346-445

An attorney had a license to practice law in two jurisdictions - his home state where he lived and had his primary office, and a neighboring state where he represented several clients each year. The attorney committed serious professional misconduct in his home state and received a public reprimand from the state disciplinary authorities. All the conduct took place in his home state, the client resided in the state, and the representation took place entirely within his home state. The lawyer's conduct would have violated the rules in either of the jurisdictions where he had a license to practice law, because it involved commingling client funds with his own money, and the states mostly had identical rules concerning this activity. After the attorney received a public reprimand in his home state, where the misconduct occurred, the state bar disciplinary authority in the neighboring state (where he also practiced) then commenced disciplinary proceedings against him as well. In the end, the neighboring state bar suspended his license for six months in that state, a much more severe sanction than the public reprimand he received in his home state, where the misconduct in fact occurred. The attorney claims that the neighboring state bar has no jurisdiction over conduct that occurred entirely outside of the state. He also objects that the second punishment raises double jeopardy concerns. Is the attorney correct? a) Yes, because even in cases where a second state can administer discipline over the same conduct, double jeopardy rules prevent the second tribunal from imposing a more severe sanction than the first tribunal already imposed on the lawyer. b) Yes, because a lawyer cannot be subject to the disciplinary authority of two jurisdictions for the same conduct if it occurred entirely within one state. c) No, because a lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of two jurisdictions for the same conduct and may receive different sanctions in each state. d) No, because choice of law rules require that each state impose the same sanction.

No, because a lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of two jurisdictions for the same conduct and may receive different sanctions in each state.

An attorney spends about one hour per week, on Monday mornings, calling local small business proprietors who routinely hire lawyers for lease and contract issues, and offers over the phone to provide legal services to them for a competitive (that is, low) fee. Does this activity by the attorney violate the Model Rules? a) Yes, because the attorney is soliciting professional employment by live person-to- person contact via telephone. b) Yes, because the attorney is offering to represent prospective clients at a lower fee than some of the other lawyers in the area. c) No, because the attorney spends only one hour per week on this activity, which falls under the de minimis exception. d) No, because the attorney is calling individuals who routinely use for business purposes the type of legal services offered by the lawyer.

No, because the attorney is calling individuals who routinely use for business purposes the type of legal services offered by the lawyer

. Which of the following statements, made publicly by an attorney, would violate Model Rule 8.2? a) A lawyer accused a judge of anti-Semitism, for which the lawyer had adequate factual support and documentation.3 b) A lawyer speculated to a reporter that a judge was "not being honest about the reasons why he committed [a defendant] to the Department of Corrections"4 c) A lawyer referred to a judge as "dishonorable" and a "brainless coward"5 d) A lawyer criticized a judge's ruling by saying it was "incoherent" and "wrongly decided."6

A lawyer speculated to a reporter that a judge was "not being honest about the reasons why he committed [a defendant] to the Department of Corrections"

An attorney obtained a license to practice law in the state where she attended law school. After a few years, the attorney took a job in a neighboring state, moved there, and obtained a license to practice law in her new state. She kept her original license, in her former state, but went on inactive status there to avoid the burdensome annual bar membership fees in a state where she no longer practiced. Eventually, her new firm loses its anchor clients and recommends that the attorney drum up some new business among her former clients. Then the attorney sends letters to all her former clients in her former state, offering to represent them in any new legal matters they have, or in updating wills or contracts that she previously did for them. She travels about once per week to her home state and meets with clients in a library study room at the law school she attended. A few of her former clients refer her to friends or relatives who become new clients, and the attorney's new employer is thrilled. Which of the following is true? a) The attorney is subject to discipline for practicing law in her home state while on inactive status, but her supervising lawyer is not subject to discipline because she had a license in that state when he hired her. b) Neither the attorney nor her supervising lawyer would be subject to discipline because she merely went on inactive status in the other state, but she still holds her license there. c) Only the supervising lawyer is subject to discipline because he encouraged his subordinate to solicit out-of-state clients in a state where he is unlicensed, but the attorney can still practice law there. d) Both the attorney and her supervising lawyer are subject to discipline because she is on inactive status in her home state but is soliciting clients and handling their matters there regularly.

Both the attorney and her supervising lawyer are subject to discipline because she is on inactive status in her home state but is soliciting clients and handling their matters there regularly

. An attorney has expertise in launching new businesses. His undergraduate major was entrepreneurship, and he has numerous connections among investment bankers, and venture capitalists in the area. Entrepreneurs seek him out to incorporate their new businesses and help them find loans and equity investors for startup. The attorney drafts articles of incorporation and bylaws. He handles name registration with the Secretary of State, arranges meetings with local commercial bankers and investors, and helps write business plans and market analysis in anticipation of these meetings. Which of the following is true regarding the attorney's activities? a) Both the legal services (incorporating) and the law-related related services (writing business plans and arranging investor meetings) would be subject to the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct. b) It is improper for the attorney to provide both the legal services and the law-related services. c) The legal services (incorporating) would be subject to the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct, but the law-related related services (writing business plans and arranging investor meetings) are not subject to the Rules. d) Only the law-related related services (writing business plans and arranging investor meetings would be subject to the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and not the legal services (incorporating).

Both the legal services (incorporating) and the law-related related services (writing business plans and arranging investor meetings) would be subject to the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct

. An experienced attorney has an office in State X, and she is duly licensed to practice law in that state. The attorney's office is in a city on the border of State Y, and the attorney does not have a license to practice there. Over the years, some of the attorney's clients have in fact been residents of State Y, and their legal issues sometimes involve research into the laws or judicial precedents of State Y. For the convenience of these clients, and to attract business of other clients there, the attorney rents a small office space, hires nonlawyer clerical staff, and otherwise prepares premises for the general practice of law at a branch-office location in State Y. Is it permissible for the attorney to open the branch office in State Y? a) It is permissible because she is doing so primarily for the convenience of clients whom she is already representing in the state where she has a law license. b) It is impermissible because she does not have a license to practice in State Y and she has established an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law. c) It is permissible because the Supreme Court has held that the privileges and immunities clause should permit lawyers to practice across state lines. d) It is impermissible because the new office does not have any lawyers on staff there, and she will not be able to provide competent, diligent representation in two places at the same time.

It is impermissible because she does not have a license to practice in State Y and she has established an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law

. An attorney represented a plaintiff in a wrongful death case arising out of a prison riot, which included many claims and crossclaims. The case ended in settlement. The defendant's settlement offer included two conditions: first, the commonplace requirement that the attorney and client not disclose the amount of the settlement; and second, that the attorney give defendant counsel her entire file to keep under seal, meaning the attorney could not keep copies of her own work product in the case. She would have to turn over her own personal notes and internal memoranda in the file from her interns and associates. Would it be proper for the attorney to agree to this as a condition of a large monetary settlement for her client? a) Yes, because turning over the file from one completed case places no restrictions on a lawyer's future practice of law. b) Yes, because it is in the best interest of the client to accept the settlement, and work product from one case would have no value in future unrelated cases. c) No, because it violates the Model Rules to keep a file under seal. d) No because forfeiting the attorney's own work product in the case could restrict her future practice of law in similar cases.

No because forfeiting the attorney's own work product in the case could restrict her future practice of law in similar cases.

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

No, because a lawyer may not agree to refer clients to another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional, in return for the undertaking of that person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer if the relationship is exclusive.

An attorney agrees to buy the successful law firm of a fellow lawyer who recently succumbed to terminal cancer. The sale includes the office building, the library and furnishings, and the good will of the firm, and conforms to the provisions of Rule 1.7. The purchasing attorney pays $100,000, the agreed-upon purchase price, to the executor of the deceased lawyer's estate, but the executor is not a lawyer. The funds for the purchase came from the contingent fees in a recent personal injury case won by the purchasing attorney. Was this transaction improper? a) Yes, because the attorney is sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, the executor. b) Yes, because the funds for the purchase came from a contingent-fee case. c) No, because an attorney purchasing the firm of a deceased lawyer may pay the executor the agreed-upon purchase price. d) No, because even a nonlawyer executor of a firm functions temporarily in the role of a lawyer for purposes of the Model Rules.

No, because an attorney purchasing the firm of a deceased lawyer may pay the executor the agreed-upon purchase price.

. A husband and wife are both attorneys in Puerto Rico, though they attended law school in Florida. They have practiced in Puerto Rico for ten years and have a license to practice there. Last year, they moved to Florida, where the wife took the state bar exam and gained admission to the Florida bar. They have now opened a law office in Florida with both of their names listed on the firm letterhead, followed by the phrase "Attorneys at Law." The husband confines his practice exclusively to Puerto Rican clients who are living in Florida or are visiting there; the wife handles all other legal matters. It is proper for them to use such letterhead? a) Yes, because Puerto Ricans are U.S. Citizens, and they both attended an American law school. b) Yes, because the husband confines his practice to Puerto Rican immigrants and visitors, whom he would be able to represent if they were back in Puerto Rico. c) No, because the letterhead reveals that the wife is aiding her husband in the unauthorized practice of law. d) No, because identifying themselves as law firm partners is misleading, and does not apprise readers to the fact that they are indeed married.

No, because the letterhead reveals that the wife is aiding her husband in the unauthorized practice of law

Attorney McLemore grew up in a family that spoke the Witchita language in the home. Her law practice advertisements prominently stated that she spoke Witchita, and that she can represent Witchita-speaking clients. Unfortunately, Attorney McLemore was the last known native speaker of the Witchita language. Was it improper for Attorney McLemore to include this language ability in her advertisements? a) Yes, because it creates a misperception that the attorney is more knowledgeable than other lawyers in the area. b) Yes, because linguists who have studied the Witchita language, but who live in other states, might misunderstand, and believe that the attorney is admitted in their jurisdiction as well. c) No, because the statement is true. d) No, because the attorney has Free Speech rights to make any claim she wants in her public advertisements.

No, because the statement is true.

Big Bank routinely hired lawyers as outside counsel on various matters, and it required each one to sign an Outside Counsel Agreement (OCG) as part of its contract of engagement for legal representation. Big Bank's OCG included the following provision: Notwithstanding the rules and opinions set forth in ABA or state ethical opinions, regulations, or cases applicable to outside counsel, outside counsel agrees to treat Big Bank and all its subsidiaries as one entity for analyzing conflicts of interest. Big Bank will ordinarily give informed consent, confirmed in writing, to waive conflicts in transactional matters, whenever the bank's interests will not be impaired. For conflicts of interest, Big Bank shall include all organizations and entities delineated in the attached APPENDIX, which Big Bank may amend at any time. An attorney has an opportunity to work as outside counsel for Big Bank on a specific matter, but she is concerned about this provision. Would it be proper for the attorney to accept this OCG by contractual agreement? a) Yes, even though the OCG provision goes beyond the requirements of the Model Rules for conflicts screening, lawyers may contractually agree to such limitations on their practice. b) Yes, because the OCG provision merely reflects the duties already imposed on lawyers by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and similar state codes. c) No, because this agreement impermissibly restrains the attorney's right to practice. d) No, because the entities relevant for conflicts of interest screening must not be subject to change after the representation begins.

No, because this agreement impermissibly restrains the attorney's right to practice.

1 An attorney practiced as in-house counsel within Conglomerate Corporation. She learned of serious ethical misconduct there by a fellow employee who was also a licensed lawyer, but who was employed by the Conglomerate in a nonlegal position as a technical writer. Conglomerate does not have any liability or legal responsibility for the employee's misconduct, so the attorney is not approaching it as a liability concern for her corporate client. Would it be permissible for the attorney to refrain from reporting the employee's misconduct to the bar? a) Yes, because the fellow employee is not working as a lawyer or practicing law. b) Yes, these facts suggest that the misconduct took place outside the scope of the employee's duties at Conglomerate, and the attorney's duty is to her client, the corporation. c) No, if a lawyer knows of professional misconduct of another licensed lawyer, even a non-practicing lawyer, must report it where it raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. d) No, all violations of the Model Rules are reportable events under Rule 8.3.

No, if a lawyer knows of professional misconduct of another licensed lawyer, even a non-practicing lawyer, must report it where it raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

Big Firm engages in aggressive affirmative action in its hiring. It runs ads soliciting applications from minorities and women, and even though they sometimes interview non- minority applicants, they have decided internally to hire only women and minorities for the next five years. Currently, anti-discrimination laws would not require such a practice. Has the firm violated the MRPC? a) Yes, the firm is practicing discrimination in its hiring by favoring minorities and women over others. b) Yes, substantive law of antidiscrimination absolutely forbids interviewing candidates and then not hiring them based on race or gender. c) No, the Model Rules do not apply to hiring practices or other law firm management matters. d) No, lawyers may implement initiatives aimed at recruiting, hiring, retaining, and advancing diverse employees without violating the Model Rules.

