PR - Cyphert

An attorney represented a client in an action against the cli-ent's former business partner to recover damages for breach of contract. During the representation, the client presented the attorney with incontrovertible proof that the partner had committed perjury in a prior action that was resolved in the partner's favor. Neither the attorney nor the client was involved in any way in the prior action. The attorney believes that it would be detrimental to the client's best interests to reveal the perjury because implications might be drawn from the former close personal and business relationship between the client and the partner. Is it proper for the attorney to disclose the perjury to the tribunal? (A) No, because the attorney believes that the disclosure would be detrimental to the client's best interests. (B) No, because neither the client nor the attorney was involved in the prior action. (C) Yes, because the attorney has knowledge that the partner perpetrated a fraud on the tribunal. (D) Yes, because the information is unprivileged.

A) No, because the attorney believes that the disclosure would be detrimental to the client's best interests. Rule 3.3

A lawyer assigned his secretary to manage his client trust account. The lawyer gave the secretary extensive, detailed instructions about the kinds of records to keep, the kinds of funds that she must deposit, and the kinds of permissible withdrawals that she could make. The lawyer had complete faith in the secretary's ability and honesty and therefore did not supervise the secretary's management of the account. Three years later, an audit discovered that, on eighteen different occasions during that period, the account balance fell below the amount that should have been in the account. The lawyer was unaware of these occasions until he received a copy of the audit. Is the lawyer subject to discipline? A) Yes, because he did not adequately supervise the secretary. B) Yes, because a lawyer must manage his client trust account himself C) No, because he took reasonable steps to train the secretary and did not realize that the account balance had fallen below the proper level D) No, because he did not have actual knowledge that the secretary was not performing the account management function properly

A) Yes, because he did not adequately supervise the secretary.

Marlene happened upon the scene of an accident and stopped her car to see if there was anything she could do. Marlene told police officers on the scene that she was a lawyer and asked if she could do anything to assist the accident victims. The officer told her that one of the victims was a physician who was convinced that he was going to die from his injuries and wanted a lawyer to write a will. Marlene went over to talk to the physician who lay on a stretcher. The physician begged Marlene to write a will for him on the spot. Marlene at first was reluctant, explaining that she had only been sworn into the state bar two weeks before, had never written a will before, and that her only "C" in law school was in the wills and trusts course. The physician nevertheless pleaded again for help writing his will and Marlene relented. She wrote a will on the blank backside of an accident report. The physician signed the will and two police officers witnessed it. The physician died on route to the hospital. Was Marlene's conduct proper? A) Yes, because she acted in a humane manner appropriate to an emergency situation. B) Yes, because she was a licensed attorney when she wrote the will. C) No, because she lacked sufficient knowledge of the law of wills. D) No, because the physician should have agreed to limit Marlene's malpractice liability due to the emergency situation.

A) Yes, because she acted in a humane manner appropriate to an emergency situation.

An attorney represented a plaintiff in a civil suit against a defendant, who was also represented by a lawyer. In the course of developing the plaintiff's case, the attorney discovered evidence that she reasonably believed showed that the defendant had committed a crime. The attorney felt that the defendant's crime should be reported to local prosecutorial authorities. After full disclosure, the plaintiff consented to the attorney's doing so. Without advising the defendant's lawyer, the attorney informed the local prosecutor of her findings, but she sought no advantage in the civil suit from her actions. The defendant was subsequently indicted, tried, and acquitted of the offense. Was the attorney's disclosure to prosecutorial authorities proper? (A) Yes, because the attorney reasonably believed that the defendant had committed a crime. (B) Yes, because the attorney was required to report unprivileged knowledge of criminal conduct. (C) No, because the attorney did not know that the defendant had committed a crime. (D) No, because the plaintiff's civil suit against the defendant was still pending.

A) Yes, because the attorney reasonably believed that the defendant had committed a crime.

Lawyer represented Client on a first-degree murder charge. In a private meeting, Client confessed to the murder and told Lawyer the location of the murder weapon. After Client is convicted for voluntary manslaughter, he brings a malpractice suit against Lawyer, claiming incompetency. The only reasonable defense Lawyer has requires disclosure of Client's confession. May Lawyer testify in the malpractice suit and disclose Client's confession? A) Yes. Lawyer may reveal confidential information in order to defend himself against a client's claim B) Yes, because evidence of a client's past crime is not protected by the attorney-client privilege C) No. The client's confessions are protected by the attorney-client privilege and may not be revealed without the client's informed consent D) No. Lawyer must rely on a defense not prejudicial to the client or offer to settle the malpractice suit.

A) Yes. Lawyer may reveal confidential information in order to defend himself against a client's claim

Lawyer is on the in-house legal staff of a large corporation. In that capacity, she works daily with the corporation's top executive officers. She was assigned to defend the corporation in a lawsuit brought by a bank to collect a $750,000 promissory note. The note was signed on behalf of the corporation by its treasurer and CFO. The corporation's defense is that the treasurer had no authority to sign the note and that the bank knew it. The corporation has advised the treasurer that it may seek indemnification from him if it is held liable to the bank. The treasurer is not represented by counsel. Shortly before the treasurer was to have his deposition taken by the bank, he called Lawyer and asked her what to expect at the deposition and how to respond to the bank's questions. What should Lawyer do? A. Advise the treasurer to hire an attorney to represent him at the deposition. B. Tell the treasurer that Lawyer cannot discuss the matter with him unless he wants her to represent him at the deposition. C. Advise the treasurer to tell the truth, to answer fully all questions that are asked, and to pause before each answer to give her time to object to the bank's question. D. Advise the treasurer that his own interests will be best served by answering truthfully and demonstrating, if he can, that he had authority to sign the note.

