisor must make a reasonable resolution of the issue. Here, no one could argue that the senior partner's resolution represented a reasonable analysis of the ethical issues presented. The resolution was based solely on the fees the new case would generate.

An associate began a consensual sexual relationship with a client after the commencement of the attorney-client relationship, and another attorney brought it to the attention of the firm's three-person management committee. The associate personally represented the client in a tax matter, and the lawyers on the management committee chose not to take any action in the matter. The associate continued the personal relationship with the client. Are the attorneys on the management committee subject to discipline?

Yes, because the attorneys on the management committee ratified the associate's conduct with specific knowledge of the facts. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.1(c)(1), partners on the management committee who learn of the associate's violation of Model Rule 1.8(j) ended up ratifying the conduct when they did not take action to remedy it. The attorneys on the committee also failed to meet their responsibility under Model Rule 5.1(c)(2) to take reasonable remedial action to address this known violation.

A newly licensed lawyer practiced business law in a solo practice in a small community. She sought to attract clients and she developed a website inviting prospective clients seeking legal advice to contact her. The site contained information about her credentials, the location of her office, and a form for obtaining further information. The lawyer included several articles she had authored about the proper scope of employment contracts in small businesses. The site stated, "Let me help you in starting your small business or expanding your current presence in the marketplace." The website contained no warnings about what information a person should and should not send the lawyer. It did warn senders that no representation would begin until a contract was signed by the attorney and the client. One of the lawyer's existing clients was a local restaurant with several locations. One day, the lawyer received a completed form from a chef who worked at one of the client's restaurants. The email contained information about the chef's plans to leave his restaurant and break the employment contract he had with the company. The chef stated, "I have read your article about employment contracts and your discussion addresses my situation." The lawyer read the information and informed the chef that she could not accept the representation because she already had an attorney-client relationship with the restaurant. Does the lawyer owe any duties to the chef in this situation?

Yes, because the chef was a prospective client of the lawyer. Correct. By having a web site that invited the public to contact her, the lawyer assumed duties of loyalty and confidentiality to prospective clients. The lawyer will not be able to represent either party in this litigation unless they both consent. Rule 1.18, Comment 3. There can be no screening because the lawyer has a solo practice.

A divorce lawyer had a website that provides basic information about the lawyer, her office location, and contact information (telephone number and email address). The website contained no invitation for client contact and contained no warnings about how to contact the lawyer. A man searched the internet and saw the lawyer's site and sent the lawyer by email a scanned packet of information about his situation. The attachment contained information about his assets, his family wealth, and employment. The lawyer received the email and opened it. Quickly thereafter, she determined that this man's wife had already retained the lawyer to represent her in the divorce. The lawyer sent the information back stating that she could not represent him. May the lawyer continue to represent the wife in this divorce?

Yes, because the communication from the man was not from a prospective client. Correct. Model Rule 1.18 and its comments address whether this man is a prospective client. Comment 2 states that "a consultation does not occur if a person provides information to a lawyer in response to advertising that merely describes the lawyer's education, experience, areas or practice, and contact information . . . ." That person does not become a prospective client simply by unilaterally supplying with information and the law says he has no expectation that the lawyer will treat such information as confidential.

A law firm represented a plaintiff against a defendant corporation in a personal injury lawsuit. The defendant was represented by a lawyer whose sister was an associate in the plaintiff's law firm. The associate worked in the wills and estates section of the plaintiff's law firm and had no involvement in the litigation. The relationship between the associate and the opposing defendant's lawyer did not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the plaintiff by the remaining litigators in the law firm. The law firm did not inform the plaintiff of the associate's relationship with the lawyer for the defendant. May the law firm represent the plaintiff in this litigation under the Model Rules?

Yes, because the conflict of the associate is personal and the conflict does not present a significant risk of limiting the representation of the plaintiff by the remaining lawyers in the firm. Correct. Model Rule 1.10(a)(1) does not automatically impute personal interest conflicts of interest, and Model Rule 1.7, Comment 11, defines family relationships like the one in this problem as such a personal interest conflict. Such conflicts are only imputed if the representation of either firm's client will somehow be materially limited by the fact that lawyers in the two law firm are related. An associate's family relationship is usually not imputed because, as here, the remaining lawyers in the associate's firm can competently and diligently represent the plaintiff and are unlikely to fail to do so out of a desire to please the associate.

A partner in a law firm represented a large corporate client in all of its environmental matters. One day, the lawyer learned from a receptionist in the corporation that the corporation's plant had spilled chemicals into the river. The lawyer knew that state law required that the corporation report the chemical spill immediately to the state government and that a failure to do so would subject the company to substantial fines. The lawyer approached the vice president in charge of plant operations with this information. The vice president confirmed that the spill had occurred but she told the lawyer that the incident was not within the scope of the law firm's engagement. The lawyer persisted in his warning and the vice president fired the law firm. The lawyer immediately sent a letter to every member of the corporate board of directors notifying them of the spill and informing them that his law firm had been discharged while trying to get the corporation to comply with the law. Was the lawyer's conduct consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the corporate client had fired the law firm because the lawyer was attempting to prevent substantial harm to the client for failing to comply with state law. Correct. Model Rule 1.13(e) requires that a lawyer who has been discharged because he was seeking to comply with his duties to prevent substantial harm to the entity must inform the entity's highest authority of the discharge. The lawyer let the members of the Board of Directors know that a problem exists within the entity so that they could devote their attention to that problem.

A corporate client asked a lawyer to represent it in filing insurance claims on some damaged vehicles. The lawyer began to work on the matter when he noticed that all of the vehicles were old and not used on a daily basis. When the lawyer asked the president about how these vehicles had been damaged, the president confessed that the vehicles were not damaged in an accident. Instead, the corporation had intentionally damaged them to collect the insurance monies. The lawyer informed the client that he could not submit forms to the insurance company because the company was engaged in the crime of insurance fraud. The president ordered the lawyer to prepare the paper. "We will accept full responsibility for filing these papers." The lawyer informed the president that he had to withdraw from the representation. Was the lawyer's withdrawal from the representation consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the corporate client was engaged in a crime and the lawyer could not assist the client in commission of this crime. Correct. Model Rule 1.16(a)(1) requires a lawyer to withdraw from a representation when staying in the case would violate a provision of the Model Rules. Under Model Rule 1.2(d), a lawyer cannot assist a client in a crime or fraud and must inform the client of limitations on the lawyer's role in such a case. Here, the client has confessed that he wants to the lawyer to file forms based upon false information.

A lawyer accepted the representation of a corporation sued for wrongful discharge of an employee. The lawyer reasonably believed that several legal and factual grounds supported the client's right to fire the employee. After the lawyer filed an answer in state court, discovery was scheduled to begin. At that point, the president of the corporation began to communicate with the lawyer on a daily basis. The president indicated that he wanted the lawyer to dispute every motion and to engage in aggressive tactics with the plaintiff and her counsel. The lawyer informed the president that the facts and the law were on the corporation's side and it might be counterproductive to adopt an adversarial posture in discovery. The president stated that the lawyer should listen to his direction. Although the lawyer reasonably believed that he (the lawyer) had a right to control the means of conducting the representation, he informed the corporation that he would seek to withdraw from the representation. The lawyer informed the president that he would help the corporation find new counsel and would transfer all files to the new law firm. The president begged the lawyer to reconsider but the president reasserted that he had right to control the litigation and would not stay in the litigation if the client insisted on making so many aggressive, but not frivolous, objections to discovery. Was the lawyer's withdrawal from the representation consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer and the client had a fundamental disagreement about the means to be used in discovery to further the client's objective. Correct. Model Rule 1.16(b)(4) gives lawyer discretion with withdraw if the client insists on action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement. Model Rule 1.2(a) roughly allocate the objectives to the client and the means to the lawyer, butComment 2 to Rule 1.2 notes that such decisions are often interrelated and a subject of disagreement. Thus, when the client sought to control the means of discovery and the lawyer reasonably believed that the client's actions were unwise, the lawyer could seek permission of the court to withdraw. See Model Rule 1.16(c).

A personal injury lawyer represented a client injured in a car accident. The client was short on funds and the lawyer told the client to put as much money on the client's credit cards as possible. Once the case was completed, the client could pay those loans off. The lawyer settled the case for the client for $500,000. The lawyer received the proceeds, performed the accounting for costs and expenses, and notified the client about the funds. When the credit card company contacted the client because he was behind in his bills, the client told the credit card company that the lawyer had his funds. Hence, the credit card company faxed the lawyer a letter asking the lawyer to pay it directly out of any proceeds. The company did not have a lien on the litigation proceeds; it simply requested the lawyer's help to get paid more quickly. The credit card company was not a party to the litigation; it simply was the credit card the client used to pay expenses. The lawyer paid all of the client's proceeds to the client and did not hold any money to pay the credit card company. Was it proper for the lawyer to pay the client all proceeds when the credit card had requested payment?

Yes, because the credit card company had no valid lien on the proceeds of the litigation. Correct. Model Rule 1.15(d) and (e) address the duties of a lawyer to received funds of a client and third person and promptly notify the parties who have an interest in the property. The rights of the credit card company under this rule depend upon whether the company has a valid state law lien against the client's judgment. Here, because the company's debt is not a lien on the proceeds of the litigation, the lawyer has no duty to withhold money for the credit card company.

A lawyer represented a criminal defendant charged with embezzlement from an employer. The prosecution was based upon the defendant's use of company equipment and the defendant had a very strong defense. The lawyer urged the client to enter a plea of not guilty but the client refused, saying that he wanted to get this case over with as soon as possible. The lawyer reasonably believed that the facts that the prosecutor could prove did not fit within the elements of the crime, but the client insisted upon entering a plea of guilty. The lawyer went along with the client's decision. Was it proper for the lawyer to go along with the client's decision to enter a plea of guilty?

Yes, because the decision on the plea to enter is one reserved for the client to make. Correct. Model Rule 1.2(a) sets forth the concepts of a lawyer agent representing the client principal. The client as principal has the exclusive control over decisions regarding pleas in a criminal case. The lawyer had a duty to abide by the client's decision.

A criminal defense lawyer was hired to represent a corporate executive in a white-collar crime investigation. The prosecutor named the company and the executive as potential targets. The company offer to pay the hourly rate of the criminal defense lawyer for the executive. The lawyer met with the potential client and asked him whether he would consent to having the fees paid by his company. The lawyer also informed the executive that the company agreed that it would not have any access to the executive's confidential information in this representation and would not be involved in any of the details of the representation. The executive consented to the arrangement. May the lawyer accept payment of the fee from the company to represent the corporate executive?

Yes, because the executive consented to the payment and the lawyer assured that the company agreed that it would not have access to any information or involvement in the representation of the executive. Correct. Model Rule 1.8(f) addresses when a lawyer may accept payment for representing a client from a third party. The client must consent and the lawyer must make clear that the third party payor may not interfere with the attorney-client relationship and may not receive confidential information without the client's consent.