No, lawyers may implement initiatives aimed at recruiting, hiring, retaining, and advancing diverse employees without violating the Model Rules

An attorney worked with a partner who developed a chronic debilitating medical condition. Eventually, the condition materially impaired the partner's ability to practice law, but the partner could not cope with giving up on her career, and she kept practicing. She began to miss court deadlines, to forget to make certain filings to complete transactions, and not to follow through to perform agreed-upon tasks. Under Model Rule 1.16, the partner had a duty to decline or withdraw from representation for clients, at least for the more challenging tasks. On the other hand, up to now no clients had suffered serious prejudice to their legal interests or claims because of these mistakes. Does the attorney who observes these developments have a duty to report her partner for misconduct under Rule 8.3? a) Yes, all violations of the Model Rules are reportable events under Rule 8.3. b) Yes, the partner's lack of fitness has evidenced itself through a pattern of conduct that makes clear the lawyer is not meeting her obligations under the Model Rules. c) No, mandatory reporting under Rule 8.3 pertains to the attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, and character in other respects. d) No, Rule 8.3 makes reporting on one's partners only advisory, not mandatory.

No, mandatory reporting under Rule 8.3 pertains to the attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, and character in other respects

An attorney worked as in-house counsel at Conglomerate Corporation. Her employment agreement with Conglomerate Corporation that she would not, following her employment there, represent any client in litigation against Conglomerate. General Counsel for Conglomerate maintained that this was necessary to prevent lawyers who left there from using confidential information they learned during their time at Conglomerate against the company in litigation thereafter. In other words, the contractual provision merely mirrored the duties a lawyer in that situation would have under the conflicts of interest rules. Would this agreement be enforceable, if the attorney left Conglomerate Corporation and then represented a client who had a contract claim against the company? a) Yes, because the agreement could be binding as a matter of contract law, even if it somehow violated the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. b) Yes, because the agreement does not restrict the attorney's ability to practice law or represent clients, it merely reflects the conflict of interest rules that prohibit a lawyer from switching sides in litigation. c) No, the agreement places an impermissible restriction on the attorney's ability to practice law, and it goes beyond the constraints of the conflict of interest rules. d) No, because the agreement was between two lawyers, and the future client was not a party to the contract.

No, the agreement places an impermissible restriction on the attorney's ability to practice law, and it goes beyond the constraints of the conflict of interest rules.

After a long, distinguished career as a solo practitioner in a major city, an elderly attorney agrees to join a newer law firm on the condition that the firm would pay $1000 per month after the attorney's death to his sister, who is 74 years old, until her death. The attorney's sister is not a lawyer. The firm agrees to this arrangement, in addition to making the attorney a partner with a 15% share in the firm. Is this arrangement proper? a) Yes, because it is the payment of money over a reasonable period after the lawyer's death to a specified person. b) Yes, because the Contracts Clause of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of contract, so lawyers and firms can make whatever compensation arrangements they want. c) No, because the sister is not a lawyer and therefore cannot share in the legal fees received by the firm. d) No, because payments that continue until the sister's death could go on indefinitely, and this goes beyond the Model Rules' stipulation of "a reasonable period of time."

Yes, because it is the payment of money over a reasonable period after the lawyer's death to a specified person

An attorney agrees to join a new firm as one of its shareholders, and to merge his practice with that of the new firm. The shareholder agreement includes a provision that if the attorney retires from the firm and begins collecting the firm's retirement benefits, he cannot practice law with another firm, government entity, or as a solo practitioner. Otherwise, the agreement stipulates, the attorney will forfeit the retirement benefits. The firm is concerned that the attorney will want to represent clients occasionally in his retirement, and that he may steal some clients from the firm. Is this agreement proper? a) No, because prohibiting a lawyer from practicing after retiring from the firm is a restriction on the right of the lawyer to practice, in violation of the Model Rules. b) No, because the intent is to keep the attorney from "poaching" clients, and thus limits the freedom of clients to choose a lawyer. c) Yes, because the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution would prohibit a state from restricting the right for a lawyer to include certain contract provisions in a sale agreement. d) Yes, because the rule against restrictions on the right to practice have an exception for agreements concerning benefits upon retirement.

Yes, because the rule against restrictions on the right to practice have an exception for agreements concerning benefits upon retirement

An attorney represented criminal defendants, and he received court appointments for indigent defendants. Some of the court appointments he received were female clients. The attorney had a crude sense of humor, and he often made crude sexual jokes to his female clients, complimented them on their bodies, and half-jokingly made sexual advances or requested sexual favors. The clients normally brushed off these comments, even though they later reported that they felt uncomfortable. None of the clients complained to the court or filed charges with the police for harassment. Could the attorney be subject to disciple and face suspension for these comments and jokes? a) Yes, because indigent defendants who receive a court-appointed lawyer are likely to resent inappropriate humor from their lawyer. b) Yes, because these comments can constitute sexual harassment and could be prejudicial to the administration of justice. c) No, because the Model Rules forbid actual sexual relationships with clients, but not sexual joking or suggestive comments. d) No, because the clients were not upset enough to complain to the court or the police about the comments.

Yes, because these comments can constitute sexual harassment and could be prejudicial to the administration of justice

An attorney represented a small business owner in litigation against a former employee, who was a Canadian immigrant. During the bench trial, the attorney cross-examined the former employee on the witness stand, and after two of her answers turned to the judge and asked, "Are you going to believe an alien or a U.S. Citizen?" Could the attorney be subject to suspension for these comments? a) No, because this is a bench trial, and there is less risk of the attorney's inflammatory rhetoric being prejudicial to the outcome of the trial. b) No, because citizenship is a valid, though not dispositive, consideration when evaluating a witness's reliability and truthfulness. c) Yes, because the attorney questioned the credibility of a witness during her cross- examination, rather than during closing argument. d) Yes, because this is discrimination based on national origin.

Yes, because this is discrimination based on national origin.

. Conglomerate Corporation has a rule for in its legal department against "side hustles," that is, its lawyers working cases for private clients on the side, even on a pro bono basis. The rule, which it embodied in its employment contract with all the in- house attorneys who work there, became a policy there when General Counsel was targeting a certain employee in the legal department, for purely personal reasons, and needed to create an excuse to fire the lawyer. Is this rule proper? a) Yes, it is a universally recognized exception to the rule against restrictions on lawyer's right to practice law that corporate legal departments can require that in-house counsel confine their entire practice of law to the organization's legal affairs. b) Yes, because the employer is not a law firm; it is a regular corporation with a department of in- house counsel. c) No, because it places an impermissible restriction on the lawyers' right to practice law. d) No, because it became a policy merely as a pretext for General Counsel to target an individual with whom he had an interpersonal problem.

Yes, it is a universally recognized exception to the rule against restrictions on lawyer's right to practice law that corporate legal departments can require that in-house counsel confine their entire practice of law to the organization's legal affairs

Which of the following statements, made publicly by an attorney, would be impermissible under Model Rule 8.2? a) A lawyer's motion for new trial claiming judge's gestures and expressions demonstrated bias b) A lawyer's statements that judges in his state were "not learned in the law" and were "laughed at" throughout country c) A lawyer's statement implying the judge must have been thinking primarily about the political ramifications of his ruling9 d) A lawyer's letter stating that the way in which the legislative ethics commission conducted its proceedings "gave cause for some to speculate that the deck was stacked," when the lawyer had factual evidence to support the accusation. 1

A lawyer's statement implying the judge must have been thinking primarily about the political ramifications of his ruling

An attorney practices corporate securities law in a Wall Street firm. The attorney is also one of three owners of a financial forecasting consulting firm, Trends Tomorrow, which employs several well- known economists and financial analysts. The attorney refers clients to this firm when they need consultants to advise them about the timing of new stock offerings, projections for share price and profit forecasts, and so on. The attorney duly discloses to clients before referring them that she is a part owner of the consulting firm and that they are free to shop around and hire other consultants if they prefer; she also explains that the Trends Tomorrow is not a law firm and provides only financial forecasting services. Trends Tomorrow is in the building next door to the attorney's Wall Street firm, and when clients go there, Trends Tomorrow explains as part of their service contract that they provide no legal services. Eventually, complaints emerge that Trends Tomorrow has been leaking confidential client information to the press, and that the consulting firm has potential conflicts of interest, advising competing clients about strategies to encroach on one another's' market share. The attorney faces disciplinary charges for these violations, but the attorney claims that the complaining clients need to show that the disclosures provided were inadequate to apprise them of the fact that the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers would not apply to Trends Tomorrow. Who has the burden of proof on this issue? a) Clients have the burden of proof to show that the lawyer failed to take reasonable measures to ensure that clients had adequate information about the inapplicability of the Rules of Professional Conduct. b) Attorney has the burden of proof to show that the lawyer has taken reasonable measures under the circumstances to communicate the desired understanding. c) The burden is on the disciplinary authority to show that the lawyer failed to take reasonable measures to ensure that clients had adequate information about the inapplicability of the Rules of Professional Conduct. d) The burden is on the press to show that the lawyer failed to take reasonable measures to ensure that clients had adequate information about the inapplicability of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Attorney has the burden of proof to show that the lawyer has taken reasonable measures under the circumstances to communicate the desired understanding.

An experienced attorney has an office in State X, and she is duly licensed to practice law in that state. The attorney's office is in a city on the border of State Y, and the attorney does not have a license to practice there. The attorney represents a regulated utility, which operates a power plant in State X near the border with State Y. The attorney's representation of the utility mostly pertains to environmental issues, obtaining necessary permits, and complying with federal and state regulations of utilities. Occasionally, the utility also has issues relating to compliance with the environmental and permitting laws of State Y because of those same activities. Is it permissible for the attorney to travel to State Y to deal with governmental officials regarding regulatory issues arising out of the utility's activities? a) It is impermissible because the attorney is practicing law without a license in State Y. b) It is impermissible because if the attorney represents one client in some matters in State Y, she must be available to represent any other within State Y who have the same legal issues there. c) It is permissible because the legal issues arise out of or relate closely to the attorney's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice. d) It is permissible because the Supreme Court has held that the privileges and immunities clause should permit lawyers to practice across state lines.

It is permissible because the legal issues arise out of or relate closely to the attorney's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice

. An experienced attorney has an office in State X, and she is duly licensed to practice law in that state. The attorney's office is in a city on the border of State Y, and the attorney does not have a license to practice there. The attorney represents a regulated utility, which operates a power plant in State X near the border with State Y. The attorney's original work for the utility in State X related to rate-setting proceedings before a utility commission in that state, and before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). New legislative changes now permit the utility to make retail sales of electricity to consumers in multiple states. Given the attorney's extensive knowledge of the utility's rate-related financial information, the utility asks the attorney to handle its new rate applications in several other states, but in none of these states does the attorney have a license to practice law. The attorney's work in those matters would frequently require her presence for legal activities in each of the other states until the new rate work is complete. Is it permissible for the attorney to conduct those activities in the other states on behalf of the utility? a) It is impermissible because if the attorney represents one client in some matters in State Y, she must be available to represent any other within State Y who have the same legal issues there. b) It is impermissible because the attorney is practicing law without a license in State Y. c) It is permissible because the Supreme Court has held that the privileges and immunities clause should permit lawyers to practice across state lines. d) It is permissible because the legal issues arise out of or relate to the attorney's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer has a license to practice.