A. Advise the treasurer to hire an attorney to represent him at the deposition.

Carol is a general counsel of a corporation and serves on its board of directors. There is litigation against the corporation and the plaintiff is seeking significant sanctions against both the corporation and Carol's law firm. The chairman of the board asks Carol to advise the corporate board on the matter. Carol is most likely to become subject to discipline if she: A. Does nothing. B. Considers the effect if she resigned from the board and the possibility of the corporation's attaining legal advice from another lawyer. C. Advises the other directors that if she is present in the capacity of a board director, the attorney-client privilege may not cover the communications. D. Informs the board that the conflict of interest considerations might require her recusal.

A. Does nothing.

The Adkins & Pena law firm represented an oil company in a merger transaction in which the oil company acquired all of the assets of a smaller petroleum company in exchange for a specified amount of capital stock of the oil company. The firm's work for the oil company was limited to the antitrust and securities law issues raised by the merger, and the firm lawyers who worked on the matter did not become privy to any confidential information concerning the routine operations of the oil company's business. The merger work was completed two years ago, and the Adkins firm has not subsequently represented the oil company. Recently Adkins & Pena took in a new partner who had previously practiced as a solo practitioner. One of the cases that the new partner brought to Adkins was an employment discrimination case in which the new partner's client claimed that the oil company fired him on account of his age. When the new partner joined the law firm, the oil company moved to disqualify the new partner and Adkins as trial counsel for the plaintiff due to firm's earlier representation of the oil company. Are the new partner and the law firm subject to disqualification? A. No, because the merger matter and the discrimination case are unrelated and the firm did not gain confidential information that would be material in the discrimination case. B. No, because whatever material confidential information the firm acquired in the merge is not imputed to the new partner. C. Yes, because the firm owes continuing duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the oil company.

A. No, because the merger matter and the discrimination case are unrelated and the firm did not gain confidential information that would be material in the discrimination case.

An attorney is representing a defendant on trial for armed robbery of a liquor store. The defendant tells the attorney in confidence that at the time in question, he was sitting at home watching TV with his aged mother, and that his mother can confirm his alibi. The attorney interviews the mother, who solemnly confirms the defendant's story. After talking with her, the attorney strongly suspects that she is lying to protect the defendant. The attorney does not know for sure that the defendant and his mother is lying, but every instinct tells him that they are. The attorney has warned both of them about the dangers of perjury, but both have insisted that they want to testify to the alibi at trial. May the attorney call the defendant, or his mother, or both as trial witnesses? A. Yes, as to both the defendant and his mother. B. Yes, as to the defendant, but no, as to his mother. C. No, as to both the defendant and his mother. D. No, as to the defendant, but yes, as to his mother

A. Yes, as to both the defendant and his mother.

An airline passenger was involved in an aviation mishap. The airline company has admitted liability and has settled with 10 other persons involved in the mishap for amounts ranging between $120,000 and $150,000. The passenger's injuries are very similar to those suffered by the persons with whom the airline has settled. The passenger received a settlement offer of $135,000 from the airline company. Upon receiving the offer, the passenger decided to employ counsel to determine if the offer was a fair amount and generally to read over the settlement papers and the release that the airline asked the passenger to sign to get the $135,000. The passenger went to the offices of a local attorney, bringing the settlement papers and the release with her. She asked the attorney what his hourly fee for reading the paper would be. The attorney told the passenger that she had a personal injury case and that his standard fee for personal injury cases was 30% of any settlement or judgment received by the plaintiff. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the fee bears no rational relationship to the time and effort required to perform the work requested by the client. B. Yes, because 30% is an unreasonable contingent fee percentage. C. No, because contingent fees are appropriate in personal injury cases. D. No, because the passenger was free to obtain counsel other than the attorney.

A. Yes, because the fee bears no rational relationship to the time and effort required to perform the work requested by the client.

The state in which a tax attorney practices levies an annual tax on trusts for the benefit of minors. Tax returns must be filed, and the taxes must be paid, by March 15. Late filing results in an automatic penalty of 15%. In mid-January, the trustee of such a trust retained the attorney to prepare and file a tax return. The trustee heard nothing from the attorney during February, and he became seriously alarmed when the first week of March passed with no apparent action from the attorney. He called the attorney repeatedly during late February and early March, but each time the attorney was in a conference, in court, or in a deposition. The attorney never returned any of the trustee's calls. On March 10, the trustee fired the attorney and hired a certified public accountant to do the necessary work. The accountant was able to complete the tax return and get it filed on time. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, even though the March 15 deadline had not passed. B. No, because the attorney had legitimate excuses for not taking the client's calls. C. No, because the March 15 deadline had not passed. D. No, because neither the trustee nor the trust suffered any loss.