A managing lawyer, while litigating with a bankruptcy lawyer in the same law firm, discovered that the bankruptcy lawyer was overbilling the client, a company in bankruptcy proceedings. The billings were filed in open court in public proceedings. The court had approved the billings and the case was still under the jurisdiction of the court. The managing lawyer hired an outside accountant, at the law firm's expense, to audit the billing records and when the report was complete the lawyer reported the overbillings to the client, the bankruptcy court, and the state disciplinary authorities. The lawyer did not obtain the consent of the client to report the lawyer to the court and the disciplinary authorities. Did the lawyer's decision to report the overbilling to the court and the disciplinary authorities comply with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the information about the overbilling arose in a public bankruptcy proceeding in which the law firm submitted documents to the court approved by a judge in a pending case. Correct. The key issue in this fact pattern is the fact that the overbilling occurs in publicly disclosed bankruptcy proceeding and the law firm submitted false documents to the court that were approved by the judge. Model Rule 1.6 on client confidentiality would not apply in part because the billing records were part of the public record approved by the judge and in part because Model Rule 3.3(b) would require that the firm correct the filed documents. Rule 5.1(c) requires the managing partner to take reasonable material action to remedy the other lawyer's violation.

A general counsel for a corporation discovered that outside counsel was engaged in overbilling of the corporation over a period of 5 years and to the amount of $1 million. The general counsel informed the corporate executives and they discharged the law firm after it reimbursed them all of the overbillings. The general counsel raised the possibility of reporting the outside lawyers to the state disciplinary authorities with the corporation's executives, but they believed that the corporation would be injured if this information became public. Thus, the general counsel decided not to report the overbilling to the state disciplinary authorities. Did the general counsel's decision not to report the outside lawyers overbilling to the state disciplinary authorities comply with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the information about the overbilling was confidential to the corporation and the executives had the right to decide not to reveal the information to the disciplinary authorities. Correct. Model Rule 8.3 requires reporting of lawyer misconduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer, unless the information is protected by Model Rule 1.6. This overbilling occurred in the context of representing the entity and billing is confidential client information. The corporate executives have a right to decide whether to disclose this information to the disciplinary authorities.

A New York office of a law firm represented a broadcasting company bidding for radio rights from the Federal Communication while the law firm's Washington office represented another client that was bidding for the same radio rights. The New York lawyers did not communicate with the Washington lawyers and each team kept separate files. The law firm accepted the two representations because the award of the radio rights would occur at a public auction decided by a transparent government process. Before accepting the matters, each client was informed of the other representation and consented to allow the different legal team to represent the other company. The consent of each client was confirmed in a writing. But the law firm did not warn the clients to seek the advice of independent legal counsel before consenting to the conflict. The law firm reasonably believed it could competently and diligently represent each client. May one law firm represent the two companies bidding for radio waves under the Model Rules?

Yes, because the law firm informed each client of the other representation and obtained informed consent, confirmed in writing, from the clients. Correct. A law firm may represent two clients with conflicts of interests if it complies with Model Rule 1.7. Under this provision, a law firm may represent one client as long as the representation is not directly adverse to or materially limited by duties to another client. In this instance, representing two business entities bidding for the same radio license falls within both of those standards - materially limited and directly adverse. In such a case, the law firm must determine whether it can competently and diligently represent the two clients simultaneously and it must obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing, from both clients. The firm took these two steps with this conflict.

The partners in a large law firm owned a company called CopyDoc, Inc., which performed copying and typesetting of briefs and court filings for clients of the law firm. The entity is a corporation that is separate from the law firm; it offers integrated legal services for clients of the law firm and no one else. The partners disclosed their preferences to use CopyDoc, Inc. for all representations, but they gave the clients a choice to use another services if they preferred. The partners informed the clients that they owned the entity and they assured the clients that in exchange for performing such work for reasonable fees competitive in the industry, CopyDoc, Inc. would protect offer services that were timely and in compliance with court filing rules. In other words, if a client chose to use CopyDoc, Inc. the law firm assured the clients that there would be seamless interaction between the law firm and the copying services, and all work would be done consistent with the rules of professional conduct. Is this arrangement proper?

Yes, because the law firm integrates the ancillary services so that if a client choses to use CopyDoc, Inc., the protections of the rules of professional conduct apply to its nonlaw services. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.7, the partners in a law firm can chose to offer clients nonlegal services as part of the practice of law as long as the partners agree that they will ensure the nonlaw services comply with the protections of the rules of professional conduct. In this example, the lawyers have followed the requirements of the rule.

First Law Firm's labor law section represented two large corporations on their labor law matters. It did no other work for those clients. The labor law section had one partner and two associates and they did all of the firm's work on labor law matters. One day, the partner and two associates announced that they would be leaving First Law Firm to form their own firm, Second Law Firm, in the city. The two large corporations announced that they would follow the partner and two associates to Second Law Firm. Under an agreement among First Law Firm, the clients, and the three departing lawyers, the files of the two corporations were completely transferred to Second Law Firm. Therefore, First Law Firm no longer possessed any confidential information of the two corporations and no remaining lawyers possessed confidential information about the former representations. One month after the labor law section left First Law Firm, a plaintiff contacted First Law Firm about suing one of the two former client corporations for which First Law Firm had done labor law work. The plaintiff sought to sue the corporation on a labor law issue that was substantially related to the work that First Law Firm's labor law section had done for the corporation. Do the Model Rules permit the lawyers in First Law Firm to accept the plaintiff's case against the former client?

Yes, because the law firm possessed no confidential information of the corporation and no lawyers now in the firm had worked on the cases for the corporation. Correct. Model Rule 1.10(b) addresses the situation when a lawyer leaves and takes all information about all of the clients on whose cases she worked. If the law firm no longer possesses any confidential information about the former clients of the labor law section or their cases, the law firm may take new clients even in substantially related matters where the new clients' positions are materially adverse to those of the former clients.

A judge who is a lawyer retired after ten years on the bench. She joined a local branch of a national law firm to serve as an appellate lawyer. While on the bench, the judge presided over a case involving XYZ Corporation. Two months after the judge joined the firm, XYZ Corporation sought to hire the former judge's new law firm to represent it in matters related to the litigation. The law firm determined that it could screen the former judge from working on the matter and from any fees from the representation. The law firm explained the conflict to XYZ Corporation and informed them the firm would screen the former judge from the representation. The law firm gave prompt notice to the tribunal and the parties to the case that it would be representing the XYZ Corporation and that it would screen the former judge from all work and all fees. Was the law firm's decision to accept the representation of XYZ Corporation consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the law firm properly implemented screening and notice to the parties and tribunal for the conflict of the former judge. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.12(a), a former judge may not represent a party if the judge participated personally and substantially in the matter involving the party. However, under Model Rule 1.12(c), the former judge's new law firm may accept the representation if it screens the judge from participating or profiting from the case and if the law firm gives timely notice to the tribunal and parties to the case so that they can ascertain compliance with the screening.

A lawyer represented a criminal defendant who had allegedly murdered his classmate with a weapon. One day, the lawyer opened a box sent to him from his defendant client and discovered a gun with a note that stated, "please hold this for me until the representation is over." The lawyer knew that the weapon matched the description of the weapon used in the crime. The lawyer called his client and asked him to pick it up because the lawyer stated that he was not permitted to keep it. The lawyer returned the weapon to the client and told him that if the policed discovered it and found the client's fingerprints on it, the client could be in real trouble. "If you get rid of the gun and wipe your fingerprints off it, that would make my job easier," said the lawyer. Did the lawyer's conduct with reference to the weapon violate the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer assisted his client in concealing and altering evidence. Correct. Model Rule 3.4(a) prohibits a lawyer from obstructing another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal anything of evidentiary value. Once the lawyer is in possession of the weapon the lawyer may not give it back to the client. The lawyer must turn it over to the authorities.

An elected judge who handled probate matters made it clear that lawyers who contributed to his campaign would receive preference in scheduling and expedited hearings in their representation of clients. A lawyer had a large case with many complexities and he arranged for his firm to pay $10,000 to the judge's campaign committee responsible for raising funds. Under state law, it is unlawful for a judge to make such a demand upon lawyers in the community, but the lawyer reasonably believed that he really had no choice and the contribution was needed to expedite the hearings on this particular case to competently and diligently represent his clients. Is the lawyer subject to discipline for making this campaign contribution?

Yes, because the lawyer assisted the judge in conduct that violates the law. Correct. Model Rule 8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from assisting a judge in conduct that is a violation of the law. Canon 2 of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as criminal law in many states, prohibits a judge from performing judicial duties based on financial gifts made by lawyers or parties who appear before them.

A lawyer represented a client who was the subject of a civil commitment proceeding that could place the client in a psychiatric institution. The client sought to contest the civil commitment and the lawyer reasonably believed that it was in the best interests of the client to do so. Under state law, the client was required to subject himself to the examination of a state psychiatrist, and that examination had taken place earlier. The lawyer also had a right to have the client examined by a medical professional chosen by the client. The lawyer received the state psychiatrist's report several hours before the client was supposed to meet with the client chosen psychiatrist. The lawyer delayed sharing the state psychiatrist's report with the client because the lawyer reasonably believed that it could cause the client to act imprudently in the examination by the client-chosen medical professional. Was the decision to delay sharing the state psychiatrist's report with the client consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer delayed in transmitting the contents of the report to avoid causing the client to act imprudently during an important medical examination. Correct. This answer is correct because it tracks an exception to the general duty of communication contained in Comment 7 to Model Rule 1.4. A prompt disclosure of the information to the client could adversely affect the client's behavior in the examination by a chosen medical professional. Thus, the lawyer had a right to withhold it to minimize the effect of the disclosure on the new evaluation.

A health care lawyer wanted to leave a large law firm and join a health care boutique law firm. The lawyer approached a local firm and the managing partner was very interested in hiring the lawyer. At first, they discussed salary, but the lawyer was concerned that there might be too many conflicts of interests between his practice and that of the boutique health care firm. The large law firm and the boutique were on opposite sides of many cases. Thus, the managing partner of the boutique asked the health care lawyer to share a list of clients and general information about the representation. The partner told the lawyer not to disclose any information that was protected by the attorney-client privilege or information that could injure the clients. The health care lawyer shared the information without obtaining the clients' consent and the boutique hired the lawyer. Was the health care lawyer's disclosure of confidential information about his large law firm clients consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer did not disclose information protected by the attorney client privilege or information that was adverse to the client of the big law firm. Correct. Model Rule 1.6(b)(7) authorizes lawyers who are switching firms to disclose limited confidential information as long the disclosure does not compromise the attorney client privilege or disadvantage the clients. In this instance, the lawyer met the requirements for disclosure under this provision.

A lawyer represented a client who was in financial distress. The client had asked the lawyer if one of his buildings burned down, whether the insurance company would pay the policy proceeds promptly and in what amount. The client confided in the lawyer that he had thought about arson as a way to bring some cash into the business. The client felt guilty about it and the lawyer informed him that arson was a serious crime and the chances of getting caught were high. The client assured the lawyer that he would not turn to arson and the lawyer reasonably believed that this crime was unlikely to take place. The lawyer did not take any action regarding this information and did not inform any outside party. The lawyer continued to represent the client. Was the lawyer's conduct consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer did not have a reasonable belief that the client would be involved in arson. Correct. Model Rule 1.6(b) permits disclosure in certain circumstances when the lawyer reasonably believes that the client will be involved in a future serious crime or fraud. In this instance, the crime of arson is a serious one that could involve death or substantial bodily harm and certainly involves the possibility of harm to the financial interests of a third person. In this instance, the client convinced the lawyer that no future crime would take place and the lawyer reasonably believed no arson would occur. Thus, the lawyer's conduct in not disclosing this information to a third person and in continuing to represent the client is consistent with the Model Rules.