It is permissible because the legal issues arise out of or relate to the attorney's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer has a license to practice

. An attorney could not find a full-time job after law school, so instead he works on a contract basis for other firms. The attorney also signs up with a legal temp-work agency, a company owned by nonlawyers that places lawyers in temporary assignments at law firms that need an extra associate on a short-term basis. Law firms contact the legal temp-work agency when they need lawyers for a special project or assignment, and the agency sends them several resumes from which to choose the temporary associates they want. Through this temp- work agency, the attorney receives a three-month assignment at Big Firm conducting document review as part of litigation discovery. The firm pays the attorney $75 per hour, and it pays the temp-work agency a placement fee of 7% on whatever the attorney earns. Big Firm, in turn, passes the attorney's $100/hour fees and the 7% placement fee through to its clients as an item on the client's bill. Is this arrangement proper? a) It is proper for Big Firm to pay the placement fee to the agency, to pass the fees through to the clients, and to pay the attorney's hourly rate out of the fees it receives from clients. b) It is proper for Big Firm to hire the attorney on an hourly, short-term contract basis and to pass his fees through to the client, but it is improper for Big Firm to pay the temp-work agency a percentage, as this constitutes sharing legal fees with the nonlawyers who own the temp-work agency. c) It is proper for Big Firm to pay the attorney and the temp-work agency, but it is improper for Big Firm to pass the costs through to their clients. d) It is proper for Big Firm to pay a temp-work agency and to pass these costs through to the clients, but it is improper for the attorney to work on a case on an hourly-fee basis without becoming an associate at Big Firm.

It is proper for Big Firm to pay the placement fee to the agency, to pass the fees through to the clients, and to pay the attorney's hourly rate out of the fees it receives from clients

A client retains his attorney, who has represented the client in the past, to represent him in litigation in another state, where the attorney is unlicensed. The matter requires some knowledge of the law of the state where the trial will occur. His attorney files a pro hac vice appearance in the matter, which the local court accepts, and begins preparing for trial there. The attorney and the client never discuss the particulars of filing a pro hac vice appearance; nor did they discuss why it would be necessary. The client never asked if the attorney could practice law in the other jurisdiction, and the attorney never explained the licensing requirement and that he would need permission from the court there to handle the case. Then the attorney prevailed in the matter on behalf of the client, kept his agreed- upon contingent fee, and gave the client the remaining proceeds and unused retainer funds. Which of the following is true? a) The attorney is subject to discipline for accepting a contingent fee in a proceeding in another state where the attorney does not have a license to practice law. b) The attorney's conduct was proper, as the court accepted the pro hac vice appearance, and it made no difference to the client whether the attorney had a license to practice there on an ongoing basis or appeared only on a pro hac vice basis. c) The attorney's conduct was proper, assuming the attorney can acquire the necessary knowledge of local laws with a reasonable amount of study. d) It was improper for the attorney to fail to disclose to the client that he was unlicensed in the other state and would need to file a pro hac vice appearance, especially given that the matter required some knowledge of local laws.

It was improper for the attorney to fail to disclose to the client that he was unlicensed in the other state and would need to file a pro hac vice appearance, especially given that the matter required some knowledge of local law

A religious organization challenges on First Amendment grounds a local ordinance that requires all schools to provide gender-neutral restroom and locker room facilities. Would a lawyer who accepted representation of the organization violate Rule 8.4(g)? a) No, because Rule 8.4(g) would not apply at all while a lawyer is representing a religious organization. b) No, Rule 8.4(g) does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with the Model Rules, or preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with the Rules. c) Yes, because the lawyer is advocating for a position that represents hostility and discrimination against transgender students or visitors to the school. d) Yes, because Rule 8.4(g) limits the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation and precludes any advice or advocacy for causes that others might deem discriminatory.

No, Rule 8.4(g) does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with the Model Rules, or preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with the Rules

A lawyer participating as a speaker at a CLE program on affirmative action in higher education expresses the view that rather than using a race-conscious process in admitting minority students to prestigious colleges and universities, those students would be better off attending lower-ranked schools where they would be more likely to excel. Would the lawyer's remarks violate Rule 8.4(g)? a) No, a general point of view, even a controversial one, does not constitute harassment or discrimination as contemplated by Rule 8.4(g), even if others may find a lawyer's social or political views to be inaccurate, offensive, or upsetting, because this is not the type of harm required for a violation. b) No, a CLE presentation would not fall within Comment [3]'s description of what constitutes "conduct related to the practice of law," so the viewpoint expressed by the lawyer would not violate Rule 8.4(g). c) Yes, because the lawyer's remarks constitute "conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of . . . race." d) Yes, because Rule 8.4(g) forbids lawyers from holding such opinions, even if they do not express them in an offensive way.

No, a general point of view, even a controversial one, does not constitute harassment or discrimination as contemplated by Rule 8.4(g), even if others may find a lawyer's social or political views to be inaccurate, offensive, or upsetting, because this is not the type of harm required for a violation

An attorney advertised his firm's services on the printed paper placemats and drink coasters at a local diner. He also convinced the owner of the diner, for a fee, to let him hand ad posters for his firm over the urinals in the men's restroom. Has the attorney violated the Model Rules with these advertising activities? a) Yes, because the traditional rule is that lawyers may not demean the legal profession by advertising on placemats or drink coasters, much less in public restrooms. b) Yes, the attorney's ads over the restroom urinals demean the dignity of the legal profession, but the ads on the placemats and drink coasters are proper. c) No, a lawyer may communicate information regarding the lawyer's services through any media. d) No, because it would violate the First Amendment for states to have any restrictions, conditions, or regulations on lawyer advertising.

No, a lawyer may communicate information regarding the lawyer's services through any media

An attorney developed expertise regarding the area of legal ethics and legal malpractice. Another firm hired the attorney to testify as an expert in an adjudication about the reasonableness of the firm's fees. The attorney has testified as an expert regarding legal fees and legal ethics on several prior occasions. During his cross-examination by the lawyer representing the opposing party, the attorney had to answer questions that forced him to disclose some unfavorable information about the client of the firm that had hired him as an expert. The attorney did not object that the information was confidential or attempt to assert privilege; he answered the questions frankly and objectively. If he had been representing the client directly, the disclosures would have clearly violated his duty of confidentiality. The answers were a setback to the interests of the party that had hired him, and the lawyers and their client were upset. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for his actions while testifying as an expert witness? a) Yes, the lawyer had a duty to preserve the confidentiality of the client's information while testifying as an expert, as this is a law-related service. b) Yes, the lawyer had a client-lawyer relationship with the client while serving as an expert witness, and therefore should have asserted attorney-client privilege. c) No, a lawyer testifying as an expert is not providing law-related services and does not have a client-lawyer relationship with the party that has hired him. d) No, a lawyer testifying as an expert is not bound by any of the ethical duties pertaining to the practice of law.

No, a lawyer testifying as an expert is not providing law-related services and does not have a client-lawyer relationship with the party that has hired him

An attorney was running for judicial office. On her campaign website, she referred to herself as "Madame Justice," and depicted herself in traditional judicial robes, even though she had never held judicial office before. The statement and photo were impermissible under the state judicial code, but she was not yet a judge, and it did not violate the regular attorney advertising rules, as she was not soliciting or appealing to potential clients for her legal practice through the campaign website. Was it permissible for the attorney to include these statements and photos on her campaign website while running for judicial office? a) Yes, the code of judicial conduct did not yet apply to her if she was not yet a judge. b) Yes, if indeed attorney advertising rules were inapplicable to this website. c) No, because her statements undermine the integrity of the judiciary with a reckless disregard for the truth. d) No, a lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

No, a lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct

An attorney was running for a judicial office, a seat on the county court. She drafted, signed, and mailed a fundraising letter in her own name to local voters announcing her candidacy and asking for campaign contributions. The fundraising letter was typical, would normally have been legal if the attorney were running for the legislature or an executive branch office. The state's code of judicial conduct, however, forbid judges from engaging in direct fundraising. The state bar disciplinary authority brought a grievance against the attorney for violating the judicial code. The attorney objected that she was not yet a judge, but was merely seeking judicial office, and the code itself purports only to regulate the conduct of judges. In other words, she contends the judicial code does not apply to lawyers. Is the attorney correct? a) Yes, judicial codes hold judges to a much higher standard than would apply to practicing lawyers. b) Yes, moreover, the judicial code restraint on fundraising by judges violates the First Amendment guarantees of free speech. c) No, if some of the voters receiving the letter are the attorney's clients or prospective clients, this would constitute solicitation of a substantial gift from a client, in violation of Rule 1.8. d) No, a lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

No, a lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

An attorney works for a firm that handles residential real estate closings. The firm also provides title insurance, as part of the legal representation it offers to clients, but for an additional fee. Nonlawyers also provide title insurance in that state, for comparable prices. A prospective client met with the attorney for an initial consultation about their anticipated purchase of a home. Another client of the attorney's firm had referred the prospective client to the attorney. When the attorney mentioned that the firm would also provide title insurance for an additional fee, the prospective client asked if the person who had referred her to the attorney had obtained title insurance through the firm, and how much they had paid for it. Would it be permissible for the attorney to share this information with the prospective client without first obtaining the other client's consent? a) Yes, because the duty of confidentiality does not apply to services that a nonlawyer may perform without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, even if the services relate to legal transactions. b) Yes, when an existing client of a lawyer or firm refers another prospective client to the same lawyer or firm, the referring client impliedly authorizes the lawyer or firm to disclose confidential information about their representation to the prospective client. c) No, because it is impermissible in the first place for law firms to provide services that a nonlawyer could perform without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. d) No, because a lawyer is subject to the duty of confidentiality, as well as the other ethical rules, with respect to the provision of law-related services, that are not distinct from the lawyer's provision of legal services to clients.

No, because a lawyer is subject to the duty of confidentiality, as well as the other ethical rules, with respect to the provision of law-related services, that are not distinct from the lawyer's provision of legal services to clients

An attorney agreed to represent an applicant to the state bar - a recent law school graduate - in her hearing before the state bar admissions board, which had tentatively denied her application for making false statements on her bar application. The board formally requests the applicant and her attorney make full disclosures about the events in question to help resolve the matter. The client (bar applicant) explains the entire situation to her attorney, including some self-incriminatory information - it turned out that the applicant's misbehavior had been much more serious than the board was aware. The attorney did not disclose this latest information, which would have made it much clearer to the board that the applicant lacked the character and fitness to practice law. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for this action? a) Yes, because a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority. b) Yes, because the lawyer knows that the applicant indeed lacks the requisite integrity to be a lawyer. c) No, because a lawyer representing an applicant for admission to the bar, or a subject of a disciplinary action, comes under the rules applicable to the client-lawyer relationship, including the duty of confidentiality. d) No, because the state bar cannot ask other attorneys to disclose unfavorable information about third party applicants.

No, because a lawyer representing an applicant for admission to the bar, or a subject of a disciplinary action, comes under the rules applicable to the client-lawyer relationship, including the duty of confidentiality.

In his advertisements, an attorney, who practices in California, states, "CERTIFIED SPECIALIST IN CALIFORNIA LAW." The attorney is referring to the fact that he passed the California Bar Exam, not to any other official certification beyond admission to the California bar. According to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, is such a statement proper in a lawyer's advertisement? a) Yes, because a lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in specific fields of law. b) Yes, because passing a state's bar exam demonstrates enough expertise in the laws of that state to practice there as a lawyer. c) No, because a lawyer shall not state or imply that a lawyer is a certified specialist in a specific field of law without being a certified specialist by an official certifying organization in that state, and without including the name of the certifying organization in the advertisement. d) No, because under the Model Rules, lawyers should not claim to be "certified specialists" in anything.

No, because a lawyer shall not state or imply that a lawyer is a certified specialist in a specific field of law without being a certified specialist by an official certifying organization in that state, and without including the name of the certifying organization in the advertisement.

. An attorney specializes in helping his business clients obtain business loans from commercial lenders. While assisting one client in obtaining an unusually large commercial loan from Big Bank, the attorney noticed a clause in the loan contract by which the borrower promised that its attorney would not seek to obtain similar loans for other parties from Big Bank's primary market competitor in that state. The clause required evidence of a contractual agreement by the attorney - whether with Big Bank or with the client - to this effect. The client desperately needed the loan to survive a temporary downturn in its own industry, and the attorney could easily direct future clients to this same lender, Big Bank, to obtain loans on comparable terms to what the competitor bank offered. In fact, most of the attorney's clients ended up getting their financing through Big Bank, and only rarely had the attorney succeeded in securing loans for clients through the competitor. The contract provision seemed harmless to the attorney, though it would be enforceable. Is it proper for the attorney to sign off on these loan documents for this client, including this clause in the contract? a) Yes, because the attorney has a fiduciary duty to consider the client's best interests before the personal interests of the attorney or the attorney's potential future clients. b) Yes, because the bank is the party to the contract that includes the provision in question, not the attorney. c) No, because an attorney must not make an agreement restricting the attorney's right to practice. d) No, because the provision is clearly an illegal action against the competitor bank.