A. Yes, even though the March 15 deadline had not passed.

A multibillion dollar company that makes and sells a range of vaccines, serums, and pharmaceuticals in the US, Canada, and Mexico, and several nations in the EU issues stock that is publicly traded in interstate commerce, placing the company within the jurisdiction of the SEC. The chief in-house counsel hired an outside lawyer to supervise the preparation of the company's Form 10-K annual report to the SEC. When the outside lawyer was eating lunch by himself, a company employee passed him a note stating that she had heard from someone in a position to know that the company had sold 144 units of snake antitoxin in Germany without obtaining a proper EU sales clearance. Selling without a clearance violates EU law, for which the company could be fined 1% of the sales price, which in this case would be $26. Assume that a contingent liability of $25 is too low to require disclosure in the Form 10-K. When he asked around the company about the employee who passed him the note, the outside lawyer learned that she is a malicious gossip who passes all kinds of stories, some true, some false. Which of the following reasons would excuse the outside lawyer from reporting the employee's information to the company's chief legal officer pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley regulations? A) The outside lawyer was hired merely to supervise the preparation of Form 10-K, not to appear before the SEC. B) A reasonable lawyer would regard the employee's story as not credible. C) What the employee told the outside lawyer is privileged, and he therefore must not reveal it to the company's legal officer. D) The outside lawyer does not have actual knowledge of a material violation of securities law.

B) A reasonable lawyer would regard the employee's story as not credible.

Lawyer takes over as counsel for a client who fired her prior attorney. Lawyer discovers that his predecessor has taken money from the client's trust account. Lawyer informs the client, who already knows about the missing funds. The client tells Lawyer that the prior attorney is her brother, and disclosure of her brother's actions could tear her family apart. The client begs Lawyer to keep her brother's immoral act a secret. What should Lawyer do under the model rules? A) Report the prior attorney even if the client refuses consent to do so. B) Advise his client to reconsider her position, but hold the prior attorney's misconduct in confidence unless permission is given by the client to file a disciplinary complaint. C) Contact the prior attorney and demand he returns the client's funds by threatening to inform the proper disciplinary authority about the actions he took in the client's case. D) Withdraw from representing the client due to her refusal to inform the proper disciplinary authority about the actions taken by the client's former counsel.

B) Advise his client to reconsider her position, but hold the prior attorney's misconduct in confidence unless permission is given by the client to file a disciplinary complaint.

Alejandro worked at Firm A for 5 years and specialized in real estate. During the last 3 years, Alejandro worked intensively on Acme Corp's properties and disputed that arose. Before leaving Firm A Alejandro handled a new real estate deal for Acme that resulted in the erection of a new apartment complex. Alejandro now works at Firm B and receives a new case assignment. Alejandro discovers that the new client, Wylie Crop is a small business owner located next to acme's apartment complex and is suing acme for dispute right of way. What consent must Alejandro obtain in order to represent Wylie? A) Acme consents in writing? B) Both Wylie and Acme consent in writing C) Wylie consents in writing D) Firm A consents in writing.

B) Both Wylie and Acme consent in writing. Rule 1.9(a) and Rule 1.7(b)(4)

In the most recent election, Lawyer who practices election law represented a candidate who, several days before the election, told Lawyer that he hired gangsters to frighten and intimidate votes away from the polls in neighborhoods where most people would vote for his opponent. Lawyer was shocked and immediately advised the candidate to call off the gangsters or withdraw from the race. The candidate refused to do either whereupon Lawyer withdrew from the representation. Lawyer did not, however, tell anyone about the candidate's plan involving the gangsters. On election day, the candidate's gangsters did what the candidate paid them to do and the candidate defeated his opponent by a narrow margin. A few days later, the opponent learned about the gangsters and called a press conference at which time he accused the candidate and Lawyer of conspiring to intimidate his supporters and keep them away from the polls. The local newspaper printed his allegations in a front-page story, accompanied by a large photograph of the candidate and Lawyer smiling at each other. Which of the following propositions is false? A) It was proper for Lawyer to withdraw after the candidate refused to call off the gangsters or drop out of the race. B) It was proper for Lawyer not to tell anyone before the election about the candidate's plan involving the gangsters. C)After the opponent's press conference and the newspaper story, but before any kind of formal proceeding, it would be proper for Lawyer to disclose what the candidate told him in confidence about the gangster plan and about Lawyer's response to the plan. D) After the opponent's press conference and newspaper story, but before any kind of formal proceeding, it would be improper for the lawyer to disclose what the candidate told him in confidence about the gangster plan and about his own response.

B) It was proper for Lawyer not to tell anyone before the election about the candidate's plan involving the gangsters.

Attorney Henry is secretly dating Anne, a stay at home mother who is in an abusive marriage. Anne wants to leave her husband, but is worried that he will try to seek sole custody of their two small children. Anne's husband controls all of the family's finances, and Anne has no ability to independently hire an attorney. She asks Henry if he will take the case pro bono. He instead asks a law school friend if she will take the case on contingency basis, collecting a portion of an alimony Anne is awarded. Is this arrangement proper? A) No, b/c Henry could have represented Anne, as their sexual relationship would predate his representation of her. B) No, b/c a lawyer cannot charge a contingency fee in a domestic relations matter when payment is contingent on the amount of alimony. C) Yes, so long as Henry does not attempt to direct the litigation. D) Yes, so long as the law school is competent in domestic relations matters.

B) No, because a lawyer cannot charge a contingency fee in a domestic relations matter when payment is contingent on the amount of alimony. Rule 1.5

An attorney worked in the legal department of a public utility company and represented that company in litigation. The company was sued by a consumer group which alleged that the company was guilty of various acts in violation of its charter. Through its general counsel, the company instruct-ed the attorney not to negotiate a settlement but to go to trial under any circumstances since a precedent needed to be established. Although the company's defense could be supported by a good faith argument, the attorney believed that the case should be settled if possible. Must the attorney withdraw as counsel in this case? (A) No, because as an employee, the attorney is bound by the instructions of the general counsel. (B) No, because the company's defense can be supported by a good faith argument. (C) Yes, because a lawyer should endeavor to avoid litigation. (D) Yes, because the company is controlling the attorney's judgment in settling the case.