A lawyer represented a defendant in a personal injury action who allegedly ran a red light. The lawyer put out signs and flyers to see if anyone had witnessed the accident. One elderly man came forward and the lawyer agreed to meet with him. The man told the lawyer that he saw the lawyer's client run the red light. The lawyer thanked the man for his time and told him that if he needed him the lawyer would get back in contact. The lawyer did not disclose the identity of the man to the plaintiff or the police authorities. The trial went forward without the testimony of the man. Did the lawyer's conduct with reference to the interview with the man comply with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer did not instruct the man not to talk with any other parties in the litigation. Correct. Lawyers can interview all sorts of witnesses and determine that these individuals might harm their case. As long as the lawyer does not tell the witness not to come forward, the attorney has not violated a Model Rule. Because this person is not an employee, relative or agent of the client, the lawyer could not ask them to refrain from voluntarily talking to another party in the litigation. But the lawyer literally said nothing to the man.

A lawyer represented a former police officer charged with selling automatic weapons in violation of federal law. The defendant was arrested in an undercover sting in which he allegedly offered to modify a weapon so as to make it automatic in violation of the law. The defendant consistently told his lawyer that he never made such weapons and would not do so in this case, but that he was framed by his former employer. The lawyer thought the defendant might be lying but did not know with any degree of certainty. The lawyer let the defendant take the stand and asked him about his involvement in the alleged crime. The defendant denied all wrongdoing and the lawyer did not inform the tribunal about his suspicions. Was the lawyer's decision not to inform the judge consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer did not know that the defendant was lying on the stand. Correct. Model Rule 3.3(a)(3) and (b) requires knowledge by the lawyer that the client has lied to the court on the stand. Suspicion is not enough. If the lawyer had no knowledge that the client committed the crime and planned to lie on the stand, the lawyer does not have a duty to take reasonable remedial measures.

Two neighbors were involved in a boundary dispute. They agreed to hire a lawyer to help them resolve the dispute through mediation. The lawyer agreed to mediate this dispute even though the neighbors were likely to end up in litigation if the mediation failed. She began the mediation by informing both neighbors that she was not representing them as an attorney. The lawyer explained her role as a mediator and contrasted it to how a lawyer would represent the neighbors. The lawyer also stated that she would not participate in drafting a settlement agreement if they resolved the matter through the mediation. May the lawyer serve as a mediator for the neighbors in the boundary dispute?

Yes, because the lawyer did not represent either neighbor and explained her role as a third party neutral. Correct. Under Model Rule 2.4, a lawyer may act as a third party neutral if she does not represent either party as a lawyer and if she gives the appropriate warnings.

A lawyer served as the chair of a federal consumer protection agency. While in government, over 10,000 investigations were pending and part of her official responsibility. One investigation, initiated before the lawyer joined the agency, involved AutoCo. The lawyer did not work on the AutoCo investigation, did not receive any reports about it, and did not learn any confidential government information about AutoCo. After the lawyer left government employment, she joined a law firm that represented AutoCo in her agency's investigation of its consumer practices. AutoCo continued to be a current client of the firm and it wanted the former agency chair to advise it on future government compliance issues. May the former government lawyer represent AutoCo under the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer did not work personally and substantially on the AutoCo matter while in government employment and possesses no confidential government information about AutoCo. Correct. Model Rule 1.11(a) examines conflict of interest issues when a lawyer who is a former government official moves into private practice. Such lawyers may not represent a client in any matter in which the lawyer participated personally or substantially as a government employee. Model Rule 1.11(c) adds the obligation of such lawyers to protect confidential government information. The lawyer in this fact pattern did not work on the AutoCo matter and did not possess confidential government information that would relate to this client. Therefore, the lawyer may join the law firm that represents AutoCo and may work on matters relating to AutoCo.

Lawyer represented Plaintiff in a contract dispute with Supplier. The case was filed in State One and the dispute focused upon the interpretation of a flexible pricing clause. During the trial, the State One high court decided a case with a similar flexible pricing clause that favored the Supplier. The court and the lawyer for Supplier did not know about the recent decision because it had not been widely publicized. The lawyer told his client, Plaintiff, about the adverse legal authority, and the Plaintiff told lawyer not to directly address this adverse legal authority. Plaintiff told the lawyer to cite the case in a footnote of a memorandum without any discussion. The lawyer followed the Plaintiff's direction and no one bothered to look up the case. After deciding for the Plaintiff, the judge learned about the high court case and expressed anger towards the lawyer. Was the Plaintiff lawyer's decision to cite the case without discussion consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer disclosed the adverse legal authority to the tribunal. Correct. Model Rule 3.3(a)(2) requires that a lawyer disclose, but need not discuss, adverse legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction that is not disclosed by the opponent. Here the citation, with the indication that it is contrary authority, is all that is required.

A lawyer who specialized in patent litigation was asked to represent a client in a patent infringement case against a former client. The lawyer obtained confidential information from the prospective client in order to determine whether a conflict existed. The lawyer called an outside lawyer expert in conflicts of interest to ask for an opinion. The lawyer disclosed the confidential information of the prospective client in order to obtain legal advice on the conflict of interest. The lawyer did not obtain the consent of the prospective client for the hiring of the expert or disclosure of information to the expert. Was the lawyer's conduct consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer disclosed the information in order to secure legal advice about compliance with the conflicts of interest rules. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.6(b)(4), a lawyer may disclose confidential information to secure legal advice about compliance with the conflicts of interest rules. No client or prospective client consent is required.

A lawyer represented a National Bank in all of its transactional matters. The National Bank asked the lawyer to appear before a congressional committee that was investigating bank lending fee practices. The National Bank sought to avoid any congressional action in this area. The lawyer prepared a statement for submission to the committee and appeared in person in order to answer any questions. The lawyer began his statement by disclosing that she was appearing in a representative capacity, but did not disclose that National Bank was the client that paid for this representation. Was the lawyer's appearance before the congressional committee consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer disclosed to the committee that he was appearing before them in a representative capacity. Correct. The lawyer's notice to the legislative committee that she is appearing before it in a representative capacity is all that is needed under Model Rule 3.9. The committee can ask for more information, but that is up to the committee. It is not part of the Model Rules.

A lawyer was a litigation partner in a large law firm and she was also a member of a nonprofit organization, Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse. The organization sought to reform the law to prevent frivolous lawsuits against corporate defendants and insurance companies. A number of the lawyer's clients would benefit from reform of the law against lawsuit abuse. She worked on a draft statute that would penalize frivolous filings and she disclosed to the board of this law reform organization that her clients would be materially benefited if such a statute were passed. The lawyer did not disclose the names of the individual clients likely that would benefit from such a law. Did the lawyer comply with her ethical responsibilities in her statutory drafting for Lawyers Against Litigation Abuse that would benefit some of her clients?

Yes, because the lawyer disclosed to the organization that her clients would be benefited if their reform were to be adopted by Congress. Correct. Model Rule 6.4 permits the lawyer to join an organization involved in the reform of the law even though the actions of the organization may benefit client interests. It does impose a requirement that the lawyer disclose that fact to the organization, but the lawyer does not need to disclose the specific identity of his clients who would be benefited.

A lawyer represented a man who was charged with criminal trespass in a protest against recent actions by local law enforcement authorities. The man believed that he was exercising his first amendment rights to carry a large sign challenging recent police conduct. Unfortunately, the prosecutor's case was strong against the man because a lawful curfew had been established by the city and barriers were in place warning citizens from entering the public area. The lawyer thought that the judge and the jury might be swayed if they witnessed public support for the man's case. The lawyer asked fifty citizens from the community to attend the proceedings and to express their feelings through one staged verbal outbursts. During the proceeding, the citizens were to shout loudly, "Give this citizen his rights to express his first amendment views. How has he harmed anyone?" The lawyer knew that the citizens would be asked by the court to stop such outbursts or else they would be removed from the courtroom. But the lawyer reasonably believed that it was extremely unlikely for anyone of them to face any legal issues from the public demonstration. The lawyer did not ask his client for permission to stage this public protest in the courtroom. Did the lawyer violate the Model Rules in asking citizens from the local community to make this public statement in court?

Yes, because the lawyer engaged in conduct intending to disrupt a tribunal. Correct. Attorneys may not disrupt the courtroom. They are officers of the court. This lawyer violated Model Rule 3.5(d) when he staged a public protest during the judicial proceedings.

A criminal defense lawyer operated a horse riding stable with his family on his personal time. The business rarely made any income, and the lawyer often deducted the losses on his income tax return even though the law was clear that this horse riding operation fell within a category of losses the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) calls nondeductible hobby losses. The IRS audited the lawyer's tax return and found that he had repeatedly deducted losses that were routinely disallowed in the past. The audit revealed that the deductions continued after the IRS had disallowed such losses taken by the lawyer and after the IRS had warned the lawyer to stop taking the losses. The IRS assessed civil fraud penalties against the lawyer and imposed a fine of $10,000. The lawyer refused to pay the penalties and unsuccessfully challenged them in an appeal. The IRS reported the lawyer to the state lawyer disciplinary authorities. Is the lawyer subject to discipline?

Yes, because the lawyer engaged in conduct involving civil tax fraud. Correct. Under Model Rule 8.4(c), a lawyer commits professional misconduct when he engages in conduct involving fraud. A finding of civil tax fraud would subject a lawyer to discipline.

A lawyer represented a chain of restaurants sued for employment discrimination by several plaintiffs. The lawyers for the plaintiffs were in court seeking to establish a trial schedule and the interaction between the lawyer for the restaurant and the plaintiffs' lawyers became heated. The defense lawyer made a comment about one of the plaintiffs that was derogatory and manifested bias based upon race and gender. The judge reprimanded the lawyer, said the comments were prejudicial, and warned him that any similar comments would subject him to contempt of court. Assuming that the judge is correct, is the lawyer subject to discipline before the state disciplinary authorities for making such a comment in representing a client?

Yes, because the lawyer engaged in conduct that harassed one of the plaintiffs and was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Correct. Under Model Rule 8.4(d), (g) and Comment [3], lawyers may not in the course of representing a client make comments that manifest bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, or other categories of protected individuals. As seen in the judge's reaction to the comments, the statements were not "legitimate advocacy" and were prejudicial to the administration of justice.

A woman rented one side of her duplex to a tenant who later refused to pay rent. The woman did not have sufficient resources to hire an attorney so she approached a lawyer for advice on how she could evict the tenant. The lawyer agreed to limit the scope of the representation to assist the woman in filing the eviction papers and educating the woman as to how she could represent herself pro se in the eviction proceedings. The lawyer explained the limited scope representation and all of the risks. The client agreed to the limitation on the scope of representation. The lawyer reasonably believed that, given the routine nature of eviction proceeding, the lawyer could educate the client on how to evict the tenant successfully. The lawyer did not inform the woman about the desirability of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel before agreeing to the limited representation. Was it proper for the lawyer to provide limited legal services to the landlord in this tenant eviction matter?

Yes, because the lawyer explained the limitations on the scope of the representation and such limitations were reasonable in this case. Correct. Model Rule 1.2(c) permits attorneys to limit the scope of representation as long as the limitation is reasonable and the client gives informed consent. Tenant eviction proceedings are the type of service in which a lawyer could provide limited legal services. The lawyer could draft the complaint and inform the client as to how to file it and then how to present the case to the local court. The client gave informed consent to this reasonable limitation on the scope of legal services.