No, because an attorney must not make an agreement restricting the attorney's right to practice

A would-be judge asked his former law school classmate, a practicing lawyer, to write a recommendation letter for him as part of his application and vetting process for a judicial appointment. The attorney obliged and wrote a glowing recommendation, entirely favorable, even though he personally knew that his friend (the one seeking to be a judge) was an alcoholic. Was is proper for the attorney to write such a letter? a) Yes, assuming the attorney believes his friend will be a fair judge. b) Yes, because the attorney has no duty to disclose confidential information he knows about a friend. c) No, because assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons under consideration for appointment to judicial office, so expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice. d) No, because an attorney should not write a recommendation letter for a prospective judge if there is any chance that the attorney will someday appear in that judge's court representing a client.

No, because assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons under consideration for appointment to judicial office, so expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice

. An attorney brought a class action lawsuit against Conglomerate Corporation and was remarkably effective in her efforts, mostly because she was brilliant about forum shopping. After discovery, Conglomerate realized they needed to settle the case before trial. Conglomerate offered a very generous settlement to the plaintiff class, including the full amount sought as recovery in the pleadings, plus reasonable attorney's fees. Conditions of the settlement included a nondisclosure agreement about the terms of the settlement, and an agreement with this attorney limiting venue and forum options in future cases against Conglomerate brought by non-settling plaintiffs. The settlement imposed no other restraints on the attorney. Assume that the attorney did not care anymore about forum and venue, because she had learned enough about Conglomerate Corporation's activities that she thought she could easily win future cases in any court. Is this agreement proper, under the Model Rules? a) Yes, because it did not impose any restraint on the attorney's ability or right to practice law, but merely functioned as a forum selection clause in a contract. b) Yes, because the attorney knew that she could win future cases regardless of the forum or venue. c) No, because even limiting the attorney's ability to shop for forum or venue in future cases for other plaintiffs would be an impermissible restriction on the attorney's ability to practice law. d) No, because the plaintiff cannot agree to settlement conditions that might affect other plaintiffs who have not yet settled their claims.

No, because even limiting the attorney's ability to shop for forum or venue in future cases for other plaintiffs would be an impermissible restriction on the attorney's ability to practice law.

An attorney represented a plaintiff in a claim against Conglomerate Corporation and was remarkably effective in her efforts, mostly because she hired Professor Stevenson as an expert witness. After the deposition of Stevenson, Conglomerate realized they needed to settle the case before trial. Conglomerate offered a very generous settlement to the plaintiff, including the full amount the plaintiff sought as recovery in its pleadings, plus reasonable attorney's fees, and even some additional stock options in Conglomerate Corporation. Conditions of the settlement included a waiver and release of all the plaintiff's claims, including potential claims not part of this lawsuit, and an agreement by the attorney never to use Professor Stevenson again as an expert witness in a case against Conglomerate. The settlement imposed no other restraints on the attorney, and it did not restrain Professor Stevenson from serving as a fact witness (as opposed to expert) in the future. Assume for this question that Professor Stevenson is not a licensed attorney in this jurisdiction. Is this agreement proper, under the Model Rules? a) Yes, because it did not impose any restraint on the attorney's ability or right to practice law, but merely restricted a non-lawyer expert witness from testifying again against a specific defendant. b) Yes, because if the client exercised her stock options, the attorney would not be able to represent her in an action against Conglomerate again anyway, due to the conflict-of-interest rules, rendering moot any other restraints on the attorney's practice of law. c) No, because even limiting the attorney's ability to use a specific expert witness against this defendant would be an impermissible restriction on the attorney's ability to practice law. d) No, because the agreement includes a waiver and release of potential claims by the plaintiff that the lawyer has not yet brought, which would be an impermissible restraint on the attorney's freedom to practice law.

No, because even limiting the attorney's ability to use a specific expert witness against this defendant would be an impermissible restriction on the attorney's ability to practice law.

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

No, because in connection with a disciplinary matter, a lawyer must not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority

An attorney describes his areas of practice in his advertisements as "real estate" and "personal injury," but his state bar requires that lawyers use the less descriptive terms "property law" and "tort law" instead. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for using these more descriptive terms instead of the verbiage prescribed by the state bar? a) Yes, because states have an absolute right to place reasonable requirements on lawyers pertaining to the verbiage used in their advertisements. b) Yes, because "real estate" and "personal injury" are inherently misleading terms, whereas "property law" and "tort law" are very precise. c) No, because states may not regulate lawyer advertising in any way. d) No, because lawyers have a First Amendment right to use verbiage that is accurate and descriptive in their advertisements, assuming the statements are not misleading.

No, because lawyers have a First Amendment right to use verbiage that is accurate and descriptive in their advertisements, assuming the statements are not misleading.

An attorney practices commercial real estate law in the state capitol, but also provides legislative lobbying services for some clients, especially for firms seeking lucrative government contracts. For example, working on a retainer, the attorney successfully lobbied his state legislature to privatize most of its prison system, and to give his client the contract to operate the private prisons. His client continues to pay the retainer and the attorney continues to lobby for longer statutory minimum sentences for crimes, so that the private prisons remain full. The attorney uses a separate retainer agreement for lobbying work, which specifies that he is not representing the client as their lawyer, but only as a lobbyist, and is not providing legal advice or legal services under their agreement. Meanwhile, one of the attorney's other clients faces charges of securities fraud and hires the attorney to handle his appeal, which includes arguing that the mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional. The criminal defendant signs a written waiver of the potential conflict of interest the attorney has over the mandatory sentencing issue, but the attorney fails to obtain a similar waiver from the private prison client on whose behalf he lobbied for the mandatory sentencing laws. If the attorney is successful in having mandatory sentencing laws declared unconstitutional on behalf of his criminal client, will he be subject to discipline for the conflict of interest with his lobbying client? a) No, because lobbying is a law-related service that a nonlawyer could do, and is distinct from the lawyer's legal services, according to the retainer, so the conflict of interest rules do not apply. b) Yes, because he lobbied for people to suffer longer periods of incarceration merely to help his corporate clients earn more profits, which is unconscionable. c) Yes, because the fact that his legal client signed a waiver of the conflict of interest means that a reciprocal waiver was necessary from the lobbying client. d) No, because lobbying the legislature receives special constitutional protection due to its integral part in a functioning democracy.

No, because lobbying is a law-related service that a nonlawyer could do, and is distinct from the lawyer's legal services, according to the retainer, so the conflict of interest rules do not apply

An attorney was an immigrant from a country that permits polygamy - men can have up to four wives. The attorney had two wives, which his religion permitted, as did the laws of his homeland. Nevertheless, his multiple marriages constituted bigamy in the American jurisdiction where he practiced law, and eventually a court convicted him of bigamy and imposed a fine. Could the attorney be subject to professional discipline for committing this illegal act? a) Yes, because it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty. b) Yes, because having multiple wives significantly increases the opportunities to have conflicts of interest with various clients. c) No, because offenses concerning personal morality, such as bigamy and comparable offenses, have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. d) No, because his bigamy does not reflect negatively on his character or morality if his religion permits it.

No, because offenses concerning personal morality, such as bigamy and comparable offenses, have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law.

. An attorney made substantial financial contributions to the reelection campaign of an elected judge. The judge won reelection and showed his gratitude to the attorney by frequently appointing him to represent indigent defendants at the state's expense. The attorney made the donations not because he hoped to receive such appointments, but because he honestly believed that the judge was the best candidate for the position. The attorney especially admired the fact that the judge had attended Harvard Law School and that the judge was an active member of the Federalist Society. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for accepting these appointments? a) Yes, because a lawyer shall not accept a government legal engagement or an appointment by a judge if the lawyer makes a political contribution or solicits political contributions. b) Yes, because attending Harvard Law School is not a valid reason to believe that a candidate would make a good judge. c) No, because all constituents who donate or solicit donations for election campaigns are hoping to receive some direct or indirect benefits as a result. d) No, because the lawyer's motivation was a sincere political or personal support for the judge's candidacy, not a design to receive court appointments.

No, because the lawyer's motivation was a sincere political or personal support for the judge's candidacy, not a design to receive court appointments

An attorney faced disciplinary action over a client grievance. The disciplinary tribunal asked the attorney several probing questions about her handling of client funds. The attorney had, in fact, used some client funds to pay off a gambling debt, so she was less worried about a temporary suspension of her law license than about potential criminal charges for embezzlement. The attorney, therefore, invokes her Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination and refuses to answer the questions. The disciplinary tribunal then determines that it lacks substantial evidence that the attorney mishandled client funds, but it commences disciplinary proceedings over the attorney's refusal to answer some of its questions. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for refusing to answer the questions in this scenario? a) Yes, because a lawyer must not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority. b) Yes, because the board found no evidence that the attorney had mishandled client funds, and the attorney had an affirmative duty to clarify any misunderstanding on the part of the admissions or disciplinary authority of which the person involved becomes aware. c) No, because the rules requiring attorney candor to disciplinary authorities are subject to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and corresponding provisions of state constitutions. d) No, because the committee did not read the attorney her Miranda rights, according to this fact scenario.

No, because the rules requiring attorney candor to disciplinary authorities are subject to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and corresponding provisions of state constitutions.

Three attorneys open a new firm (a partnership) together. They drafted the partnership agreement themselves, without hiring another lawyer to represent them, and none of them gave informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the conflicts of interest that might arise because of drafting their own partnership agreement and trying to represent their own interests at the same time. The partners decided to call the firm "City of Houston Litigation Center," named after the city where they practice. Their advertising, brochures, and signage contain no disclaimers disavowing any connection with the Houston municipal government or with the Houston City Attorney's Office, which is a department of the municipal government. Are the actions of the attorneys described here proper, according to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? a) Yes, because lawyers may practice in an association in the form of a corporation, a partnership, a limited liability corporation, or even a limited-liability partnership, pursuant to the requirements of state statutes. b) Yes, because there is nothing untruthful or misleading about the name, assuming they have headquarters in Houston. c) No, because their trade name includes a geographical name without express statements that they are not a public agency or subdivision of government. d) No, because they did not provide each other with written consent to the conflict of interest when they drafted the partnership agreement themselves, without third-party representation.

No, because their trade name includes a geographical name without express statements that they are not a public agency or subdivision of government

Conglomerate Corporation offered to hire an attorney as outside counsel for a specific legal matter. Conglomerate's OCG (outside counsel agreement) with all outside lawyers it hires includes the following provision: ATTORNEY agrees that it would constitute an impermissible conflict of interest to represent a significant competitor of CONGLOMERATE CORP. or its subsidiaries or affiliates. The APPENDIX attached to this document includes a list of CONGLOMERATE CORP. subsidiaries. Before ATTORNEY'S representation begins, ATTORNEY must disclose in writing the names of any national or regional retailers or any significant competitors of CONGLOMERATE CORP. or its subsidiaries or affiliates that ATTORNEY represents, as well as a general description of the type of representation that ATTORNEY'S firm provides to such client(s). Is it proper for Conglomerate's in-house counsel to require outside counsel to agree to this provision in the OCG? a) Yes, even though the OCG provision goes beyond the requirements of the Model Rules for conflicts screening, lawyers may contractually agree to such limitations on their practice. b) Yes, because the OCG provision merely reflects the duties already imposed on lawyers by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and similar state codes. c) No, because only the Board of Directors can request that outside counsel sign an OCG, not in- house counsel. d) No, because this agreement impermissibly restrains the attorney's right to practice.

No, because this agreement impermissibly restrains the attorney's right to practice

An attorney was representing a client in a probate matter. The representation mostly occurred within the attorney's home state, where the client also lived. One asset of the probated estate, however, was an account receivable from a debtor in a neighboring state; the matter was already the subject of pending contract litigation in that state. The attorney filed a pro hac vice appearance in the neighboring state, and he traveled there to represent his client in the contract matter, which was ancillary to the probate matter in his home state. During the proceedings, the lawyer committed an act that constituted a violation of the ethical rules in his home state, but not in the neighboring state where he was appearing in a proceeding; the states had different rules in this regard. Could the attorney be subject to discipline in his home state for violating its rules before a tribunal in the neighboring state? a) Yes, because when an attorney takes an oath to uphold the rules of a jurisdiction to obtain admission to the bar, he or she does so without regard to the lawyer's future geographic location when a violation of the rules occurs. b) Yes, because otherwise, lawyers could simply drive across state lines and violate all the rules of professional conduct without repercussions from the state bar where the lawyer practices. c) No, because whenever a lawyer's conduct relates to a proceeding pending before a tribunal, the lawyer shall be subject only to the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits. d) No, because a lawyer cannot be subject to discipline in more than one state for the same act or incident.