B) No, because the company's defense can be supported by a good faith argument. Rule 1.16 and Rule 3.1

An attorney represented the wife in an acrimonious divorce proceeding involving issues of property division and child custody. After one day of trial, the husband, through his lawyer, made a settlement offer. The proposed settlement required that the wife's attorney agree not to represent the wife in any subsequent proceeding, brought by either party, to modify or enforce the provisions of the decree. The wife wanted to accept the offer, and her attorney reasonably believed that it was in the wife's best interest to do so because the settlement offer was better than any potential award to the wife resulting from the case going to judgment. Consequently, the attorney recommended to the wife that she accept the offer. Was it proper for the wife's attorney to recommend that the wife accept the settlement offer? (A) No, because the attorney did not obtain the wife's informed consent to the conflict of interest created by the proposed settlement. (B) No, because the proposed settlement restricted the attorney's right to represent the wife in the future. (C) Yes, because the restriction on the attorney was limited to subsequent proceedings in the same matter. (D) Yes, because the attorney reasonably believed that it was in the wife's best interest to accept the proposed settlement

B) No, because the proposed settlement restricted the attorney's right to represent the wife in the future.

Shirley has asked Lynda to represent her in obtaining compensation for a tract of land that is being condemned by the state department of transportation to build a new highway. Two years ago, Lynda had been employed by the department and had been assigned to search title on several tracts of land, including the one owned by Shirley. Lynda remembers a department engineer had drafted a confidential memorandum advising against running a new highway across Shirley's land because of a potential adverse environmental impact. Because of this information, Lynda believes it is possible to prevent the condemnation Shirley's land of to increase the settlement amount. What is the proper action for Lynda to take? A) Refuse to represent Shirley but disclose to her the information about the adverse environmental impact. B) Refuse to represent Shirley and not disclose the information about the adverse environmental impact. C) Represent Shirley on the issue of damages only and not disclose the information that might prevent the condemnation D) Represent Shirley and attempt to prevent the condemnation by using information about the adverse environmental impact.

B) Refuse to represent Shirley and not disclose the information about the adverse environment. Rule 1.11(a)(1), Rule 1.11(a)(2), Rule 1.9(c)

An existing client approached Lawyer for assistance in obtaining a home mortgage loan of $70,000 from Unified Bank. Lawyer completed the necessary paperwork and closed the loan on Monday. On Tuesday, the client revealed to Lawyer for the first time that he knowingly misstated his annual income by over $30,000. The mortgage funds are scheduled to be released on Friday. Lawyer knows that Unified Bank would rescind the loan agreement if this information was known. May Lawyer disclose his client's confidential information to Unified Bank? A) Yes, Lawyer must disclose the confidential information if assisting in a fraud is unlawful. B) Yes, Lawyer may disclose the information but is not required to do so. C) No, because Lawyer has not gained the client's informed consent. D) No, because Unified Bank is not reasonably certain to incur a financial loss.

B) Yes, Lawyer may disclose the information but is not required to do so.

A man arrested and charged with aggravated battery hires Dwayne, a "hotshot" criminal defense attorney, to represent him. Unbeknownst to the accused, Dwayne plans to run for public office and is always interested in getting as much publicity as possible. Almost all of his victories over the state are publicized. Before the accused's trial, the assistant district attorney (ADA) suggests to Dwayne that because his client is a first-time offender and an otherwise model citizen, and there were extenuating circumstances that would cause a jury to be sympathetic, the charge might be reduced to simple battery, a misdemeanor. Dwayne refuses, telling the ADA that he is not about to cop a misdemeanor plea for his client because his client is socially prominent and trying the case will bring both of them a great deal of publicity and greater vindication for his client. Dwayne did not discuss the misdemeanor plea with his client and the case proceeded to trial. During trial, Dwayne held daily press conferences which kept both him and his client in the public eye. Ultimately, Dwayne's defense strategy was successful and his client was found not guilty of the felony charge. Is Dwayne subject to discipline? A. Yes, because Dwayne stated that one of his motives was to gain publicity. B. Yes, because Dwayne did not convey the offer of a lesser charge to his client. C. No, because Dwayne competently represented his client. D. No, because the client's complete exoneration at trial was a better outcome than agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge.

B) Yes, because Dwayne did not convey the offer of a lesser charge to his client.

Lawyer represents a client who is filing for bankruptcy. In Lawyer's opinion, the client's explanation regarding assets seems suspicious. Lawyer is worried that the client is lying to her. Without the client's consent, Lawyer contacts an old law school friend who specializes in bankruptcy and tells him the details of the representation. If there are no conflicts of interest between Lawyer's client and anyone Lawyer's friend represents, is Lawyer's conduct proper? A) Yes, but only if the other attorney works in Lawyer's firm. B) Yes, because Lawyer was securing legal advice related to his legal obligations as a lawyer from the other attorney C) No, because Lawyer disclosed communications protected by the attorney-client privilege without the client's informed consent D) No, because Lawyer did not offer to split the fee with the other attorney.