A lawyer had represented a couple for many years and the couple wanted to give the lawyer a testamentary gift. It was completely the idea of the clients and the lawyer discouraged them from making the gift. The lawyer was not related to the couple, but the couple insisted that the lawyer prepare a will that included a bequest of $250,000 to the lawyer, an amount that was less than 10% of their estate. The lawyer asked an associate in his firm to take over the representation. The associate met with the couple and urged them to get another lawyer in a different law firm and they refused. The associate had the couple sign a separate consent form to have him draft the will giving the lawyer a bequest and an acknowledgement that they had decided not to consult with independent counsel. Did the lawyer's conduct violate the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer facilitated a bequest from an unrelated client by having the associate draft the will. Correct. Model Rule 1.8(c) prohibits a lawyer from soliciting or drafting any instrument for a client that gives the lawyer a substantial gift or bequest unless the lawyer is related to the client. Model Rule 1.8(k) imputes this provision to every member of the law firm. The lawyer under Model Rule 5.1 also must make reasonable efforts to ensure that work he assigns to associates is done consistent with the Model Rules.

A personal injury lawyer accepted the representation of an injured woman who was involved in a car accident. In the attorney-client agreement and subsequently, there was no discussion whether the representation was limited to the trial or whether it included an appeal. The plaintiff's case was dismissed on the grounds of a statute of limitations defense. The lawyer informed the woman and took no further action. The woman's appeal was lost because no one filed a motion to appeal. Did the lawyer's conduct violate the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer failed to clarify whether the representation included an appeal before treating the representation as at an end. Correct. Under Comment 4 to Model Rule 1.3, a lawyer who has not agreed to undertake an appeal must discuss the issue of an appeal with the client before terminating the relationship with the client. That is the situation in this case and the lawyer failed to take those steps.

A criminal defense lawyer heard on a television news story that his good friend and former college roommate, a computer executive had been arrested in a drug raid. The lawyer jumped in his car and drove to the jail. Of course, the lawyer was concerned about police interrogation tactics with an unrepresented defendant. When the lawyer appeared, he asked to see his former roommate and he asked whether his former roommate would retain him at his normal hourly rate. The lawyer did not inquire whether the former roommate had already contacted another lawyer. The former roommate was so happy to see his friend that he quickly agreed to the legal representation. Is the lawyer's in person contact in these facts permitted under the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer had a close personal relationship with the former roommate. Correct. Under Model Rule 7.3(b)(2), the prohibition against solicitation does not apply when the party solicited is a former client or a close personal friend. The policy underlying this exception is that it would be strange to prohibit lawyers from contacting family, former clients, and close personal friends who may need legal help and such individuals are more likely to know whether they wish to hire the lawyer or another person to represent them.

A lawyer represented a corporate defendant in a products liability lawsuit. The plaintiff has noticed a deposition of several corporate employees. The lawyer scheduled a meeting with the employees before the deposition to prepare them. The lawyer explained the deposition process, the law of products liability and theories the plaintiffs would have, and how they should only answer the questions asked. The lawyer asked the employees to tell the truth, but he also asked them to let them know in this meeting if they had any negative information. One of the employees mentioned that a former employee had called the safety of the product into question but that former employee did not directly work on the products and therefore had no knowledge. The lawyer said that the employee had no duty to volunteer this information, but would have to answer questions posed truthfully. The lawyer stated, "It will be better for all of us if they do not find out about this former employee. Tell the truth, but don't volunteer any adverse information." Did the lawyer's conduct concerning witness preparations comply with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer had a duty to prepare the client's employees about the nature of a deposition and how they should respond to questions. Correct. Attorneys need to prepare their clients and witnesses before a deposition. They cannot foster falsity but a failure to prepare a witness could undermine the representation. Here, the lawyer properly instructed the witnesses as to the law, the plaintiff's theory and how to simply answer questions.

A lawyer was a tax partner in the ABC law firm and she was a member of the ABA Section of Taxation. The ABA Section often participated in efforts to reform the tax law. In one project that the lawyer did not work on, the ABA Section submitted testimony to a congressional committee supporting legislation that would penalize taxpayers who had engaged in tax shelters. Some the lawyer's clients would be affected by the legislation. The lawyer did not obtain her client's consent before becoming a member of the ABA Section. May the lawyer be a member of an organization that is seeking to reform the law in a way that would injure some of his clients?

Yes, because the lawyer had a right to join any organization involved in the reform of the law. Correct. Model Rule 6.4 permits the lawyer to join an organization involved in the reform of the law even though the actions of the organization may injure client interests. It does impose some restrictions on the lawyer's work in the organization, but in this case the lawyer did not work on the legislation penalizing tax shelters.

A lawyer represented a corporate defendant in a products liability lawsuit. The lawyer met with the design team of the product in question and examined the role of each employee. The lawyer asked the employees on this team not to voluntarily speak with any plaintiff, plaintiff's lawyer, or investigator about the product in question. The lawyer reasonably believed that the interests of the employees would not be adversely affected by refraining from providing such information. Did the lawyer's request to the employees on the design team comply with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer made the request to his client's employees and the lawyer determined that the interests of the employees would not be adversely affected by refraining from providing such information. Correct. Model Rule 3.4(f) permits a lawyer to request nonclient agents, employees, or relatives to refrain from cooperating with another party in the matter if the lawyer reasonably believes that the individual's interests will not be adversely affected. The lawyer in this case met both standards - the relationship to the client and the reasonable belief that the interests of the individuals would not be adversely affected.

The Justice Department commenced an investigation of an international corporation, alleging that the corporation had violated foreign anticorruption laws. The corporation hired an outside lawyer to represent it in the investigation. The lawyer discovered that the government was correct and the company had violated the law. In fact, the company's involvement in bribes was more extensive than the government had thought. The lawyer prepared an internal report about his findings and informed the corporation's president and its board of directors. The corporation sought a favorable settlement and it asked the lawyer not to disclose his findings to the government. The lawyer did not volunteer any information about his findings to the government lawyers and the case settled in a very favorable way for the corporation. Was the lawyer's conduct consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer had been hired to defend the corporation in a government investigation involving corruption and therefore his duties focused upon providing a defense rather than correcting the corporation's behavior. Correct. Model Rule 1.13(d) states that the authority to report outside of the entity under Model Rule 1.13(c) does not apply when the client hires the law firm to represent it in an investigation or a defense arising out of an alleged violation of law. That makes sense because companies may identify problems because of an investigation or a lawsuit and when they hire a lawyer to help them in such a situation, it would be counterproductive to let the lawyer report outside of the entity about that violation of law.

A lawyer represented clients in administrative proceedings before the state water agency, an organization where the lawyer spent 20 years as hearing officer. In advertisements in industry publications, the lawyer would include information about his services including his experience at the agency. When the lawyer personally visited with a prospective client, he would say, "You know I know the people and the system. I can get things done outside of the traditional process." These promotional techniques brought the lawyer many clients. In the representation of clients, the lawyer did not in fact work outside the process; he did not violate any ex parte or other rules in his practice before the agency. Is the lawyer subject to discipline for making such statement to prospective clients?

Yes, because the lawyer implied that he could influence a government agency by means that violate the law. Correct. Model Rule 8.4(e) prohibits a lawyer from stating or implying that he can influence improperly a state agency or official by means that violate the law.

A corporation was involved in a large commercial dispute subject to an arbitration provision. The corporate executive and the opposing party agreed to a multimember panel in which each side would have one partisan arbitrator and the two would pick a third neutral arbitrator. The executive picked a lawyer law professor who was an expert in the subject. The arbitration panel ruled in favor of the corporation and when the corporation sought to enforce the award, the opposing party refused to pay. The corporation asked the lawyer law professor to serve as its counsel to enforce the judgment. The lawyer law professor quickly accepted the representation. May the lawyer law professor represent the corporation in securing a satisfaction of the arbitral award under the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer law professor was a partisan member of a multimember arbitral panel. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.12(d), a lawyer who serves as a partisan arbitrator of a multimember panel may represent the party that nominated the lawyer to the panel in subsequent disputes. The lawyer law professor was appointed by the corporation to be a partisan arbitrator and that lawyer can represent the corporation in enforcing the award.

A lawyer represented a tobacco company in all of its regulatory matters. The tobacco company asked the lawyer to represent it in a congressional investigation of cigarette use by minors. The company provided the lawyer with a summary of a study performed by a communications professor that showed few tobacco advertisements affect audiences under the age of 21. The lawyer presented the summary of the study to Congress and argued in testimony not given under oath that tobacco companies took seriously their responsibility of not attracting underage smokers. Several weeks after presenting the testimony, the lawyer learned from a tobacco company insider that the company's summary of the professor's study mischaracterized the results. The complete study noted that several advertising campaigns sought to attract underage smokers. In fact, the lawyer learned that the company had internal memorandums that confirmed its desire to market to teenagers. The lawyer sent a letter to Congress retracting his testimony and submitting a complete version of the study. The lawyer apologized to Congress for presenting misleading information earlier. Was the lawyer's correction of his testimony before the Congress required by the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer learned that he had presented false and misleading information to Congress in a nonadjudicative proceeding. Correct. Model Rule 3.9 applies the requirement of honesty in Model Rule 3.3 to a lawyer's representation in a nonadjudicative proceeding. When the lawyer presented the summary of the study, he believed it was correct and accurate. When the lawyer learned that the testimony was false and misleading when submitted, the lawyer owed a duty to Congress to correct his false and misleading statements.

A lawyer represented a computer manufacturer sued by a purchaser for failing to deliver computers under a long-term supply contract. In a response filed by the lawyer in the matter, the lawyer stated that the failure to deliver the computers resulted because of a shortage of memory parts. At the time, memory components were in short supply, but subsequently the president of the computer company informed the lawyer that company had stockpiled computer memory and that this defense was not credible. The lawyer informed the president that he would need to correct his filing and the president ordered the lawyer to keep this information confidential. The president stated that they could correct the false statement later on, when it was no longer material. The lawyer disobeyed the order and informed the court that he had learned that the statement about the memory was not accurate. Was the lawyer's disclosure to the court consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer made a false statement to the court and had a duty to correct it. Correct. Under Model Rule 3.3 (a)(1), a lawyer who makes a statement of material fact to the court and comes to learn of its falsity, must correct it. The materiality of the statement is obvious in this case as it was a primary defense of the computer manufacturer in why they could not deliver the computers to the purchaser.

A client asked a lawyer to form an entity to produce widgets. The client did not have cash, but offered to pay the lawyer in stock. He offered to give the lawyer 1% of the stock of the company, a value that approximated $5000, in exchange for $5,000 worth of legal services. The lawyer obtained an appraisal of the stock to confirm the $5,000 value, and prepared a clearly drafted agreement for the client to sign memorializing all of the details of the transaction. Also, the legal work subject of the contract was valued at the reasonable fee of $5,000. The lawyer advised the client in writing of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel and gave the client time to consider this advice. The lawyer informed the client that she was not representing the client in the business transaction. The client chose not to seek the advice of independent legal counsel and signed the agreement. Was the lawyer's agreement to provide legal services to the client in exchange for 1% of the entity consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer met the requirements of the business transaction rule and the reasonable fee rule. Correct. Model Rule 1.8(a) sets forth the rules for entering into a business transaction with a client. The transaction must be fair and reasonable, transmitted in writing in a manner that can be understood by the client, and the client must be informed of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel (and given an opportunity to do so) before entering into the transaction. The lawyer must inform the client whether the lawyer is representing the client in the business transaction. When the transaction involved the lawyer contribution of services as part of the business transaction, the lawyer must satisfy Model Rule 1.5(a). All requirements were met here.