No, because whenever a lawyer's conduct relates to a proceeding pending before a tribunal, the lawyer shall be subject only to the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits.

. An attorney resided in and had a license to practice law in the state where he graduated from law school. During a nationwide pandemic, the attorney went to stay with his aging parents in a neighboring state. He did not have a license to practice law there, but while there the attorney continued to work remotely on his existing cases from the state where had a law license. Weeks went by, then months, and he was still in the neighboring state staying with his parents and working remotely, a state that did not expressly prohibit lawyers licensed elsewhere from working remotely on their cases from where they held a license. The state where the attorney is staying does, however, have a version of Model Rule 5.5, prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law? a) Yes, because the attorney did not receive temporary authority to practice law in the state where he is working remotely. b) Yes, because the attorney established a systematic and continuous presence in the state of where he is working remotely for months at a time. c) No, because the state where he is working remotely must honor his license to practice in a neighboring state under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution. d) No, because, despite his physical presence in the neighboring state, the attorney did not hold himself out as a lawyer admitted to the bar there, and he and is otherwise invisible as a lawyer in that state.

No, because, despite his physical presence in the neighboring state, the attorney did not hold himself out as a lawyer admitted to the bar there, and he and is otherwise invisible as a lawyer in that state

A criminal defense attorney received a court appointment to represent a defendant, and at the end of the representation, she sought compensation for her legal fees from the appropriate courthouse office. Unfortunately, she did not have some of the receipts and documentation to verify some of her fees, so she received only half of the compensation she expected. Angered by this incident, the attorney sent a letter to the judge's secretary, in which he harshly criticized that local court's administrative system for compensating appointed counsel. The letter declared that he would not submit the additional documentation required for compensation, even if that meant he could no longer accept court appointments from the judges in that courthouse. An objective reader would have thought the letter "exhibited unlawyerlike rudeness," as one of the judges at the courthouse put it. Could the attorney be subject to suspension of his law license for sending this letter? a) Yes, it is impermissible for a lawyer to make statements attacking the integrity or qualifications of a judge or court official. b) Yes, a lawyer may not decline judicial appointments to represent criminal defendants due merely to compensation grievances. c) No, even though the bar has a right to place restrictions on lawyer speech, the complaints here would be permissible under the Model Rules and First Amendment jurisprudence. d) No, it would violate the First Amendment for a state bar or judiciary to punish lawyers for the exercise of their free speech.

No, even though the bar has a right to place restrictions on lawyer speech, the complaints here would be permissible under the Model Rules and First Amendment jurisprudence

. A law professor has a tenured faculty position at her institution. She learns of serious ethical misconduct by another law professor on her faculty who is a licensed lawyer in that state, but who engages exclusively in law teaching. The professor who learned of the problem believes she has no duty to report her colleague to the bar, as neither of them are practicing law, though both have law licenses. Is she correct? a) Yes, the duty to report misconduct does not apply to academic settings, which have their own disciplinary procedures. b) Yes, the fact that neither the wrongdoer nor the potential reporter are practicing law makes the mandatory reporting rule inapplicable. c) No, all violations of the Model Rules are reportable events under Rule 8.3. d) No, if a lawyer knows of professional misconduct of another licensed lawyer, even a non-practicing lawyer, must report it where it raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

No, if a lawyer knows of professional misconduct of another licensed lawyer, even a non-practicing lawyer, must report it where it raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

An attorney represents a large corporate defendant in a tort action over a defective product line. The current action is the first of what may be many such lawsuits, but the problems with its product line have not received any media attention yet, so the company decides to settle the matter quietly. Recognizing that he has a duty to protect the legal interests of his client, the attorney asks for three conditions in the settlement. First, the plaintiff agrees to a waiver and release of this and any other claims arising out of the use of this product, at least up to that time. Second, the plaintiff and the attorney must agree not to disclose the settlement amount to anyone. Third, the plaintiff's lawyer must agree not to use any information learned in the current representation in any future representation against the corporate defendant, whether in litigation or transactional matters. The attorney recognizes that there can be no restrictions placed on the lawyers right to practice law, so he does not ask the lawyer to refrain from representing other plaintiffs against the corporation, but only that the information from this case not carry over into other unrelated cases. The attorney also points out to opposing counsel that the conflict-of-interest rules would already prohibit the attorney from using any information learned in a representation against the client. Similarly, the confidentiality rule forbids the disclosure (without the client's consent) of confidential information learned from any source during the representation. Thus, the condition in the settlement overlaps with other disclosure restraints that the Model Rules impose on the other lawyer. Opposing counsel is a notorious plaintiff's lawyer in that region, receiving frequent reprimanded for ethical violations from the state bar. The lawyer has a reputation for bringing up irrelevant but inflammatory evidence from other cases in his trials, telling the jury, "You wouldn't believe what this same company did to my other client!" It seemed appropriate, therefore, to the attorney for this defendant to ask for settlement conditions that recognize this lawyer's previous bad behavior. Is the attorney correct? a) Yes, given the other lawyer's history, it is proper to ask for a settlement condition in which he agrees not to use information from this case in other cases. b) Yes, assuming the client also agrees to this condition, and the condition is not adverse to any legal or financial interest of either party in the case. c) No, prohibiting the disclosure of the settlement amount functions as an impermissible restriction on the lawyer's right to practice, because he cannot inform other potential plaintiffs about how much they might obtain in their own lawsuits. d) No, prohibiting the lawyer from using any information learned in the representation is an impermissible restriction on the lawyer's right to practice.

No, prohibiting the lawyer from using any information learned in the representation is an impermissible restriction on the lawyer's right to practice.

An attorney worked as in-house counsel at Conglomerate Corporation. Conglomerate had a problem with lawyers who left its legal department to work for its suppliers - the lawyers would contact their friends who still worked for Conglomerate to solicit additional supply contracts, or to negotiate more favorable terms on existing contracts. Worse, the lawyers could also make strategic use of their knowledge of Conglomerate's internal procurement practices (such as the time of year when certain major supplier contracts were up for renewal). General Counsel for Conglomerate started including in its contracts with all new in-house counsel a prohibition on departing lawyers who work for Conglomerate's corporate vendors, either as in-house counsel or with a law firm representing the vendor, from contacting any of Conglomerate's employees. Is this agreement proper, under the Model Rules? a) Yes, because it does not restrict the departing lawyers' ability to practice law, but merely protects against vendors using unfair competition methods to obtain or manipulate their contracts with Conglomerate. b) Yes, because it does not restrict the departing lawyers' ability to represent clients who want to sue Conglomerate, or even from working for Conglomerate's major corporate customers. c) No, because it is overbroad, and interferes with the departing employees' ability to continue their friendships or personal relationships with other employees at Conglomerate, even for non-legal contact. d) No, the agreement imposes an impermissible restriction on lawyers' ability to practice law.

No, the agreement imposes an impermissible restriction on lawyers' ability to practice law

. Big Firm handles employee litigation, including workplace harassment suits. Nevertheless, the managing partners at Big Firm have decided they will not take on clients with claims based on same-sex harassment, because they believe the law is still developing and juries return unpredictable verdicts in such cases. Has the firm violated the MRPC? a) No, the rules that prohibit harassment and discrimination by lawyers do not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation. b) Yes, the rules that prohibit harassment and discrimination by lawyers also limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation. c) No, advocating in cases where the results would be unpredictable, or the law is still developing, would constitute a frivolous claim or contention. d) Yes, by refusing to represent such clients, they are perpetuating the problem of workplace harassment and discrimination.

No, the rules that prohibit harassment and discrimination by lawyers do not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation

. An attorney hired a second-year law student as a clerk. The law student is unlicensed. The attorney has the law student perform a variety of tasks. Which of the following tasks, if performed by the law student, would mean that the attorney is subject to discipline? a) Conducting online legal research and writing research memoranda. b) Drafting a customized retainer agreement for the attorney to use with clients pursuing claims against a government agency c) Interviewing accident witnesses and potential character witnesses; and asking them to certify the accuracy of the student's written notes. d) Reaching settlement agreements with insurance companies before the attorney indeed files any lawsuit in the matter.

Reaching settlement agreements with insurance companies before the attorney indeed files any lawsuit in the matter

An attorney is a licensed lawyer in a New England state, but has an office and represents clients exclusively in a southern state. The attorney confines her practice to immigration law, representing foreign- born clients in immigration hearings. A relevant federal statute permits nonlawyers to appear as representatives for immigrants when they appear before the immigration agency. Many of the attorney's clients have applied for a spousal visa after marrying an American citizen, and some clients had a Notary Public from their home country or an un- ordained lay minister from their home church conduct their wedding ceremony. In addition, some were previously married and divorced in their home country, where such transactions are informal and have no official documentation. There is often some question about whether the marriage is valid under local state law, which is a prerequisite for obtaining certain types of visas. Which of the following is correct? a) The attorney's conduct is proper, because she is merely providing services authorized by federal law, which preempts state licensing requirements. b) The attorney's conduct is proper because she has specialized in immigration law, which is entirely federal and involves no questions of state law. c) The attorney could be subject to discipline for the unauthorized practice of law in this southern state. d) The attorney's conduct is improper if she does not file a pro hac vice appearance in each case.

The attorney's conduct is improper if she does not file a pro hac vice appearance in each case

An attorney made a lateral move to Small Firm. The managing partner had the attorney sign an employment contract on his first day, which included a provision under which the attorney agreed that upon leaving employment, he would pay his former employer ninety-five percent of any attorney fees earned in a contingent-fee settlement from any Small Firm clients who might follow the attorney when he left. The attorney worked for Small Firm for seven years, then left to start his own practice. Before the attorney left Small Firm, however, he had begun representation of a client who was an accident victim, and the client choose to follow the attorney to his new firm, to continue the representation. The attorney eventually obtained a generous settlement for the client; the attorney's contingent fee was one- third of the award, after deducting fees and expenses. The managing partner immediately notified the attorney that he had a contractual obligation to pay Small Firm ninety-five percent of the fee from the settlement, and notified the defendant's insurer, that it should send its check to Small Firm as the loss payee rather than the attorney's new firm. What is the proper result in this case? a) The insurer should send the check to the attorney at his new firm as the loss payee, and the attorney should then send his former employer, Small Firm, ninety-five percent of his one-third, after fees and expenses. b) The insurer should send the check to Small Firm as the loss payee, as Small Firm initiated the claim, and Small Firm should then send disburse two-thirds to the original client, after deducting costs and expenses, and five percent of the remaining one-third to the attorney. c) The insurer should send the check to the attorney's new firm as loss payee, and the attorney should send no money at all to Small Firm. d) The insurer should send the check to the client as loss payee, and the client cover outstanding bills for costs and expenses, and then should give ninety-five percent of one third to Small Firm, and the remainder to the attorney.

The insurer should send the check to the attorney's new firm as loss payee, and the attorney should send no money at all to Small Firm.

Three law partners have decided to incorporate their firm instead of continuing as a partnership, as their malpractice insurer has offered them a lower rate on their premiums if they incorporate and thereby reduce some of their joint liability. They also want to make a clearer track for associates to become shareholders after reaching certain performance benchmarks. The articles of incorporation provide that when a shareholder dies, a fiduciary representative of the estate may hold stock in the corporation for a reasonable time during administration of the estate before transferring it to the heirs. Which of the following may the partners properly do as they incorporate? a) They may incorporate their law practice and convey an interest in the corporation to their heirs, such as spouses or children. b) They may stipulate that the corporation will hold all funds in a single operating account, and thereby avoid holding client funds in separate IOLTA accounts. c) They may provide, as stated, that when a shareholder dies, a fiduciary representative of the estate may hold stock in the corporation for a reasonable time during administration of the estate before cashing out the shares and transferring the funds to the heirs. d) They may not have a plan whereby associates acquire shares merely by working at the firm for a certain number of years and bringing in a certain number of clients.

They may provide, as stated, that when a shareholder dies, a fiduciary representative of the estate may hold stock in the corporation for a reasonable time during administration of the estate before cashing out the shares and transferring the funds to the heirs.