B) Yes, because Lawyer was securing legal advice related to his legal obligations as a lawyer from the other attorney

Neal is widely regarded as an exceptionally competent practitioner in the field of criminal law. Neal's client Zach became the subject of a grand jury investigation in a matter that could result in a felony indictment. Each lacked sufficient funds to pay for deals services beyond the grand jury stage. He asked Neal to provide limited representation for a flat fee. Under the arrangement he proposed , Neal would advise Zach concerning the grand jury investigation, but the representation would end when an indictment was returned or the grand jury decided not to indict. Neal fully advised Zach of the practical and legal aspects of the clients proposal. Is it proper for Neal to accept this limited representation? A) Yes, because the client and not the lawyer suggested this arrangement. B) Yes, because a lawyer and a client may agree to limit the scope of the representation so long as the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances. C) No, because a lawyer should not limit the scope of the representation based on the client's ability to pay. D) No, because the scope of the representation may not be limited in a criminal case.

B) Yes, because a lawyer and a client may agree to limit the scope of the representation so long as the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances. See Rule 1.2(c) and comments 6-8.

A lawyer who is familiar with opposing counsel from previous cases receives a settlement offer from that opposing counsel. Knowing that particular opposing counsel frequently follows up and initial settlement offer with a better one a day or two later the lawyer does not tell his client about the offer. While discussing trial strategy with the lawyer ,t eh client is surprised to learn that a settlement offer was made but accepts his lawyer's explanations ro declining it. Sure enough, the opposing counsel reaches out a couple of days later just as the trial is scheduled to begin and make a new, more generous settlement offer. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A) Yes, b/c waiting to settle just before trial inconveniences the judge, the jury, and others B) Yes, b/c a lawyer who receives a settlement offer must promptly inform the client of its substance prior to taking any action. C) No, b/c the lawyer obtained a more favorable outcome for his client by waiting for the follow up offer. D) No, as long as the client would have agreed to the lawyer's plan and would have turned down the first offer anyway.

B) Yes, because a lawyer who receives a settlement offer must promptly inform the client of its substance prior to take any action. Rule 1.4(a)

Bruce is a junior associate at a prominent law firm that handles securities law matters. Bruce interviewed a client who brought an exceedingly complex securities matter to the firm. Although Bruce was highly competent, a couple of points in the client's complex case were beyond his range of experiences. Therefore, he consulted with Caroline, one of the firm's senior partners. Bruce did not obtain her client's consent before consulting with Caroline, and in the course of the consultation, Bruce revealed a client confidence. Bruce did not reveal his client's identity. Caroline gave him excellent advice on how to handle the matters based upon her 30 years of experience in securities law. Bruce continued to handle the client's case and brought it to a successful conclusion. Was Bruce's conduct proper? A)Yes, because he kept the identity of his client secret when he consulted Caroline. B)Yes, because he consulted Caroline, a lawyer in his own firm who had no reason to be screened from the case. C) No, because he did not obtain his client's consent. D) No, because he revealed a client confidence to Caroline.

B)Yes, because he consulted Caroline, a lawyer in his own firm who had no reason to be screened from the case.

A concerned environmentalist hired a lawyer to obtain preliminary and permanent injunctions against a highway construction project that would require draining and filling certain wetlands inhabited by migratory waterfowl. The lawyer is the nation's leading expert in wetland preservation law and he charges $400 per hour for his services. The environmentalist agreed to pay him at that rate. She gave him a $40,000 advance on attorneys' fees and a $5,000 advance to cover future litigation expenses. The lawyer deposited the entire $45,000 in the client trust account. The lawyer spent 80 hours preparing and filing a complaint and preparing and arguing a motion for a preliminary injunction. He paid a court fee of $50, plus $1,950 in witness fees to wetlands experts who testified at the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion. The judge denied the preliminary injunction. The lawyer sent the environmentalist a bill for $32,000 in attorneys' fees and $2,000 in litigation expenses, and he told her that he would deduct those sums from the advances she had given him unless he heard from her to the contrary within 15 days. In light of the loss of the preliminary injunction, the environmentalist was outraged at the size of the lawyer's fee; she immediately fired him and demanded the prompt refund of the entire $45,000. Which of the following amounts must the lawyer promptly refund to his former client? A. $0 B. $11,000 C. $13,000 D. $43,000

B. $11,000

A lawyer represents a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case against her employer. The employer is represented by its regular corporate counsel. The plaintiff, who works on the assembly line, alleges that she was repeatedly harassed by the foreman on her work shift. Further, she alleges that the plant manager was aware of this misconduct and did nothing to stop it. The plaintiff tells the attorney that two of her co-workers on the assembly line witnessed harassment incidents, but neither reported the incidents to the supervisory personnel. One of the witnesses quit working for the employer at about the time plaintiff filed her lawsuit. The lawyer wants to do some factual investigation before he starts discovery in the case, and wishes to interview the plant manager, the foreman, and the two co-worker witnesses. Which of the following bests states proper conduct for the lawyer in interviewing these individuals? A. He may freely interview the plant manager and both witnesses because they are simply thirdparty witnesses, but he must obtain defense counsel's consent to interview the foreman. B. He may freely interview both witnesses, but he must obtain defense counsel's consent to interview the foreman and the plant manager. C. He may freely interview the witness who no longer works for the defendant, but he must obtain defense counsel's consent to interview the foreman, plant manager, and the witness who still works for the defendant. D. It would be improper for him to interview any of these people without defense counsel's consent

B. He may freely interview both witnesses, but he must obtain defense counsel's consent to interview the foreman and the plant manager.