A lawyer represented an actor charged with murder because of his involvement in a high-speed crash. The lawyer offered to represent the client for a flat fee of $25,000, an amount that was reasonable given the charges. During the representation, the client who had not received any offers for acting asked the lawyer for help in securing access to a stream of income. The client raised the prospect of selling his story relating to the crime to the lawyer in exchange for $20,000 plus 5% of any royalties the lawyer may receive. The client insisted that the lawyer would not begin to benefit from the literary rights and not publish the story until the criminal case was completed. The lawyer and client discussed the possibility of a deal, and even set forth some of the terms of a future deal. The representation ended when the prosecutor dropped charges against the actor and therefore neither the lawyer nor the actor pursued the literary rights deal. No literary rights agreement was executed by the lawyer and the actor. Did the lawyer's conduct violate the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer negotiated for literary rights relating to the representation before the representation was completed. Correct. Model Rule 1.8(d) prohibits a lawyer from making or negotiating an agreement with a client for literary rights on a topic related to the representation. The lawyer negotiated for literary rights on topics relating to the representation and therefore violated the rule.

A lawyer represented a corporate defendant in a products liability lawsuit. The plaintiff has requested that the defendant's law firm turn over all memos prepared for the defendant based upon a need to obtain nonprivileged information that the company no longer has in its possession. The lawyer then refused and then the court ordered the lawyer to produce the memorandum. The lawyer still refused openly did so on the grounds that the court had erred in its analysis. The lawyer requested an interlocutory appeal on this issue to protect the corporation's privileged information. Is the lawyer's refusal to produce the memorandum consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer openly disobeyed the court order on the grounds that it was in error and sought to appeal the court's ruling. Correct. The Model Rules require a lawyer to comply with a court order unless the lawyer resists the order on an open refusal based upon an argument that no valid obligation exists. Here the lawyer did this very act - open refusal based upon a request for an appeal on the merits of the judge's ruling. See Model Rule 3.4(c).

A divorce lawyer represented a woman seeking a divorce from her husband. After two meetings with the client, the lawyer recommended that the woman and her husband consult with a marriage counsellor. The lawyer believed that some of the problems described by the client were caused by a failure of communication, and she reasonably believed that a counsellor could address those issues more effectively before proceeding with the divorce. The lawyer gave the client a list of names of marriage counsellors in the area and recommended that the client convince the husband to agree to hire a marriage counsellor to address their emotional needs before proceeding with the divorce. Under the Model Rules, may a lawyer advise the client to convince her husband to hire a marriage counsellor before seeking to obtain the divorce?

Yes, because the lawyer reasonably believed that a marriage counsellor could address some of the emotional and communication problems experience by her client and the husband before proceeding with the divorce. Correct. Under Model Rule 2.1, a lawyer may refer a client to another professional to address the nonlegal needs of the client. Comment 4 addresses needs of clients that are covered by other professions.

A lawyer is drafting a will for a 25-year-old man who was diagnosed with cancer. The man developed severe depression because of the diagnosis and confided in the lawyer that he planned to commit suicide. Suicide was not a crime in the State in which the lawyer and man lived. The lawyer asked the man to consider mental health counselling and the man refused. The lawyer asked the man to share his feelings with his parents and the man refused. The man planned to leave all of his property to his parents. Because of details provided by the man to the lawyer, the lawyer reasonably believed that the man was certain to commit suicide. Therefore, the lawyer shared this information with the man's parents who intervened to save the man's life. Was the lawyer's conduct consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer reasonably believed that disclosure was necessary to prevent reasonably certain death. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.6(b)(1), a lawyer may disclose confidential client information reasonably necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. Disclosure is authorized when the client intends to harm himself, not simply harm third parties. Thus, the lawyer's disclosure was permitted in this case.

A woman hired a lawyer for advice on whether she could take her share of the marital estate and flee the country. No children were involved and no court proceeding was pending. The lawyer researched the issues and informed the client that under state law she was entitled to take only her share of the assets. The client informed the lawyer that she would initially move to a cabin along the Canadian border and subsequently travel to Canada with her funds. The client in fact took all of the assets, including those belonging to her husband, and disappeared. The lawyer knows where the client is located because she called the lawyer and told him what she had done. The lawyer informed the woman that she had committed a crime and fraud against the husband. The lawyer has been contacted by the police because the client's husband obtained the woman's telephone records. The police asked the lawyer whether he knows the whereabouts of the woman client. The lawyer voluntarily disclosed the location of the woman because he reasonably believed that the disclosure would prevent or mitigate the harm to the husband's assets. Was it proper for the lawyer to disclose the location of the client under the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer reasonably believed that disclosure would prevent or mitigate the harm to the husband's assets. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.6(b)(3), a lawyer may disclose confidentiality client information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or mitigate substantial financial harm to a third person. In this case, the lawyer reasonably believes that disclosure would help recover the husband's assets, so the lawyer may disclose the information under this provision. This applies even though the client's crime is past, because the lawyer gave legal advice about the conduct and the disclosure seeks to mitigate, rectify, or prevent the financial harm to the husband.

A lawyer represented a defendant sued by an employee for wrongful termination. After the case was filed, a manager in the defendant company produced a document that had never been discussed with the defense lawyer. The document purported to discipline the employee and justify the subsequent termination. The lawyer did not know that this document was false, but reasonably believed that it had been falsified by the manager after the case was filed. The defendant's representatives contended the document was genuine, even though they admitted they had never shown it to the employee. They asked the lawyer to introduce this document at the trial. This document, if disclosed, would help the defendant and hurt the plaintiff. The defense lawyer refused to introduce the document into evidence based upon his reasonable belief that it was not genuine. Was the lawyer's decision not to enter this document as evidence consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer reasonably believed that the document was not genuine. Correct. Under Model Rule 3.3(a)(3), the lawyer may refuse to offer evidence the lawyer reasonably believes is false. That concept covers this fact pattern - no actual knowledge, but a reasonably belief the document was falsified.

A lawyer in a large firm represents a corporation that develops large shopping malls and sells them to investors. The lawyer was preparing documents to sell a newly developed project to a buyer. A week before the closing the corporation discovered that an anchor tenant had failed to complete a financial deposit on its lease. The corporate officers informed the lawyer that they did not plan to inform the buyer of this development. ("It would destroy the deal," the President said, "We'll try to find another anchor tenant as soon as we can."). The lawyer told them about the representations that the corporation would need to sign before the closing and the officers said that they planned to lie. The lawyer urged the officers to reconsider their plan. The lawyer reasonably believed that such a lie would constitute fraud and she described the risks that such conduct would put upon the corporation. The lawyer reasonably believed that the entity would be subject to substantial financial harm and that this one transaction could place into jeopardy many future dealings using its business model. The lawyer asked the officers to seek another legal opinion. She asked for a meeting of all of the officers, and when it was clear that the officers did not intend to inform the buyer about the anchor tenant, she brought this situation to the attention of the board of directors. Despite all of the lawyer's efforts, the officers and board of the corporate still insisted upon non-disclosure. The lawyer has informed the company's officers and board that she plans to tell the buyers that the closing needs to be delayed pending resolution of a tenant issue. The lawyer reasonably believes that any effort to lie about the anchor tenant is a violation of law that will subject the corporation to substantial injury and that disclosure is necessary to protect the entity. Under the Model Rules, may the lawyer inform the buyer about a problem with a tenant?

Yes, because the lawyer reasonably believes that disclosure is necessary to protect the entity from substantial injury. Correct. Model 1.13 requires a lawyer to protect an entity from violations of the law that expose the client to substantial financial harm. Section (b) establishes the standard that requires a lawyer to go up the ladder. Section (c) addresses the possibility that a lawyer may need to disclose information outside of the entity because the lawyer reasonably believes that there is a clear violation of law that is reasonably certain to subject the corporate client to substantial injury. The lawyer may disclose to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent the harm to the corporation.

A lawyer licensed in State A represented a multinational corporation in its dealing with purchasers of its products. The corporate headquarters were located in State A. In all sales contracts, the lawyer included a mandatory arbitration clause that referred all disputes between the client and purchasers to a State Z arbitral proceeding. The lawyer was not licensed in State Z, but the corporation and its buyers believed that State Z's commercial law was neutral and well developed and the arbitral forum had experience in efficiently resolving such disputes. Also, the client and buyers had extensive contacts with State Z. A buyer of a client product found a serious defect in the delivery and brought an arbitral proceeding in State Z. The transaction lawyer entered an appearance in the tribunal, which did not have a procedure to license out-of-state attorneys. May the lawyer properly represent the corporate client in this arbitration in State Z?

Yes, because the lawyer represented a client in a pending arbitration proceeding that is reasonably related to the lawyer's work in the jurisdiction of the lawyer's licensure. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.5(c)(3), a lawyer may provide services related to an arbitration or mediation in a matter reasonably related to a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed to practice law. The ABA enacted these rules to reject the California Supreme Court's decision to the contrary in the Birbrower case.

A civil rights lawyer heard that the federal government was deporting green card resident aliens who had received simple parking tickets and driving violation citations. The lawyer obtained the police records of citations and parking tickets and called individuals trying to find a person who was the subject of one of these deportation proceedings. The lawyer found a prospective client and visited her home to offer his legal service for no fee. The lawyer was committed to civil rights and every year he selected several clients to represent on a no fee basis. Of course, the lawyer hoped to prevail and may seek to recover his fees from the government under the federal civil rights fee shifting statute. Was the lawyer's conduct consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer solicited prospective clients in a case in which pecuniary gain was not a significant motive of the lawyer. Correct. Under Model Rule 7.3(b), the prohibition against solicitation does not apply when the lawyer's pecuniary gain is not a significant motive for the lawyer's contact. Civil rights lawyers thus can contact prospective clients in person under the associational rights of the first amendment. To date, a hope that lawyer fees might be recoverable under the federal civil rights fee shifting statute has not been found sufficient to render the lawyer's contact improper in a case like this one.

A lawyer practiced in an office building next to an accountant who practiced alone. The accountant suffered a stroke and was hospitalized for an extended period of time. The accountant did not have any relatives who could help represent his interests. The accountant's office administrator informed the attorney that the landlord had planned to evict the accountant for nonpayment of rent. The accountant was unable to establish an attorney-client relationship because of his condition. However, the lawyer reasonably believed that accountant was about to suffer imminent and irreparable harm and therefore the lawyer entered an appearance in the eviction proceeding to protect the accountant's interests. The lawyer explained the situation to the judge and sought only a temporary stay of the proceedings. The lawyer did not charge the accountant for any of these services. Was the lawyer's decision to seek to enter an appearance for the accountant consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer sought to provide limited legal services to the accountant who was in a seriously diminished capacity in an emergency situation. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.14 and Comments 9 and 10, a lawyer has a limited right to step in when a person is under a severe disability and cannot form an attorney-client relationship. In this case, the lawyer did only what was needed to stop the eviction proceedings and did not charge for the work.

A lawyer represented a corporate client that sought to terminate an employee for performance issues. The lawyer examined the law and determined the client could lawfully terminate the employee's employment. The lawyer also noticed that the employee only needed to work 3 more months to qualify for federal health and retirement benefits. The lawyer urged the client representatives to consider the employee's personal situation and asked for permission to negotiate a retirement rather than initiate a termination. The client's human resources manager declined and asked the lawyer to initiate the termination proceedings. The lawyer did not bill the client for the time used to research the employee's retirement status. May a lawyer appeal to nonlegal considerations in representing a client under the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer was permitted to refer to nonlegal considerations involving morality, economics, social, and political factors while representing a client. Correct. Model Rule 2.1 expressly authorizes a lawyer to refer to nonlegal considerations such as economic, moral, political or social factors in representing a client. The lawyer could bill a client for reasonable time expended assuming that the client had not made it clear that he or she did not want the lawyer to spend any time on such considerations.