. Which of the following is true regarding Model Rule 8.2? a) Unlike defamation cases, which use a subjective test for intent, disciplinary cases for violations of Rule 8.2 use an objective test to assess the lawyer's mental state as to whether the lawyer knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded its falsity. b) Reckless disregard as to falsity therefore means essentially the same thing in discipline as it does in public-official libel and slander cases. c) A lawyer's subjective belief that the statements are true could be a defense in the context of disciplinary proceedings for violations of Rule 8.2. d) "Reckless disregard as to falsity or truthfulness" does not mean the lawyer has a duty to verify suspicions before making allegations against a judge.

Unlike defamation cases, which use a subjective test for intent, disciplinary cases for violations of Rule 8.2 use an objective test to assess the lawyer's mental state as to whether the lawyer knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded its falsity.

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

Yes, a lawyer may agree to refer clients to another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional, in return for the undertaking of that person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, assuming clients are aware, and the relationship is not exclusive.

A criminal defense attorney was angry at the local prosecutor for pushing forward with a certain matter against one of the attorney's clients. In a state of frustration, the attorney penned a letter to state officials responsible for overseeing the local prosecutors, in which he accused the prosecutor in his case of specific instances of witness tampering, destruction of evidence, and framing innocent victims for crimes they did not commit. The attorney based these allegations solely on inferences that she had drawn from the unfavorable situation with her own case, and some rumors circulating among inmates in the county jail. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for sending this letter? a) Yes, a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false, or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity, concerning the integrity of a public legal officer. b) Yes, prosecutors have absolute prosecutorial discretion and immunity, so even if the allegations were true, there was no point in raising them in a complaint. c) No, the attorney was exercising her First Amendment right of free speech, and these were not false statements made to a tribunal during a proceeding. d) No, the attorney had some basis for inferring these things, so she did not know for certain that the accusations were false.

Yes, a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false, or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity, concerning the integrity of a public legal officer

. An attorney faced disciplinary action over a client grievance. The disciplinary tribunal asked the attorney several probing questions about her handling of client funds. The attorney had, in fact, used some client funds to pay off a gambling debt, so she felt less worried about a temporary suspension of her law license than about potential criminal charges for embezzlement. The attorney, therefore, simply refuses to answer the questions, without offering any explanation. The disciplinary tribunal then determines that it lacks substantial evidence that the attorney mishandled client funds, but it commences disciplinary proceedings over the attorney's refusal to answer some of its questions. The attorney now claims she was merely exercising her Fifth Amendment right to refrain from self-incriminating statements. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for refusing to answer the questions in this scenario? a) Yes, because a lawyer can never refuse to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority. b) Yes, a person relying on such constitution protections in response to a question must do so openly and not use the right of nondisclosure as a justification afterward for failure to comply with the rules requiring disclosures to the disciplinary authorities. c) No, because the rules requiring attorney candor to disciplinary authorities are subject to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and corresponding provisions of state constitutions. d) No, because the committee did not read the attorney her Miranda rights, according to this fact scenario.

Yes, a person relying on such constitution protections in response to a question must do so openly and not use the right of nondisclosure as a justification afterward for failure to comply with the rules requiring disclosures to the disciplinary authorities

. After graduation from law school, an attorney had taken and passed the bar exam in two neighboring states, and she then had a license to practice law in each state. Her primary office was in her home state where he lived, but she also represented a few clients every year in the neighboring state. Seven years into her career, the attorney committed serious professional misconduct in her home state, and she received a public reprimand from the state disciplinary authorities. The actions that led to her disciplinary reprimand occurred entirely in her home state. The lawyer's conduct would have violated the rules in either of the jurisdictions where she had a license to practice law, because it involved commingling client funds with her own money, and the states mostly had identical rules concerning this activity. Several months after she received her reprimand in her home state, the disciplinary authority in the neighboring state commenced disciplinary proceedings against her as well. In the end, the neighboring state bar suspended her from the practice of law for one year in that state, a much more severe sanction than the public reprimand she had received in her home state, where the misconduct in fact occurred. The attorney appealed this suspension, claiming that the neighboring state bar had no jurisdiction over conduct that occurred entirely outside of its own borders. She also contends that the second punishment raises double jeopardy concerns. Did the state bar in the neighboring state indeed have the legal authority to suspend her license there, if the alleged misconduct occurred entirely in the attorney's home state, and she had already received a punishment for it? a) Yes, except that choice of law rules require that each state impose the same sanction, so the neighboring state must either impose a reprimand or petition her home state to suspend her license for a year. b) Yes, attorneys may be subject to the disciplinary authority of two jurisdictions for the same conduct and may receive different sanctions in each state. c) No, the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy prevent the second tribunal from imposing a more severe sanction than the first tribunal has already imposed on the lawyer. d) No, the attorney would not be subject to the disciplinary authority of two jurisdictions for the same conduct if it occurred entirely within one state.

Yes, attorneys may be subject to the disciplinary authority of two jurisdictions for the same conduct and may receive different sanctions in each state.

A church retains an attorney to challenge a new zoning regulation that would prohibit the church from constructing a new, expanded sanctuary on its property, attached to the existing church. The church cannot afford to pay the attorney, and it is seeking only a declaratory judgment (that the regulation is invalid) rather than money damages. The attorney agrees to take the case and then split any court- awarded legal fees with the church if they prevail. They win a favorable judgment; the court declares the regulation unconstitutional and awards legal fees, which the attorney shares with the church. Is the fee sharing proper? a) No, because a lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer. b) No, because the award of legal fees to a church violates the separation of church and state, and a lawyer is under oath to uphold the Constitution. c) Yes, because a lawyer may share court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that retains the lawyer in a matter. d) Yes, assuming the attorney takes only 30% of the legal fees and does not claim a tax deduction for the 70% shared with the church.

Yes, because a lawyer may share court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that retains the lawyer in a matter.

An attorney solicits campaign contributions on behalf of an elected judge who is running for reelection. The judge wins reelection and shows his gratitude to the attorney by frequently appointing him to represent indigent defendants at the state's expense. The attorney engaged in the solicitation of contributions for the judge's reelection campaign because he hoped to receive such appointments. The fees from the appointments are disappointing, though, and the attorney later realizes that the fees earned from these appointments were not equal to the time the attorney spent soliciting the contributions. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for accepting these appointments? a) Yes, because a lawyer shall not accept a government legal engagement or an appointment by a judge if the lawyer makes a political contribution or solicits political contributions for the purpose of obtaining that type of legal engagement or appointment. b) Yes, because this type of quid-pro-quo arrangement constitutes a bribe. c) No, because the fees earned from the appointments did not match the time the attorney spent soliciting contributions, so at least some of the solicitation was merely volunteer activity. d) No, because all constituents who donate or solicit donations for election campaigns are hoping to receive some direct or indirect benefits as a result.

Yes, because a lawyer shall not accept a government legal engagement or an appointment by a judge if the lawyer makes a political contribution or solicits political contributions for the purpose of obtaining that type of legal engagement or appointment

An attorney was upset when he lost a high- stakes bench trial. When friends and acquaintances asked him about it in the following weeks, he would bitterly complain that the judge must have received a bribe from the opposing party, because there was no way that a reasonable judge could have ruled against the attorney's own client, given the evidence in the case. The attorney has no reason to think that the judge accepted a bribe except that he was shocked when he lost the case. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for making such comments? a) Yes, because a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge. b) Yes, but only if the attorney makes the statements in the public media, that is, to a reporter or in a press release. c) No, because the First Amendment protects the attorney's right to free speech, and these are merely complaints made to friends and acquaintances. d) No, because such comments implicate slander or libel doctrine in tort law, rather than disciplinary actions by a state bar.

Yes, because a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge

In Texas, state trial judges are elected by popular vote. A well-known liberal-progressive judge is running for reelection. An attorney who is a staunch conservative is campaigning for the opposing candidate from the other party. At a campaign rally, the attorney declares that the liberal judge (seeking reelection) is completely unqualified and incompetent to serve in the judiciary, and that he is an activist judge who uses his court to push a certain political and social agenda. The judge graduated from a prestigious law school, was formerly a partner at a large law firm, and is active in the state bar. He does, however, give consistently lenient sentences to criminal defendants who are black or Hispanic, and has always ruled in favor of unions when adjudicating cases involving collective bargaining agreements. The judge learns of these remarks by the attorney and files a grievance. Could the attorney be subject to discipline? a) Yes, because the judge is doing the right thing and conservatives like the attorney in this case are criticizing officials merely for upholding civil liberties and seeking justice and equality. b) Yes, because a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge. c) No, because the comments occurred in the context of a political campaign, where speakers regularly resort to overstatement and soaring rhetoric. d) No, because the claims are obviously true.

Yes, because a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.

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

Yes, because a lawyer who knows of a violation of the Rules that raises serious questions about the other attorney's honesty must report it to the state disciplinary authority.

An attorney made substantial financial contributions to the reelection campaign of an elected judge. The judge won reelection and showed his gratitude to the attorney by frequently appointing him to represent indigent defendants at the state's expense. The attorney claims that he made the donations not because he hoped to receive such appointments, but because he honestly believed that the judge was the best candidate for the position, though he could not explain why. In addition, it turned out that taken together, the attorney gave more than every other lawyer or law firm in the judge's district. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for accepting these appointments? a) Yes, because a lawyer or law firm shall not accept a government legal engagement or an appointment by a judge if the lawyer or law firm makes a political contribution or solicits political contributions for the purpose of obtaining that type of legal engagement or appointment. b) Yes, because contributions that in the aggregate are substantial in relation to other contributions by lawyers or law firms, made for the benefit of an official in a position to influence award of a government legal engagement, and followed by an award of the legal engagement to the contributing or soliciting lawyer or the lawyer's firm would support an inference that the purpose of the contributions was to obtain the engagement. c) No, because all constituents who donate or solicit donations for election campaigns are hoping to receive some direct or indirect benefits as a result. d) No, because the lawyer's motivation was a sincere political or personal support for the judge's candidacy, not a design to receive court appointments.

Yes, because contributions that in the aggregate are substantial in relation to other contributions by lawyers or law firms, made for the benefit of an official in a position to influence award of a government legal engagement, and followed by an award of the legal engagement to the contributing or soliciting lawyer or the lawyer's firm would support an inference that the purpose of the contributions was to obtain the engagement.

An attorney represented a father at a child support modification hearing before a judge. During the hearing, the attorney made repeated disparaging references to the facts that the mother was indigent and was receiving legal services at no charge. Could the attorney be subject to a public reprimand for these comments? a) Yes, because discrimination against persons based on their source of income or acceptance of free or low-cost legal services would be examples of discrimination based on socioeconomic status. b) Yes, because the attorney should know that these comments are immaterial to the legal issues in the case. c) No, because child support modifications depend largely on the court's findings about the relative incomes and living expenses of the parties, and if the opposing party has access to a free lawyer, it is a valid consideration in the court's decision. d) No, because discrimination requires actual harm, such as termination of employment, exclusion from public places, and so on.

Yes, because discrimination against persons based on their source of income or acceptance of free or low-cost legal services would be examples of discrimination based on socioeconomic status

A criminal defendant received a death sentence after his murder conviction. The defendant's attorney, a court-appointed lawyer representing the defendant at state expense, had already been representing the defendant in an earlier manslaughter (noncapital) case, which he was handling on a pro bono basis. In this other manslaughter case, the attorney filed a motion alleging newly discovered evidence of innocence, with a view toward eliminating one of the aggravating factors that was also a justification for the death sentence in the capital case. The state then moved to disqualify the attorney from representing defendant in the capital case, arguing that state-appointed capital counsel could not represent a capital defendant in more than one proceeding at a time. A state statute prohibited state-appointed capital counsel from representing a capital defendant in a noncapital proceeding at state expense. Can the attorney avoid disqualification because he is handling the noncapital case pro bono? a) Yes, because the state is preparing to execute this individual, so his liability in the other case will soon become moot. b) Yes, because extending the statute to pro bono representation of the capital defendant in other cases would constitute an impermissible restriction on the right to practice law. c) No, because the statute clearly applies to what this lawyer is doing. d) No, because the purpose of the statute is to ensure that capital defendants have their lawyer's undivided attention, so their lawyers should not be working any other cases for any clients.