A lawyer represented a woman in a court proceeding to raise the alimony and child support payments set in the woman's divorce decree. The woman's ex-husband refused to get a lawyer in the matter. The evening before the court hearing, the ex-husband telephoned the lawyer at home and asked the lawyer to explain the legal standard the judge would apply to his wife's request for increased payments. The lawyer responded that she was not his lawyer, and could not give him legal advice. She urged him to get a lawyer. The ex-husband said he did not want a lawyer and then asked the lawyer whether his wife and the children really needed more money to live on. The lawyer responded that she had no personal interest to serve here—that she was simply trying to do what was best for everyone involved, and that he should pay the extra money because they did need it to live on. The ex-husband thanked her and hung up. Was the lawyer's handling of the matter proper? A. No, because as the wife's lawyer, the lawyer should not have communicated directly with the ex-husband at all. B. No, because the lawyer pretended to be disinterested and advised the ex-husband to pay the extra money C. Yes, because the lawyer advised the ex-husband that she was not his lawyer, that the ex-husband should retain one, and that the lawyer could not give him legal advice. D. Yes, because the lawyer only stated her opinion and did not purport to give her exhusband advice.

B. No, because the lawyer pretended to be disinterested and advised the ex-husband to pay the extra money

A potential client consulted an attorney hoping to hire her to represent him as plaintiff in a medical malpractice action against his doctor. Without mentioning the doctor's name, the client described the alleged facts of malpractice and said that they happened more than two years ago. Only at that point did the potential client mention his doctor's name. The attorney immediately stopped the potential client and said she could not represent him because she was already representing the doctor in an unrelated matter, and she urged him to consult another lawyer. That was the end of the conversation. The potential client did nothing further for 15 months, at which point he consulted another lawyer. By that time, the statute of limitations had run on the potential client's claim again the doctor. The potential client then sued the first attorney for legal malpractice, alleging that the attorney was negligent in not warning him about the statute of limitations. Is the attorney subject to civil liability in the potential client's malpractice case? A. No, because the attorney did what a reasonably prudent lawyer would do in the circumstances, that is, decline to represent the potential client and suggest that he consult other counsel. B. No, because the potential client never became the attorney's client and is therefore not a proper plaintiff in a malpractice action against the attorney. C. Yes, because the attorney had no legal or ethical reason to reject the potential client as a client and therefore had a duty to warn him about the statute of limitations. D. Yes, because a reasonably prudent lawyer would have foreseen that the prudent client might delay in consulting another lawyer.

B. No, because the potential client never became the attorney's client and is therefore not a proper plaintiff in a malpractice action against the attorney.

Lawyer represents a client in a civil action. The client emails Lawyer with confidential information regarding the events that took place immediately before the accident. Lawyer replies to the email, warning his client to discuss such matters in person rather than through email. In the subject line, Lawyer types "Privileged Attorney-Client Information." Lawyer's office accidentally sends the email to opposing counsel as well, without deleting his client's statements. Upon receiving the email, what should opposing counsel do? A. Opposing counsel may, but is not required to, notify Lawyer about the inadvertent disclosure. B. Opposing counsel must promptly notify Lawyer in order to permit Lawyer to seek protective measures from the court. C. Opposing counsel should read the email without informing Lawyer because Lawyer has waived the attorney-client privilege. D. Opposing counsel must delete the email and take no further action.

B. Opposing counsel must promptly notify Lawyer in order to permit Lawyer to seek protective measures from the court.

A lawyer who limits his practice to bankruptcy has signed the roster of attorneys willing to take court-appointed criminal defense matters on a pro bono basis. He has previously taken on one pro bono criminal case each year for 10 years but has only won 2 of them. The day after tomorrow, the lawyer will start the jury trial of a criminal defendant charged with indecent exposure. This morning, the prosecutor held a press conference, at which he told reporters that his defendant had been accused of various sex offenses on six prior occasions. The prosecutor's statements are correct, but none of the prior incidents will be admissible at trial. The defendant's lawyer thinks that the prosecutor was simply trying to poison the jury poll by degrading the defendant. The lawyer is planning to call his own press conference at which he will give the reporters the rest of the story. The lawyer intends to explain that on all six prior occasions, the defendant was arrested but never charged, and all six arrests were made by the same police officer, who holds a personal grudge against the defendant. Which of the following is correct? A. The lawyer is subject to discipline for accepting the appointment in light of his lack of talent for criminal trial work. B. The lawyer's proposed statements at the press conference are proper in light of the prosecutor's statements. C. The lawyer is subject to discipline for accepting court appointments in criminal matters when his active practice is limited to bankruptcy law. 28 D. The lawyer will be subject to discipline if he holds the press conference and makes the statements described above.

B. The lawyer's proposed statements at the press conference are proper in light of the prosecutor's statements.

A man was charged with first-degree murder. It is claimed that he captured his victim, drafted her into dense woods, and stabbed her with a knife. The accused has pleaded not guilty. During the prosecution's case-in-chief, one of the prosecutor's witnesses testified that he had seen the accused's car near the scene of the crime shortly before the murder. This courthouse has no private room set aside for conferences between defendants and their counsel. Thus, at the next recess, the accused and his attorney held a hurried, whispered conference in the hallway during which the attorney asked the accused why he had not told him about driving around that area. The accused replied that he had not realized that anyone had seen him. Unbeknownst to the accused and his attorney, the prosecutor was standing nearby and overheard their whispers. Which of the following statements are correct? A. The prosecutor must seek the court's permission to withdraw as trial counsel and testify as to what she heard. B. The prosecutor must ignore what she heard and proceed with the case in the normal manner. C. The defense attorney must seek the court's permission to withdraw as trial counsel and inform the judge in chambers what the accused said. D. The defense attorney must seek the court's permission to withdraw as trial counsel but not inform the judge as to what the accused said.