A lawyer who was representing a client in litigation suffered a debilitating stroke that materially limited the lawyer's ability to work. The lawyer was the only litigator in a three person law firm and the case was in the middle of depositions. The lawyer informed the client that due to health reasons, the lawyer would need to withdraw from the representation immediately. The client begged the lawyer to stay on in the case to see if he would get better. The lawyer provided the client names of other attorneys who would be excellent advocates for the client. The client chose one of the proposed attorneys and, with court permission, the lawyer withdrew from the matter and transferred the case to the new counsel. Was the lawyer's withdraw from the litigation representation consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer was required to withdraw when his physical condition materially impaired his ability to represent the client in litigation. Correct. Model Rule 1.16(a)(1) requires a lawyer who has a physical or mental condition that "materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client" to withdraw from the representation. When the lawyer's debilitating stroke materially impaired his ability to represent the client, the lawyer had to withdraw from the case.

A lawyer represented a company seeking to develop an online fantasy sports internet site that did not violate state laws on gambling. The authorities are unclear whether such businesses violate these criminal laws. The lawyer agreed to study the issue and to draft a report that detailed which activities are allowed and which activities might violate the antigambling laws. Was it proper for the lawyer to examine the legality of this client's business model?

Yes, because the lawyer was simply helping the client delineate the scope of the law. Correct. Model Rule 1.2(d) prohibits an attorney from counselling a client to engage in, or assisting a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. The unclear authorities on whether fantasy sports is illegal gambling remove this representation from the prohibited counselling or assisting of the client. This is a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law.

An American lawyer licensed in Washington, D.C., represented an international hotel group based in the United Kingdom seeking to enter a developing country's market controlled by that country's government. The lawyer negotiated a ten year venture to build five hotels in the country and then to operate them for 20 years. After 20 years, the hotels would become the property of the state hotel company. The agreement was subject to a mandatory arbitration clause and the American lawyer sought to apply a well-developed set of ethics conflicts principles to the conduct of the lawyers in the transaction. The American lawyer proposed that the contract include a choice of professional responsibility provision applying the United Kingdom's rules to such lawyer conflicts of interest. The contract also included a provision to arbitrate in the United Kingdom. The hotels would be designed and operated by a United Kingdom team of hotel managers. The contract contemplated two jurisdictions as having the most interest in the hotel construction and management - the developing country and the United Kingdom. The lawyer chose the conflicts rules of the United Kingdom as one country in which the conduct had a predominant effect. Was the American lawyer's suggestion that the parties choose the United Kingdom rules of professional responsibility to govern the conflicts of interest of the lawyers in the transaction consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the lawyer's choice to pick the United Kingdom's conflicts of interest rules was consistent with the reasonable judgment of the lawyers that the predominant effect of the contract was in the United Kingdom. Correct. Comment 5 to Model Rule 8.5 contemplates the use of a written agreement by a lawyer to choose conflicts rules under the predominant effect language of the text of Rule 8.5.

A two partner law firm divided all profits and firm assets 50-50. One of the lawyers died and the deceased lawyer left all of her property to her husband, who was not a licensed lawyer. In an expedited probate process, the court approved the spouse as the sole beneficiary of the deceased lawyer. The surviving partner offered to pay the spouse of the deceased lawyer 50% of legal fees earned during the current year to the time of the lawyer's death and 50% of the assets on the date of death. Such payments would be made over a six month period. The partner informed the clients that their fees would be shared with the nonlawyer spouse, but did not notify the state bar authorities that such payments would be made. May the surviving partner make such payments to the spouse of the deceased lawyer?

Yes, because the lawyers are permitted to settle the estate of a deceased lawyer by making payments to a nonlawyer. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.4(a)(1), lawyers may pay attorneys' fees and law firm assets to a nonlawyer who has a legal right to the assets of a deceased lawyer provided such payments are made over a reasonable period of time. Six months would be a reasonable period of time in a case like this one.

A litigator was representing a developer sued by 3 homeowners for violating the covenants imposed upon the community of 100 homes. This litigator wanted to put some pressure on the 3 homeowners to settle, so he noticed all 100 homeowners for deposition. He reasonably believed that the 97 nonplaintiff-homeowners would pressure the 3 plaintiffs to settle to avoid the hassle of a deposition. None of the 97 homeowners had any information relevant to the litigation. The litigator planned the depositions to place a burden upon the homeowners in an attempt to zealously represent the developer. This action was taken without the consent of the developer client. Did the litigator violate any of the Model Rules?

Yes, because the litigator's strategy against the 97 homeowners had no substantial purpose other than to burden them. Correct. Model Rule 4.4(a) prohibits action against third persons that has no substantial purpose other than to burden or delay a third person. These depositions were scheduled for the express purposes of burdening the neighbors, not obtaining evidence.

Alpha practiced divorce law and had a reputation for zealously representing his clients in the process. A man sought to divorce his wife and met with another attorney about the representation. The man decided to hire that attorney but wanted to be sure that his wife did not hire Alpha, so the man called Alpha and met with him as a way to disqualify Alpha by creating a conflict. Alpha did not set any preconditions before he met with the man. The man provided confidential information to Alpha about his prospective employment that was more lucrative than his current job. When the man's wife approached Alpha about possible representation, Alpha said he could not represent her because the he had a conflict. When the wife informed Alpha that the man had already decided to hire the other lawyer before meeting with Alpha, Alpha accepted the representation of the wife. Alpha reasonably believed that discovery in any divorce would seek to elicit information about the couple's employment and other prospective opportunities. May Alpha represent the wife against the man in the divorce?

Yes, because the man was not a prospective client of Alpha because he had decided to hire another lawyer. Correct. Model Rule 1.18 sets forth the duties owed to prospective clients. Normally, a lawyer who meets with a prospective client has a duty not to reveal confidential information and may not personally represent parties with interests adverse to the prospective client. But Comment 2 (last sentence) states that a person who communicates with a lawyer about a representation "for the purpose of disqualifying the lawyer" is not considered to be a prospective client protected by Model Rule 1.18. In this case, the man met with Alpha solely to try to disqualify Alpha from representing his wife.

A plaintiff approached a law firm to represent it in a law suit against the developer of a residential neighborhood. The law firm's client development partner met with the plaintiff and discussed the scope of the representation and the proposed cost. The law partner only obtained the information that was reasonably needed to provide the cost estimate to the plaintiff and to determine whether the law firm could accept the representation. No other lawyers in the law firm received any information from the plaintiff. The moment the partner started the conflicts check, he discovered that another lawyer in the firm was already talking to the developer in this dispute. The law firm decided to accept the representation of the developer and the partner notified the plaintiff. The plaintiff was furious and hired another law firm to represent him in the litigation. The law firm's client development partner would be screened from all confidential information and work on the developer's case and would receive no profits from that representation. When the law firm notified the plaintiff that it intended to represent the developer, the plaintiff said that she would move to disqualify the law firm. May the litigation department of the law firm represent the developer?

Yes, because the plaintiff met with the client development partner, that lawyer received only the confidential information needed to determine whether to accept the matter, and that law firm will screen that lawyer from participating in the representation of the developer. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.18(d)(2), a law firm can accept a matter that is adverse to a prospective client if it screens the lawyer who met with the prospective client and that lawyer only received the confidential information that was reasonably needed to decide whether to accept the representation. Here, the law firm will screen the lawyer who limited his access to information, so the requirements of Model Rule 1.18 are met.

The managing partner of a large law firm managed the lawyers and delegated the supervision of the nonlawyers to an office manager. The office manager was responsible for hiring, firing and training of secretaries, office assistants, and paralegals. When the long time office manager retired, the managing partner was pressured to hire a relative of a senior partner. The managing partner was concerned about hiring the relative because he was a recent business school graduate and had no experience in law practice management. Despite these concerns, the managing partner chose to continue a casual supervision of the office manager's office. The office manager did not offer the newly-hired nonlawyer employees training as to ethics issues such as confidentiality. However, since most of the new nonlawyer employees were hired from other law firms, the managing partner believed that they already knew their responsibilities. Overall, the nonlawyer assistants offered excellent services to the lawyers in the firm and no clients were injured because of this casual supervisory system. Is the managing partner subject to discipline for his conduct in managing the law firm?

Yes, because the managing partner failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the office manager was properly training and supervising the nonlawyers so that there was reasonable assurance that the nonlawyers complied with the rules of professional conduct. Correct. Even though she delegated the supervisory power over nonlawyers to the office manager, the managing partner needed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the office manager had proper training and monitoring in place for nonlawyers. See Model Rule 5.3(b). The managing partner did not do so even though she was concerned about the person's credentials and experience and therefore is subject to discipline. Restatement § 11(4)(a) and comment f.

A managing partner discovered that an associate in the law firm had overbilled a client for work done over one year ago. The associate, who had carefully hidden the overbilling, resigned and admitted his transgressions. The law firm had controls in place to monitor billing practices, but the associate found a way to change the electronic records in the file. Since the client had not recently given work to the law firm, the managing partner chose not to inform the client or to take any other action. Is the managing partner's conduct subject to discipline?

Yes, because the managing partner failed to take reasonable remedial measures in order to mitigate the consequences of the associate's conduct once she knew that the firm had overbilled the former client. Correct. Model Rule 5.1(c)(2) imposes responsibility on a partner or supervisory lawyer to take reasonable remedial action in order to avoid or mitigate the consequences of a known violation of the Model Rules. In this case, the managing partner was obligated to take reasonable remedial action, which includes notifying the former client and returning the overbilled amount.

A lawyer represented a large corporate client in all of its defense of employment discrimination claims by employees. The company president requested that the lawyer generally push the case along expeditiously and resist any court or plaintiff delay. At one point in the litigation, the plaintiff asked for a three-day delay to accommodate a witness' unavailability. Such delays were routinely granted by this court and counsel. The president wanted to lawyer to depose, promptly, the plaintiff's lawyer and witness as a technique to impose costs and hassle the opponents. The delay would not prejudice the company or its president. The lawyer granted the delay, although the president did not consent to the delay. Was the lawyer's refusal to follow client direction consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the obligation of diligence gives the lawyer the right to agree to reasonable postponements that do not prejudice the client. Correct. Model Rule 1.3 requires that the lawyer act with reasonable diligence when representing a client. Comment 1 to this Rule states that the duty of diligence does not require a lawyer "to press for every advantage that might be realized by a client." See, in particular, Comment 3: "A lawyer's duty to act with reasonable promptness, however, does not preclude the lawyer from agreeing to a reasonable request for a postponement that will not prejudice the lawyer's client." It is true that the client could fire the lawyer or the lawyer could withdraw and the client could find other counsel, but that is not tested here. The Model Rules approve this lawyer's conduct.

A lawyer represented a small business in recovering a large unpaid debt that left the business short of cash. The owner of the business emailed the lawyer every day asking if progress had been made. The lawyer was charging a contingent fee, so the lawyer could not charge any more for time spent responding to the client. The lawyer responded to the first several emails, but upon receiving the fifth daily email in a row, the lawyer informed the client that there were no new developments. Then, the lawyer said, "Please do not email me. I promise to contact you if there are new developments. I will not respond to your emails unless I have new information." Was the lawyer's decision to stop responding to the client's emails consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the owner's' daily contacts were unreasonable and the lawyer told the client that she would let the client know about new developments. Correct. Model Rule 1.4(a)(4) only requires a lawyer to comply with reasonable requests by clients for information. A daily email when no developments are expected would be found unreasonable. A lawyer can inform the client that the lawyer will update the client as soon as new information is obtained and will not respond until that time.