Yes, because extending the statute to pro bono representation of the capital defendant in other cases would constitute an impermissible restriction on the right to practice law

An attorney agreed to write a recommendation letter for admission to the bar on behalf of the law student who had worked for him part-time throughout law school. The student had consistently behaved appropriately during her employment, in compliance with the ethical rules for lawyers and law firms. On one occasion, the student intern had confided in the attorney that she had faced academic discipline for plagiarism on a law school seminar paper, and that she was very ashamed of herself about the incident and had accepted a failing grade in the class. She took an overload of courses the following semester to make up for the lost credits from the course she failed. The attorney did not mention this incident at all in his "character and fitness" recommendation to the state bar, because he felt it was out of character and did not represent the way the student normally behaved at the workplace. He also assumed the student would report it herself or that the bar would inquire about the failing grade on her law school transcript. The bar admissions board eventually learned about the incident only from the law school administration, which turned over the student's disciplinary records. Could the attorney who wrote the favorable recommendation be subject to discipline for filing to mention or address the incident? a) Yes, because the attorney had a conflict of interest in the situation, as it would be in his best interest for his own employee to gain admission to the bar. b) Yes, because he did not disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter in connection with an admission to the state bar. c) No, because the attorney had no duty to report the incident, given that the bar could easily discover it from another source (as it did), and because the attorney was reasonable in believing the incident did not reflect the true character of the applicant. d) No, because the student intern had told him about the incident in confidence, and it did not relate to her work at the firm, so the attorney had a duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6.

Yes, because he did not disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter in connection with an admission to the state bar.

An attorney made and distributed bumper stickers advertising for his firm that simply provided a catchy phone number: 1-800- LAWYER-1. The phone number rolled over to the attorney's office phone. The bumper stickers included no other information. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for such an advertisement? a) Yes, because bumper sticker advertising undermines the dignity of the legal profession. b) Yes, because it does not include the name and office address of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content. c) No, because bumper stickers do not constitute advertising under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. d) No, because the information on the bumper stickers was truthful and accurate.

Yes, because it does not include the name and office address of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content.

An attorney faced a disciplinary action over accusations that she had neglected a client matter and had not communicated enough with the client. The state disciplinary authority requested a written account of her version of what happened, and it asked her ten or twelve probing questions during the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the disciplinary tribunal decided that the client complaint was without merit and cleared the attorney of all charges in that regard. At the same time, it also concluded that the attorney had answered one question during the hearing untruthfully, and that she had made a minor misrepresentation regarding dates in her written statement to the board. The tribunal therefore filed a separate grievance against the attorney for these misrepresentations. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for incidental misrepresentations to the grievance committee if the same committee had decided that the underlying case had no merit and issued a dismissal? a) Yes, because it is a separate professional offense for a lawyer to knowingly make a misrepresentation or omission in connection with a disciplinary investigation of the lawyer's own conduct. b) Yes, because her the dismissal of the original complaint may have been in reliance upon some of her false statements, making it seem that the original complaint was potentially valid as well. c) No, because the board lacks jurisdiction to commence disciplinary proceedings when there is not a client complaint pending. d) No, because the misstatements were part of a proceeding that has ended in a complete dismissal.

Yes, because it is a separate professional offense for a lawyer to knowingly make a misrepresentation or omission in connection with a disciplinary investigation of the lawyer's own conduct

. Attorney Stevenson's law firm is simply "The Law Offices of Attorney Stevenson, Esq." Attorney Stevenson specializes in courtroom litigation. His website address is www.mytrialattorney.com. He selected this domain name and registered it so that he could use it for his law firm's website. Is this website address/domain name proper for Attorney Stevenson's law firm? a) Yes, because "internet neutrality" requires that anyone can use any domain name they want. b) Yes, because it is not misleading, and a lawyer or law firm may also use a distinctive website address or comparable professional designation. c) No, because the ABA Model Rules require that law firm domain names include the names of the partners. d) No, because the ABA Model Rules forbid lawyers from designating themselves with a distinctive website address.

Yes, because it is not misleading, and a lawyer or law firm may also use a distinctive website address or comparable professional designation.

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

Yes, because it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty.

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

Yes, because it is professional misconduct for an attorney to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation

. An attorney outsources complicated legal research to a firm that exclusively provides background legal research for lawyers. Her newest corporate client is a nationwide business with branches operating in all fifty states, so the corporate client needs information about its legal responsibilities regarding a certain issue in every state - a state-by-state survey. The attorney calls herself a sole practitioner. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for failing to inform the corporate client that she plans to outsource the 50-state survey to a research firm? a) Yes, because the client may prefer to hire fifty separate research firms to investigate the issue in each state. b) Yes, because lawyers must not misrepresent their partnership with others or other organizations. c) No, because this is no different than delegating research tasks to an in-house associate attorney. d) No, assuming the lawyer does not affirmatively deny that he will outsource the legal work.

Yes, because lawyers must not misrepresent their partnership with others or other organizations.

An attorney in a small partnership decided it was time to retire. The partnership agreement had clear provisions for the retirement of partners, in which the partnership would buy out the retirement partner's share, including an hourly prorated amount for work on matters that were still pending and had not yet generated divisible fees. The retirement provisions also provided a substantial pension for the retiring partner, purchase of a single-term life insurance policy, and separate payments from an annuity. A condition of these retirement benefits was that the partner permanently leave the practice of law. Is this condition proper? a) Yes, because restrictions on the right to practice law are permissible as a condition of retirement benefits. b) Yes, this condition would be proper even if the attorney was not retiring because partnerships are a special exception to the usual rule against restrictions on the right to practice law. c) No, because this constitutes an impermissible restriction on the attorney's right to do pro bono cases in his retirement. d) No, because retirement provisions that force lawyers to leave the practice of law are de facto age discrimination, reducing the number of older, more experienced lawyers from the legal profession.

Yes, because restrictions on the right to practice law are permissible as a condition of retirement benefits

. Conglomerate Corporation routinely hires outside counsel for representation on legal matters, and it requires the lawyers to sign an Outside Counsel Agreement (OCG) that contains the following provision: ATTORNEY agrees not to represent any party adverse to CONGLOMERATE CORP., or any entity in the APPENDIX, without prior written consent. In no event may ATTORNEY represent an adverse party against CONGLOMERATE in litigation. The APPENDIX contains a confidential list of entities ATTORNEY must use in screening for conflicts. The APPENDIX includes some entities that may be affiliated with CONGLOMERATE's parent companies, as well as entities that may not be controlled by CONGLOMERATE or its parent companies, but in which they may have an ownership interest. Would it be improper for an attorney to enter into this agreement, if it includes this OCG provision? a) Yes, because the OCG provision creates an impermissible restraint on the attorney's right to practice law. b) Yes, because attorneys may not enter into any OCG agreements when serving as outside counsel. c) No, because lawyers are free to include contractual obligations to their clients that go beyond the normal duties found in the Model Rules. d) No, because the provision merely reflects the duties already set forth in the Model Rules for conflicts of interest.

Yes, because the OCG provision creates an impermissible restraint on the attorney's right to practice law.

Conglomerate Corporation was a defendant in multi district litigation, and a plaintiff's attorney represented many different plaintiffs in these related cases against Conglomerate. The attorney and Conglomerate reached a settlement agreement for one group of claimants. The settlement was generous toward those plaintiffs, but it included an agreement by the attorney to withdraw as counsel from representing the other plaintiffs in related cases who had not yet settled their claims. Is the attorney correct in believing it would be improper to sign this agreement with this group of plaintiffs? a) Yes, because it creates a nonconsentable conflict of interest between the different plaintiffs the attorney represents. b) Yes, because the agreement would be an impermissible restriction on the right to practice law. c) No, but only if the attorney returns any unused portion of the fees those clients have already paid. d) No, because withdrawing from representing clients whose claims have already gone forward does not constitute a future restriction on the right to practice law.

Yes, because the agreement would be an impermissible restriction on the right to practice law.

An attorney resided in and had a license to practice law in the state where he graduated from law school. During a nationwide pandemic, the attorney went to stay with his aging parents in a neighboring state. He did not have a license to practice law there, but while there the attorney continued to work remotely on his existing cases from the state where had a law license. Weeks went by, then months, and he was still in the neighboring state staying with his parents and working remotely, a state that did not expressly prohibit lawyers licensed elsewhere from working remotely on their cases from where they held a license. The state where the attorney is staying does, however, have a version of Model Rule 5.5, prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. After a few months, his secretary from his home office began to complain about having to forward all his regular mail to his remote-working address, so he obtained a P.O. Box address in the town where he was staying. He added this address on his firm's website contact information for him, and added the address where he was staying to his signature line on his emails and printed correspondence, so that mail would get sent directly to him. He also informed clients he was working remotely from the neighboring state and offered to meet with them there if they happened to be in town. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law? a) Yes, because the attorney began including local contact information in his firm's website and his correspondence. b) Yes, because the attorney established a systematic and continuous presence in the state. c) No, because the attorney may arrange any accommodations needed for the effective remote practice of the law of the state in which he is licensed, including advising clients of his temporary contact information in the other state. d) No, because the attorney has not given anyone advice about the law of the state where he is working remotely or otherwise practiced law in that state.

Yes, because the attorney began including local contact information in his firm's website and his correspondence

. Big Bank hires outside counsel to handle its mortgage foreclosure cases against borrowers who are in default. An attorney agrees to handle a matter for Big Bank, but the engagement contract between the attorney and Big Bank specifies that the attorney may not represent clients in the future who have adversarial claims against Big Bank, and that the attorney agrees to disqualification in any case in which Big Bank would be the opposing party in litigation. The attorney recognized that this term would be unenforceable in court, and he accepted the appointment as outside counsel. Were the attorney's actions improper, under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? a) Yes, because the attorney has entered into an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy. b) Yes, because the attorney has entered into an employment agreement that restricts his right to represent future clients who sue Big Bank or whom Big Bank sues. c) No, because courts consistently hold such clauses to be unenforceable, so the attorney has not agreed to an actual restriction on his right to practice. d) No, because this is not an employment agreement with a law firm or partnership, nor is the attorney agreeing to the term to help settle another client's case.

Yes, because the attorney has entered into an employment agreement that restricts his right to represent future clients who sue Big Bank or whom Big Bank sues.

A certain attorney is a friend of Blogger, who operates a successful local blog about events, news, and gossip about their city. Blogger includes posts about local judges and well-known lawyers. The attorney has a secret agreement with Blogger. The attorney passes along tips to Blogger in the form of courthouse gossip regarding local lawyers and judges, or even about big cases. Blogger, in turn, covers the attorney's successful cases in glowing terms and recommends the attorney to his readers. Blogger's website is so successful that he earns $50,000 or so in advertising revenue from the site. The attorney occasionally purchases a small, inexpensive advertisement on the site, which merely gives the attorney's name, address, phone number, and areas of practice. Could the attorney be subject to discipline? a) Yes, because the attorney provides gossip that undermines the dignity of the profession b) Yes, because the attorney provides something of value to Blogger in exchange for recommending his services. c) No, because the attorney pays a reasonable sum for his advertisements on the blog d) No, because it is impossible to quantify the value of the information that the attorney provides to Blogger in exchange for favorable reviews of the attorney's legal victories.

Yes, because the attorney provides something of value to Blogger in exchange for recommending his services.

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

Yes, because the attorney's statements were not false or misleading and the letter was an appropriate announcement of the opening of her new firm and her intent to specialize in certain areas of law

An attorney discovers that another lawyer has been stealing clients' funds, but he cannot prove it, as he learned about it from another party who was involved and who has since disappeared. He has some evidence, but not enough to prove that the other lawyer stole the clients' funds. When he confronted the other lawyer, the other lawyer admitted it privately but said he would deny it if there was any attempt to expose the matter. Does the attorney who knows about the violation, but was unlikely to be able to prove it, have a duty to report the violation to the state disciplinary authority? a) No, because if the lawyer cannot prove the misconduct with a preponderance of evidence, he does not have "knowledge" of the misconduct for purposes of the Rules of Professional Conduct. b) No, because the duty to report depends on the quantum of proof of which the lawyer is aware, not the seriousness of the potential offense. c) Yes, because it does not matter how serious the misconduct is, it merely matters that there is some evidence of misconduct. d) Yes, because the duty to report misconduct depends upon the seriousness of the potential offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware.