B. The prosecutor must ignore what she heard and proceed with the case in the normal manner.

Plaintiff hired Lawyer to represent her in a slander case. After he accepted Plaintiff's case, Lawyer learned that his son, who is in another firm, represents Defendant in the same case. Lawyer decided to withdraw from his representation of Plaintiff. May another attorney in Lawyer's firm represent Plaintiff? A. Yes, if Lawyer promptly gives written notice to Plaintiff explaining his relationship with Defendant's attorney. B. Yes, because Lawyer's conflict is personal and is not likely to affect the way Lawyer's firm handles Plaintiff's case. C. No, because Lawyer's conflict is imputed to other attorneys in his firm. D. No, unless Lawyer's firm obtains the Defendant's informed consent.

B. Yes, because Lawyer's conflict is personal and is not likely to affect the way Lawyer's firm handles Plaintiff's case.

An attorney represents the plaintiff in a personal injury case. The plaintiff has authorized her attorney to settle the case for $2,000. She further tells him that if he receives the $2,000 from the defendant, he may keep $750 of it as his fee, and that he should pay the physician who examined her $250 for his examination and treatment of her injuries. The attorney reaches a $2,000 settlement with the defendant. Upon receipt of a $2,000 check from the defendant, the attorney immediately places $750 in his personal account, sends the plaintiff's physician a check for $250, and places $1,000 in his clients' trust account. Sixty days later, his client calls to inquire about any progress made on the settlement. The attorney tells her that he has settled the case and paid her physician. Immediately after he hangs up the phone, he writes out a check to his client in the amount of $1,000 and mails the check. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he paid himself his fee without informing his client. B. Yes, because he did no promptly pay his client the money due her. C. No, because he placed the funds due his client in the trust account. D. No, because he was negligent but did not violate a disciplinary rule.

B. Yes, because he did no promptly pay his client the money due her.

For three years, Natasha was a partner in a law firm. During that period, she represented Kirk in obtaining a business loan from a bank. Kirk disclosed to Natasha a great deal of confidential information about his business and his personal assets. No other attorney at the firm gained access to that confidential information. Recently, Natasha died and no records remain of her representation of Kirk. Shortly thereafter, Dale asked the senior partner at the firm to represent him in a civil suit for serious personal injuries Dale suffered when he was run over by a delivery truck driven by one of Kirk's employees. Would it be proper for the senior partner to represent Dale? A. Yes, because the information obtained by Natasha has no effect on liability in a personal injury suit. B. Yes, because neither the senior partner nor any other attorney in the law firm gained access to Kirk's confidential information. C. No, because the conflict created by Natasha's work for Kirk is imputed to the senior partner. D. No, because the senior partner did not obtain Kirk's informed consent, confirmed in writing

B. Yes, because neither the senior partner nor any other attorney in the law firm gained access to Kirk's confidential information.

A lawyer represents a defendant who is being prosecuted in a jury trial for an armed robbery and attempted murder that occurred on June 15. The accused has pleaded not guilty to the charges, but the lawyer knows that the accused is the perpetrator and that the crime occurred at approximately 10:00 PM. The victim testifies that she is certain that the crime occurred at midnight. The accused has an airtight alibi for midnight. At 11:40 PM he was arrested on a drunk driving charge, and he was in police custody until 6:00 AM on June 16. On cross examination, the lawyer does nothing to challenge the victim's recollection of the time of the attack. Also, as the trial unfolds, the lawyer does not introduce any evidence at her disposal that would help establish the time of the attack as 10:00 PM. The lawyer calls as a witness a police officer who testifies that the accused was in fact in custody at midnight on the night in question. The accused does not testify and is acquitted. Are the lawyer's actions proper? A. Yes, because her client is a criminal defendant and constitutional protections take precedence over ethical rules. B. Yes, because she did not present false evidence. C. No, because she knew that the victim's testimony was wrong and would mislead the jury as to a crucial component of the case. D. No, unless she notified the judge of the trust facts outside the presence of the jury, and the judge instructed her to proceed.

B. Yes, because she did not present false evidence.

During the course of researching a reply brief, an attorney discovered a case in the controlling jurisdiction that seemed to be right on point on one of the key issues involved in the case. Although much of the dicta in the case seemed favorable to her client, one critical sentence in the holding clearly put the court behind the position asserted by opposing counsel, who failed to cite it his opposition brief. The attorney cited the case in her reply brief, but she cited it as favoring her client by quoting from the favorable dicta and omitting the unfavorable holding. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because an attorney has a duty to cite all opposing cases accurately and objectively. B. Yes, because the attorney is attempting to mislead the tribunal. C. No, because an attorney has a duty to present cases in the light most favorable to her client. D. No, because an attorney has no duty to educate, and the attorney fulfilled her duties to the court and the opposing party by citing the case.

B. Yes, because the attorney is attempting to mislead the tribunal.

Betty represents a corporation in a federal Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan. The corporation was jointly owned by a married couple, John and Lisa. Lisa approached Betty and asked if she would represent her in a marital dissolution action against John, to be filed in state family court. May Betty represent Lisa? A. Yes, because the subject matter of each representation is totally unrelated to the other. B. Yes, if both the corporation and Lisa consent after consultation. C. No, unless the federal bankruptcy court and state family court both approve of the representation. D. No, because Betty's representation of one client will probably be adversely affected by the other representation.