A newly licensed lawyer sought to open her own practice of law. She did not have enough resources to rent the office space and to acquire the office and computer equipment, so she asked her parents to help finance the law practice. The lawyer's parents provided a $50,000 loan to the law firm to be repaid in 5 years. The loan was memorialized in a writing and the parents had no control over the law practice and did not have an equity interest in the firm. Is it proper for the lawyer to receive a $50,000 loan from her parents to finance the law practice that would be repaid in 5 years?

Yes, because the parents did not become owners of the law firm and did not control any aspects of the firm's law practice. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.4, only lawyers may own a law firm and lawyers may not share legal fees with nonlawyers. The loan did not give the parents an ownership interest and did not permit them to interfere with the practice of law. The loan is a permissible way to finance the law firm.

A personal injury lawyer was approached by a corporation that wanted to hire the lawyer to help it defend against frequent lawsuits by consumers for slight product defects. The amount at risk was in the millions of dollars, so the corporation needed to address their legal exposure. The personal injury lawyer normally charged a contingent fee for his work, but in a few cases had charged $400 an hour. In this case, the lawyer was reluctant to accept the representation because essentially the lawyer could never represent a plaintiff against this particular corporation. However, the lawyer offered to represent the client for $600 an hour with a minimum fee of $500,000 because the representation would preclude the lawyer from suing the corporation on behalf of other plaintiffs as long as he represented the corporation and thereafter for any related work. The lawyer informed the client about the reason for the enhanced fee and explained how this work would preclude him from suing the corporation for the foreseeable future. The minimum fee of $500,000 and $600 an hour was considered reasonable considering in light of the loss of business the lawyer would suffer in light of the conflicts created by the representation. The lawyer did not warn the corporation to seek the advice of independent counsel before agreeing to the enhanced fee. May the lawyer charge the corporation the enhanced fee under the Model Rules?

Yes, because the reason the lawyer was charging an enhanced fee to the corporation was sufficient to make the fee reasonable. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.5(a)(2), a lawyer may only charge a reasonable fee. One of the factors to be considered is "the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer." That is the case here since the lawyer believes that the work for this corporation will preclude the personal injury from suing that corporation because of conflicts of interests.

An elderly personal injury lawyer (Lawyer #1) represented clients as a sole practitioner in small accident cases. She had a caseload of thirty files at varying stages in the state court litigation process. Because Lawyer #1 had suffered some minor health issues, she met with attorney (Lawyer #2) in the same office building who also practiced personal injury work. Lawyer #1 explained her health situation and introduced Lawyer #2 to her office manager. Lawyer #1 asked Lawyer #2 to step in to help protect her client's interests in case she suffered a health setback. Lawyer #1 disclosed no confidential information but instead explained the manner in which she organized her files and how Lawyer #2 could quickly contact the clients of Lawyer #1 to secure consent to gain access to matters that needed immediate attention. Was Lawyer #1's involvement of Lawyer #2 consistent with the Model Rules?

Yes, because the sole practitioner established a plan for meeting her obligation of diligent representation to her clients in case of incapacity. Correct. Model Rule 1.3 requires that lawyers perform their representations "with reasonable diligence and promptness." Comment 5 addresses the duties of a sole practitioner to anticipate possible death or incapacity that could prejudice the client's interests. This comment states that Model Rule 1.3 may require that sole practitioners prepare a plan in the case of death or incapacity. The lawyer has done so in this case without disclosing confidential information of the clients.

A transactional lawyer licensed in State A represented a local client in assembling a partnership with properties in State A, B, and C. The lawyer structured the transaction to create a State A partnership that would be marketed only to investors in State A. With disclosure and consent from the client, the lawyer associated with another attorney in State B and a third attorney in State C to assist him in properly acquiring the State B and State C properties. The client was informed of the cost of hiring the other two lawyers and the lawyer billed for the work of all lawyers together. The two other attorneys only performed work involving acquisition of properties and did not meet with the client. Is the lawyer's practice in State B and State C proper?

Yes, because the transactional lawyer associated with attorneys in State B and State C, who actively participated in the representation. Correct. Under Model Rule 5.5(c)(1), a lawyer may provide temporary services in a state outside that of the lawyer's licensure if the lawyer associates with local counsel. The lawyer did so in this case by hiring attorneys licensed in State B and State C who worked actively acquiring property in their respective states.

A divorce law firm has handled some of the largest cases in the city. Clients of the firm are overwhelmingly satisfied with the services provided by the lawyers in the firm. The firm decides to state in all of its advertising that this firm is a "top notch divorce firm." In order to bolster its claim, it includes several testimonials of satisfied clients stating that the lawyers met all of the client's expectations in the divorce representations. No factual information is provided about client outcomes compared with other divorce law firms in the city, and the advertisement says that each case is different so that past results are no guarantee of future results. Is it proper for the lawyers in the firm to advertise that the firm is a "top notch divorce firm?"

Yes, because the words "top notch divorce firm" is not a comparison made with any degree of specificity that would make it misleading. Correct. Model Rule 7.1, Comment 3 says a lawyer can advertise his achievements on behalf of other clients, as long as he does not promote an unjustified expectation or make an unsubstantiated comparison. The clients' testimony is evidence of client satisfaction but expectations are tempered by the statement that past results are no guarantee of future results. Rule 7.1, Comment 3 does not prevent all "unsubstantiated comparisons." It just says it "may be misleading if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison can be substantiated." The words "top notch divorce firm" do not imply specificity in comparison and therefore the phrase is not misleading. The inclusion of language stating that each case is different and that past results are no guarantee of future result helps make the advertisement proper.

A real estate lawyer was approached by a seller of a single family home and asked to represent both the buyer and the seller. The price had been set. The inspection was complete and the home passed all tests. No open issues existed other than funding the transaction and preparing the closing documents. The lawyer explained the advantages and disadvantages of having one lawyer represent both parties including the possible loss of the attorney-client privilege. The clients gave informed consent confirmed in writing and the lawyer reasonably believed that she could represent the buyer and the seller competently and diligently. The lawyer had no prior connection to the clients and the matter was unlikely to end in litigation. In this case, under the Model Rules, may one lawyer represent the buyer and the seller of the single family home?

Yes, because under these facts the conflict had been properly managed by the lawyer and the clients gave informed consent, confirmed in writing. Correct. Model Rule 1.7 addresses the conflict when a lawyer represents both buyer and seller of real estate. In a basic residential transaction, the risks are more limited than in a complex commercial transaction. The lawyer can disclose the risks and benefits and obtain the buyer and seller's consent, confirmed in writing, to the conflict of interest. And, the lawyer can determine whether the lawyer can provide competent and diligent representation to each client. If that is done, the lawyer can proceed to represent both parties as multiple clients to this transaction. The conflict was addressed properly on these facts.

A large corporation sought to hire a law firm in order to file a patent infringement lawsuit against a competitor. The corporation sought to interview a number of law firms in order to determine which counsel to retain in the litigation. The corporation approached the ABC Law Firm and asked it to provide a proposal, which detailed costs and approach of conducting the litigation. The ABC Law Firm agreed to participate in what is often referred to as a "beauty contest" as long as the communications occurred only with the client development lawyers and not the patent section of the firm. The client development lawyers in the law firm provided a detailed presentation and answered questions for the corporate management about how it would conduct the litigation. In those meetings, it is likely that those lawyers learned some basic confidential information about the proof that the corporation had about the infringement, but no more information than was required to determine whether to accept the representation. The corporation decided to hire other counsel in the litigation. The defendant to the litigation has contacted the ABC Law Firm to see if it can represent it in the patent infringement litigation. The ABC law firm would timely screen the client development lawyers from the representation and the law firm would give prompt written notice to the corporation. The corporation has informed the law firm that it opposes this representation and will not consent. May the patent law section of the ABC Law Firm represent the defendant against the corporation in the patent infringement litigation?

Yes, if the client development lawyers only received information that it needed to evaluate whether to accept the representation. Correct. Under Model Rule 1.18(d), a law firm can accept a representation contrary to a former prospective client if it timely screens the lawyers who received confidential information from that client and promptly provides written notice to the prospective client. But, the intake lawyers must limit the confidential information received to what is necessary to determine whether to accept the representation. The intake lawyers did that, so the law firm can take the case.

A recently licensed lawyer sought to provide routine legal services at reasonable costs to individuals. She needed to attract a sufficient number of clients in order to sustain this law practice, so she hired a public relations firm to develop an advertising strategy for her firm. The agency designed a professional newspaper advertisement that included the lawyer's name and contact information, her areas of practice along with a list of flat rate attorneys' fees for five basic types of legal representations. For example, a simple, uncontested divorce without a custody issue was advertised at a flat fee of $2,500. The lawyer used the advertisement and it was extremely successful in attracting many new clients. The lawyer paid the public relations agency $10,000 plus $500 every time the advertisement appeared in a newspaper. Was it permissible for the lawyer to advertise her services in this newspaper advertisement under the Model Rules?

Yes, the newspaper advertisement was protected by the first amendment right of the lawyer to advertise and right of prospective clients to obtain information about legal services. Correct. Under Model Rule 7.2, lawyers may advertise in public media. This advertisement is similar to the one tested in the Supreme Court's case in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). The advertisement is protected by the first amendment. Lawyers have a right to advertise their services and prospective clients have a right to obtain information about legal services. Some regulation is permissible, but it must focus on preventing advertisements that pose risk of harm to the public. The payment to the public relations agency is a reasonable cost of an advertisement permitted under Rule 7.2(b)(1) that does not tie the payment to the legal fees earned by the law firm.

attorney represents defendant in a murder trial that began yesterday. one hour before attorney is to begin presenting the defendant's case, defendant tells attorney that he wants to testify and that he will present a false alibi. which of the following possible courses of conduct by attorney is not advocated as ethically proper by a significant portion of the bar?

attorney may refuse to call defendant as a witness. in other words, the lawyer will stay in the case and will exercise the unilateral decision not to let the client take the stand.