Yes, because the duty to report misconduct depends upon the seriousness of the potential offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware

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

Yes, because the recipient of the solicitation has a family relationship with the lawyer

An attorney wants to retire from practice due to a chronic illness, and he decides to sell his practice to another lawyer. The sale agreement complies with the Model Rules regarding the sale of a law practice. As part of the sale agreement, however, the attorney stipulates that he will not resume the practice of law in that jurisdiction, even if medical breakthroughs cure his chronic illness and restore him to perfect health. The purchaser of the firm is aware that research for a cure of the attorney's illness is well underway, and he is concerned because it is foreseeable that the attorney would recover and want to return to the practice of law in a few years. Is it proper for the attorney and his buyer to include this provision of the sales agreement for the law firm? a) Yes, because the rule against restrictions on the right to practice does not apply to the sale of a law practice. b) No, because a lawyer shall not participate in offering or making an agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice. c) No, because a lawyer shall not participate in offering or making an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement. d) Yes, because the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution would prohibit a state from restricting the right for a lawyer to include certain contract provisions in a sale agreement.

Yes, because the rule against restrictions on the right to practice does not apply to the sale of a law practice

After a bizarre accident that received heavy media coverage, the victims took the unusual step of sending written notices to every plaintiff's firm in the area stating that the victims did not want to hear from any lawyers about the matter. The attorney received the notice and promptly forgot about it, because he had not yet seen any of the media coverage about the accident. Two weeks later, the attorney decided to catch up on the latest news, and he read an article online about the bizarre incident. He sent a letter to the victims expressing condolences for their suffering and offering to provide legal services if they decided to file a claim over the incident. The victims read the letter, changed their minds, and agreed to have the attorney represent them. A lawyer at another plaintiff's firm, who had also received the notice from the victims, learned that the attorney was representing the victims. He made some inquiries and discovered how the attorney had found his new clients. The lawyer filed a grievance against the attorney with the state disciplinary authorities. Should the attorney be subject to discipline for the way in which he offered to represent the victims? a) Yes, because the target of the solicitation has made known to the lawyer a desire not to receive such solicitations. b) Yes, because it was unfair for the attorney to have the opportunity to represent these clients when other lawyers had diligently avoided soliciting them. c) No, because the victims decided that they wanted the attorney to represent them. d) No, because the grievance came from a rival lawyer and the motivation was petty envy.

Yes, because the target of the solicitation has made known to the lawyer a desire not to receive such solicitations.

A prosecutor was bringing charges against a defendant charged with serious domestic violence. When he met the defendant's victim- girlfriend at the courthouse, she volunteered personal information to the prosecutor in addition to recounting the details of the incident - she explained that she had now had no boyfriend, that she was a struggling single mother, and that she had moved back in with her own parents. The prosecutor and the victim exchanged phone numbers, and he subsequently sent the victim several text messages, the first saying he wished the victim was not a "client" of his office, because "she would be a cool person to know." The next day, he texted her asking, "Are you the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA ... the riskier the better? Or do you want to stop right now before we have issues?" Two days later, he texted again, telling her that she was "pretty" and "beautiful." Then he added: "I'm the attorney. I have the $350,000 house. I have the 6-figure career. You may be the tall, young, hot nymph, but I am the prize! Start convincing! I would not expect you to be the other woman. I would want you to be so hot and treat me so well that you'd be THE woman. R U that good?" Could the prosecutor be subject to suspension of his license for these texts? a) No, because the woman was not his client, as prosecutors represent the state, but merely a witness in a case. b) No, because these were merely expressions of romantic interest, not coercion or physical contact. c) Yes, because prosecutors have special duties to avoid the appearance of bad intentions. d) Yes, because the texts constitute sexual harassment of the victim.

Yes, because the texts constitute sexual harassment of the victim

An attorney specializes in criminal defense work. His advertising, signage, and firm brochures offer a service that other lawyers in his city do not provide - the attorney promises to post bail or bond for any client who cannot afford the amount of his bail or bond. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for such an advertisement offer? a) Yes, because the advertisement is inherently misleading. b) Yes, given the coercion and duress inherent in the client's incarceration, using the promise of securing the client's release from custody as an inducement to engage the lawyer would be improper. c) No, assuming he indeed posts bail or bond for every client who claims to be unable to afford it themselves. d) No, because lawyers can post bail for clients under certain circumstances, assuming it does not generate a conflict of interest that the client is unwilling to waive.

Yes, given the coercion and duress inherent in the client's incarceration, using the promise of securing the client's release from custody as an inducement to engage the lawyer would be improper

An attorney sends a solicitation letter to a prospective client. The recipient of the letter opens it and reads it, but the person does not respond. The attorney then sends a follow-up letter to the prospective client. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for sending the second letter? a) No, because the lawyer clearly indicated that it was advertising material on the outside of the envelope. b) No, because the lawyer had no way to know whether the prospective client received the first letter. c) Yes, because a lawyer may not solicit individual prospective clients with direct mail unless the prospective client has requested the information. d) Yes, if after sending a letter or other communication as permitted by the Rules, the lawyer receives no response, any further effort to communicate with the recipient of the communication may violate the provisions of Rules.

Yes, if after sending a letter or other communication as permitted by the Rules, the lawyer receives no response, any further effort to communicate with the recipient of the communication may violate the provisions of Rules

A district attorney had a dispute with certain judges in the criminal court in his locale. At one point, the district attorney held a press conference at which he criticized the judges, blaming the large backlog of pending criminal cases on these judges' inefficiency, poor work ethic, and excessive vacations. He went further and mentioned that he would not authorize court funds for DNA testing during police undercover investigations, which hindered the enforcement of vice laws. In conclusion, he said, "All this raises questions about racketeer influences on our lazy judges." The district attorney did not have a reasonable belief that all these statements were true, but at the same time, he was not acting with reckless disregard with the truth. He believed what he said, but he was not entirely reasonable in his belief. Was it permissible for the district attorney to make these statements? a) Yes, because prosecutors have wide prosecutorial discretion and immunity. b) Yes, if indeed the district attorney did not make the statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. c) No, if indeed the district attorney did not have actual knowledge and reasonable certainty that these statements were true and accurate. d) No, attorneys much not engage in public criticism of judges or make public statements that undermine the integrity or credibility of the judiciary.

Yes, if indeed the district attorney did not make the statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity

An attorney received a client referral by email from a friend who worked as a nurse in a nearby emergency room. The client called the attorney's office the same day that the attorney received her friend's email about this potential client. The representation of this new client yielded a favorable outcome, with a generous damages award for the client and substantial fees for the attorney. In appreciation for the referral, the attorney sent her friend a fancy fruit basket that cost around $150, with a card thanking the friend for the lucrative referral. Was it proper for the attorney to give such a gift to a nonlawyer for referring a client to her? a) Yes, the Model Rules permit a lawyer to give nominal gifts, such as an item that might be a holiday gift item, in appreciation to a person for referring a prospective client. b) Yes, the Model Rules permit a lawyer to give gifts in consideration for an understanding that referrals would be forthcoming in the future. c) No, under the Model Rules, a lawyer may not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services. d) No, the Model Rules permit lawyers to give only small tokens of appreciation for client referrals, such as ballpoint pens or keychains, but not items that might be given for holidays, such as a fruit basket.

Yes, the Model Rules permit a lawyer to give nominal gifts, such as an item that might be a holiday gift item, in appreciation to a person for referring a prospective client.

. An attorney received a client referral by email from a friend who worked as a nurse in a nearby emergency room. The client called the attorney's office the same day that the attorney received her friend's email about this potential client. The representation of this new client yielded a favorable outcome, with a generous damages award for the client and substantial fees for the attorney. In appreciation for the referral, the attorney sent her friend a collectible Star Wars statue (plastic figurine) worth about $20, knowing that the friend avidly collected Star Wars statues. Accompanying the figurine was a thank you card expressing appreciation and promising to send Star Wars collectible figurines every time the friend referred a client to the attorney. Did the attorney act improperly in this instance? a) No, the Model Rules permit a lawyer to give nominal gifts, such as a small collectible item, in appreciation to a person for referring a prospective client. b) Yes, the Model Rules prohibit gifts offered or given in consideration of any promise, agreement or understanding that such a gift would be forthcoming or that referrals would come in the future. c) No, the Model Rules permit a lawyer to give gifts in consideration for an understanding that referrals would be forthcoming in the future. d) Yes, under the Model Rules, a lawyer may never give any gifts in response to the person recommending the lawyer's services.

Yes, the Model Rules prohibit gifts offered or given in consideration of any promise, agreement or understanding that such a gift would be forthcoming or that referrals would come in the future

. In his advertisements and firm brochures, an attorney describes his many years of experience litigating in a specific area of commercial real estate litigation, without claiming to be a specialist or an expert. He does not mention any official certification. Is it permissible for the attorney to boast of his years of experience practicing in a specific area, even though some readers might infer from this that he is an expert or a certified specialist? a) Yes, the Supreme Court has held that state bars may not pass any rules that limit or sanction communications by lawyers to potential clients. b) Yes, the Supreme Court has held that state bars cannot prohibit lawyers form describing their years of experience with certain types of cases, assuming the information is truthful. c) No, the Supreme Court has held that describing one's years of experience is too misleading, because readers could incorrectly infer that the lawyer will obtain successful results in their case. d) No, because the lawyer cannot predict what types of cases he will handle in the future, when new clients hire him.

Yes, the Supreme Court has held that state bars cannot prohibit lawyers form describing their years of experience with certain types of cases, assuming the information is truthful.

An attorney settled a legal malpractice claim by agreeing to make monthly payments to the former client for five years, which would add up to the full settlement amount. The attorney put forth his car as security for the obligation. After making a few of the monthly payments, the attorney left the jurisdiction with his car, leaving no forwarding address, so the former client (who was now a holder of the security interest in the car) could not locate the attorney or the car for more than one year. The state criminal code provides that it is a class 5 felony to conceal property in which there is a security interest. The attorney never faced criminal charges or arrest, but the state bar received a complaint about the matter and commenced disbarment proceedings against the attorney. Can the attorney face disbarment over a crime for which there were never any charges filed? a) Yes, the fact that the respondent has not been criminally charged or convicted of this offense is not important for purposes of lawyer discipline. b) Yes, because the state bar has inherent authority to revoke a lawyer's license at any time, for any reason. c) No, because the lawyer has a presumption of innocence until proven guilty if the ethical complaint pertains to criminal activity. d) No, because the courts are a more appropriate forum for addressing this kind of conduct, rather than a state bar administrative hearing.

Yes, the fact that the respondent has not been criminally charged or convicted of this offense is not important for purposes of lawyer discipline.

. An attorney owns his own law practice, and he represents clients if he believes in their cause. He regularly defends racists and hate groups against criminal charges and lawsuits, because he shares their philosophy and identifies with their racist views. Is it permissible for the attorney to advocate on behalf of racists and hate groups in litigation, if he supports their cause on a personal level? a) Yes, the rules prohibiting discrimination and harassment by lawyers do not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy the lawyer provides to clients who are openly engaging in such conduct. b) Yes, the lawyer has a First Amendment right to express racist or discriminatory views in public. c) No, a lawyer must not engage in conduct that is harassment or discrimination based on race in conduct related to the practice of law. d) No, the rules prohibiting discrimination and harassment by lawyers apply to the advice or advocacy the lawyer provides to clients who are openly engaging in such conduct, if the lawyer supports the client's views.

Yes, the rules prohibiting discrimination and harassment by lawyers do not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy the lawyer provides to clients who are openly engaging in such conduct

. An attorney practices law in two adjacent states, as he has a license to practice in each. He lives near the border and can easily serve clients in each jurisdiction. The two states have different rules about attorney disclosures of confidential client information - one state requires disclosures of client confidences whenever necessary to save a third party from death or serious bodily injury, while the other state forbids disclosures even under these circumstances. The attorney did indeed disclose confidential client information to save someone's life (the client was planning a murder and the attorney notified the authorities and warned the potential victim), but this occurred in the state that forbids such disclosures under these circumstances. The client files a grievance against the attorney in both states, and both state bars commence disciplinary proceedings over the same incident. The state bar of the other state, which would have required disclosure in this situation under its own rules, nevertheless reprimands the attorney for making the disclosure in violation of the rules in the state where the incident occurred. The attorney objects that the state cannot impose a sanction on him for conduct that the state's rules would have required. Is the state bar correct? a) Yes, the state bar should apply the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer's conduct occurred. b) Yes, because a state disciplinary authority does not have to consider the rules of professional conduct from its own state in making disciplinary determinations, regardless of where the misconduct occurs. c) No, because each state bar should apply its own rules, otherwise we could have the absurd result of a state bar punishing a lawyer for an action that the rules of that state require. d) No, because a lawyer can face discipline for professional misconduct only in the state where the misconduct occurred.

Yes, the state bar should apply the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer's conduct occurred.