A law firm accepted the representation of Defendant in a breach of contract action. Plaintiff, a large publicly held company, sued the Defendant on the grounds that Defendant failed to honor the contractual provisions. Attorney for Defendant performed a conflicts of interest check and did not discover any conflict. Six months later, and after $100,000 in legal fees had been billed to the Defendant, Attorney discovered that an Associated in the firm wonder $1 million of the stock in the Plaintiff. Associate worked in the litigation department and was involved in this case by writing several memos relating to a motion for summary judgement. The stock constituted over half of the Associate's portfolio. Attorney decided not to disclose the conflict to Defendant. Six months later, the case settled and defendant was extremely pleased with the outcome. Was the attorney's conduct proper after discovery of the associate's stock ownership under the model rules?

no, because attorney did not disclose the conflict to defendant, did not make an independent determination that the firm could competently and diligently conduct the representation, and did not obtain Defendant's informed confirmed in writing.

assume the same facts as in question 19, except that during the common representation, buyer informs attorney that he is short $5,000 in closing the deal. buyer proposes that seller accept a post-dated check because he lacks the funds to close on the property. lawyer begins to try to tell the seller about the risks and seller tells lawyer, "we already have a deal, write up the agreement to sell" lawyers does so. was the lawyer's conduct in compliance with the model rules?

no, because attorney did not withdraw after the buyer had informed him that he did not have enough money to buy the house

attorney represents bill, an apprentice electrician, in a lawsuit against his employer for breach of contract. the case is pending and bill owed attorney fees for back services to the extent of $50,000. attorney is asked by a plaintiff who was injured in an electrocution accident to sure bill for negligence in wiring a house where plaintiff was staying for a few days. attorney possesses no information from the breach of contract action that is related to the negligence action. attorney accepts the plaintiff's case against bill without informing bill. was attorney's conduct in compliance with the model rules?

no, because attorney was suing a current client for negligence

attorney represents bank on a regular basis. the bank holds several accounts of the largest law firm in the city. attorney approaches bank and asks bank to open a business account in the attorney's name. attorney also opened a client trust account in bank. bank offered attorney the same terms that it offered to all other commercial customers. attorney did not advise bank to obtain separate counsel, nor did attorney advise bank that it may be a conflict of interest to hold the attorney's funds. the agreement was reduced to writing. did the attorney violate the model rules?

no, because bank held attorney's funds on the same terms as it did for other commercial clients

a lawyer, darrow, attends a party and a person (Bill) walks up to the Darrow and asks for legal advice about a situation. the situation involves Bill's participation in a past and completed fraud against a closely held business partnership. many of the individuals at the party saw Bill and Darrow speaking in a corner, but they could not overhear specific information. darrow listened to bill and gave some advice as to how he would handle part of the case. bill agreed to send darrow a check for $150, but he never sent the check and bill hired another lawyer to represent him in the matter. two weeks later, bill was sued by the other parties to the venture and the claim is fraud on the entity. the plaintiff's lawyer seeks to depose darrow. must darrow testify at the deposition and disclose the contents of the conversation that occurred at the party with Bill?

no, because bill's communications to darrow were protected by the attorney-client privilege.

an associate worked at a law firm in AAA for three years in the litigation department. the associate wrote one memo for the plaintiff in a litigation matter. the memo was about the taxability of settlement proceeds received in litigation. this issue involved a confidence of the plaintiff but it was unlikely to help the defendant in this case. the associate leaves firm AAA and moves to firm BBB, a law firm who is representing the defendant in the plaintiff defendant litigation. Firm BBB tells the associate not to work on this case and they inform the defendant about the limitations. the associate will not receive any fees from tis litigation. the plaintiff moves to disqualify firm BBB from representing the defendant because of the associate's membership in the BBB firm. Is the BBB firm subject to disqualification on these facts under the model rules?

no, because the confidential information may not help the defendant in this litigation.

a litigator in a law firm encountered a potential conflict in a matter that was in the middle of trill. if the problem was found to be a conflict of interest, the litigator would be disqualified immediately from the trial. the litigator discussed the conflict with the conflicts committee and also with an outside lawyer expert in legal ethics. all sources pointed to the fact that the issue was not a conflict requiring disclosure and consent. thus, the litigate did not inform the client about the issue of is consultations. was the litigator subject to discipline for his conduct in addressing the potential conflict under the model rules?

no, because the disclosures of information to the in-house and outside ethics lawyers were needed to assure compliance with the ethics rules.

a lawyer attended a cocktail party and met a man who asked the lawyer for advice about how to file his immigration papers. the lawyer spoke with the man for a twenty minute period and they agreed that the lawyer would help her new client file the papers. as the evening progressed, the two developed a strong attraction for each other. within a week after this party, the lawyer and the man commenced a sexual relationship with each other. at first, the lawyer resisted, but the man asked her not to worry, it was a completely consensual relationship. a month later, the lawyer successfully represented the client in filing immigration papers. was the lawyer's conduct in compliance with the model rules?

no, because the personal relationship commenced after the attorney-client relationship had begun

a woman who was worth $100M dollars asked a lawyer to draft for her disposition of property. the lawyer explained that a will to minimize taxes and properly handle an estate of this size would cost $30,000. the woman asked the lawyer to prepare a will for under $1500. although many lawyers draft wills that cost under $1500, few if any lawyers would recommend that a person of such wealth use such a will. the size of the estate requires greater care and sophistication. the woman who is highly sophisticated in business and legal matters, directed the lawyer to prepare a $1500 will. she agreed to waive all claims that she or her estate may have against the lawyer. should the lawyer accept this representation?

no, because this limitation in the scope of the representation is unreasonable

a law firm represents a bank client in its lending and foreclosure work and a parts manufacturer in its intellectual property work. years ago, the bank gave the parts manufacturer a loan for a building and now the parts manufacturer can no longer make its loan payments. the bank asks the law firm to represent it against the parts manufacturer in a foreclosure action. what should the law firm duo?

obtain informed consent confirmed in writing from both the bank and the parts manufacturer before going forward with the foreclosure case.

a lawyer represents three investors who are forming a partnership. the lawyer meets with three investors for about 30 minutes, does not receive any confidential information, and forms a partnership under state law for $500. after the entity is formed, how many clients does the lawyer have assuming the jurisdiction has adopted the retroactive entity theory?

one client, the partnership, from the beginning

a lawyer drafted a partnership agreement for three partners. the lawyer did not represent the partners or the partnership in any ongoing matters. a dispute arose years later, and the lawyer was contacted about his role in drafting the partnership agreement. in a deposition, the lawyer for the managing partner called the lawyer for testimony about what one of the other partners had said during the drafting process. this testimony would require that the lawyer disclose a confidence that the partner had told him in a short recess during the drafting process. will the lawyer have to testify about confidences provided to him by one of the partners?

yes, because any of the partners can waive the attorney-client privilege and force the lawyer to disclose confidences of the multiple clients

attorney represents three plaintiffs against an oil company for polluting the groundwater near the homes of the plaintiffs. this case is not a class action. attorney decided against filing a class action because there were only 5 or 6 more homeowners affected by the pollution. the defendant oil company makes an aggregate settlement offer of $150,00 to client a $250,000 to client b, and $75,000 to client c. the defendant's offer is dependent upon all parties accepting their amount in settlement of the claim. these figures were determined by examining the age and fair market value of the homes. attorney meets with each of his clients separately and informs them only of their specific dollar amount of settlement offer, and not the offers made to the other clients. the clients were so happy that they did not inquire about the offers made to the other clients. attorney accepted the settlement and the clients were satisfied with the attorney's performance. attorney also believed that this was a just and fair settlement offer on the client's behalf. did attorney violate the rights of the clients by accepting the arrangement under the model rules?

yes, because attorney did not inform the clients of the settlement offers made to the other clients and allow the to accept or reject their settlement in light of this information

a government lawyer drafter a regulation while in public service. the lawyer then decided to leave government and joins a private law firm. the government agency that employed the former government lawyer has no time limit bans for former employees. the lawyer while in practice is employed by a client who wants the lawyer to narrowly interpret the regulation that the lawyer drafted while in government. may the lawyer reinterpret a regulation in private practice that he drafted for a government agency while in government practice?

yes, because drafting a regulation does not involve the representation of the government in a matter.

two law school classmates met at a reunion decades after graduating from law school. one of them had become a prosecutor and the other one had become a corporate lawyer. the prosecutor told the corporate lawyer that he was terminally ill with cancer. he told the friend that he only had one regret about his legal career. years ago, the prosecutor had fabricated some evidence so that he could obtain a conviction in a murder case. the prosecutor told the corporate lawyer that this defendant was on death row but unlikely to be executed. the corporate lawyer checked to determine whether the defendant was still on death row. he delated one year in informing the court or the bar about the misconduct of the prosecutor. during that year, the prosecutor had died. the disclosure ultimately led to the exoneration of the defendant in that case. is the corporate lawyer subject to discipline?

yes, because he failed to disclose the prosecutor's misconduct in a timely manner

a law firm represents banks before state and federal regulatory agencies. the firm has a long standing client, BankUSA, which it has represented for thirty years. a smaller bank, banktexas approached the firm to represent it in all of its matter before the texas banking regulators. banks and banktexas are competitors and are likely to be involved in a dispute over a discrete issue involving international banking. congress will consider within the next year a renewal of a statute that authorizes alliances with international banks. bankusa supports the renewal, while banktexas opposes it. the law firm discloses the potential conflict that may require it to represent bankusa and oppose banktexas as long as banktexas will consent to the future conflict of interest. the law firm held several meetings with banktexas executives. and, it outlined the risks of the consent to this future dispute. the law firm agreed to create two separate legal terms to work on each of teh banks' matters and to screen the information from each team so as to protect confidences. the firm encouraged banktexas to seek the advice of another lawyer and, if they so desire, to consent to allow the firm to represent bankusa in this international alliance dispute. banktexas consented in writing to the conflict and the law firm eventually represented bankusa against the interests of banktexas. was the law firm's conduct in compliance with the model rules?

yes, because the future conflict was discrete and the risks were known and understandable to the sophisticated client, banktexas

player, a college football player, was arrested for allegedly fixing a game as part of a gambling operation. this conduct would constitute a crime if proven. player called lawyer, a famous criminal defense lawyer, to represent him in the criminal case. lawyer demanded a $20,000 retainer and Player told Lawyer that he did not have the funds. But Player said, "If I can beat this rap, I will have millions." Lawyer offered the following arrangement: Player would sign a $100,000 fee agreement, but if the Player is convicted, nothing would be owed to the Lawyer. The $100,000 is a reasonable fee for this type of case. the lawyer memorialized the agreement in writing. lawyer warned player that he should go see another lawyer about this agreement. lawyer also told player, after the case is over, you should consider writing a book about this case. did lawyer violate the model rules?

yes, because the lawyer entered into a contingent fee with the player.

a lawyer represented a plaintiff in a personal injury case in a standard 40% contingent fee case. the plaintiff was injured and could not work and thus he quickly ran short of funds to pay his rent. the lawyer offered to give the indigent client $10,000 if the client agreed to give the payment for the purchase of a derivative, one that is calculated based upon 2% of the net outcome of the case. the client agreed. the lawyer met all aspects of model rule 1.8(a) in this business transaction with a client. is the lawyer subject to discipline?

yes, because the lawyer obtained a proprietary interest in the matter in which the lawyer was a litigating attorney.

a client informed a lawyer that she intended to commit suicide and she wanted the lawyer to put her legal affairs in order. the lawyer reasonably believed that the client was likely to go through with this action. suicide is not a crime in this state. and, the client has asked the lawyer specifically not to disclose this information to others. may the lawyer disclose this information to the clients doctor, who is the person most likely to be able to prevent the suicide?

yes, because the lawyer possesses confidential information that the client may act in such a way to commit an act involving reasonable certain death

the ABC law firm had a state tax department with one partner and two associates. one day, the state tax department announced that the three lawyers in the section would be leaving and forming their own law firm. a letter was sent out to all clients informing them that they were welcome to choose either the old firm or the new firm. all clients choose the new firm and the ABC firm transferred all files to the new firm. no person continuing to work in the ABC firm worked on state tax matters and the possessed no information about the clients of the former state tax sections. one year later, the state treasury department sought to hire the ABC law firm in order to audit private clients on state tax matters including the former clients of the ABC law firm state tax department. all of these former clients were clients of the state tax section and no current ABC lawyers worked on these client matters and the firm currently possesses no information from the former representations. may the ABC law firm accept the representation of the state treasury?

yes, since ABC may accept current matters adverse to the interests of its former clients because the state tax department left the firm and the firm does not have any information about the former representations.