B. Yes, if both the corporation and Lisa consent after consultation.

Lawyer, who has represented Mr. Thompson for years, receives a visit from Mr. Thompson's youngest son. The son tells Lawyer that his father is very ill, and that his father wants to give him general power of attorney so he can convert his assets into cash to pay for medical expenses. Lawyer knows Mr. Thompson has been suffering from early stages of Alzheimer's disease and sometimes loses his memory. The son tells Lawyer that if Lawyer prepares the necessary documents, he will take the documents home and arrange for a notary to notarize all required signatures. What should Lawyer do? A. Lawyer should adhere to the son's request because the son is Mr. Thompson's agent. B. Lawyer should refuse to prepare anything for the son and inform the proper authorities about son's ulterior intentions. C. Lawyer should visit Mr. Thompson and determine if an individual should be contacted to protect Mr. Thompson. If Mr. Thompson does not need protection, Lawyer should verify Mr. Thompson's wishes, draft the documents, and, preferably, oversee the documents' execution. D. Lawyer should ask the son questions in order to verify the client's desires. After verification, Lawyer should draft the documents, and, preferably, oversee the documents' execution.

C) Lawyer should visit Mr. Thompson and determine if an individual should be contacted to protect Mr. Thompson. If Mr. Thompson does not need protection, Lawyer should verify Mr. Thompson's wishes, draft the documents, and, preferably, oversee the documents' execution.

After both parties had completed the presentation of evidence and arguments, judge took under advisement a case tried without a jury. The case involved a difficult fact issue of causation and a difficult issue of law. After the case was under the advisement for several weeks, the plaintiff's attorney, Dexter, heard rumors that judge was having difficulty determining the issue of factual causation and was uncertain about the applicable law. Immediately after hearing these rumors, Dexter telephoned Judge, told her of the rumors he had heard, and asked Judge if she would like to reopen the case for additional evidence and briefing from both parties. Thereafter, Judge reopened the case for further testimony and requested supplementary briefs from both parties. A) Yes, b/c both parties were given full opportunity to present their ____ issues in the case. B) Yes, b/c Dexter did not make any suggestion as to how Judge should rule in the matter C)No, b/c Dexter communicated with Judge on a pending, matter without advising opposing counsel. D) No, b/c Dexter caused Judge to reopen a case that had been under advisement

C) No, Because Dexter communicated with Judge on a pending, matter without advising opposing counsel. Rule 3.5

Jamal is a sole practitioner who limits his practice to personal injury cases. He regularly places advertisements in local newspapers, stating that his practice is limited to personal injury cases, including medical malpractice. After seeing one of his ads, Dave approached Jamal for representation in a medical malpractice case. After a 30-minute interview, Jamal told Dave that he was too busy to take his case because it appeared quite complicated. He further offered to refer Dave to another lawyer who regularly practiced in the field. He reminded Dave that he should see another lawyer promptly before the statute of limitations expired and he lost his right to sue. Although Jamal did not charge Dave for the interview, Dave was upset at wasting 30 minutes of his time. Dave did not contact another lawyer until 8 months later, when he learned that the statute of limitations on his claim had expired 6 months after his interview with Jamal. In fact, Dave had a meritorious medical malpractice claim. Is Jamal subject to discipline? A) Yes, b/c Jamal falsely advertised his availability for medical malpractice cases. B) Yes, b/c Jamal did not advise Dave as to the date the statute of limitations would expire. C) No, because Jamal did not violate any duty owed by Dave. D) No, because Jamal offered to refer Dave to another medical malpractice lawyer.

C) No, because Jamal did not violate any duty owed to Dave. Rule 1.18

Lawyer represented a real estate developer who was trying to buy several properties. Lawyer arranged a meeting with an owner of two large parcels of land, hoping to arrange a sale to the developer. When Lawyer scheduled this meeting, he neither knew nor asked whether the owner was represented by counsel in the matter. Shortly after the meeting began, the owner disclosed that he had retained coulee to assist in the sale of the two parcels of land, but that his attorney could not be present that day. He further stated that he would be meeting with his attorney the next day. Lawyer asked the owner if they could talk anyway, and stated that he wouldn't ask the owner to sign anything until his attorney had a chance to look over anything they discussed. A) Yes, b/c the owner knowingly agreed to continue the discussions without his own attorney being present. B) Yes, b/c Lawyer did not present the owner with any documents to sign during the meeting. C) No, because Lawyer negotiated with the owner after learning that the owner was represented by an attorney in the matter D) No, b/c Lawyer failed to ascertain whether the owner was represented by a attorney before beginning the negotiation session.

C) No, because Lawyer negotiated with the owner after learning that the owner was represented by an attorney in the matter. Rule 4.2

Lawyer who had represented client for many years prepared clients will and acted as one of the two subscribing witnesses to its execution. The will gave 10 percent of clients estate to her housekeeper, 10 percent to there son and sole heir, and the residue to charity. Upon Clients death one year later, Executor named in the will asked lawyer to represent him in probating the will and administering the estate. At that time Executor informed lawyer that the son had notified him that he would contest the probate of the will on the grounds that client lacked the required mental capacity at the time the will was executed. Lawyer believes that client was fully competent at the times and will so testify if called as a witness. The other subscribing witness to clients will predeceased client. Is it proper for lawyer to represent Executor in the probate of the will? A) Yes, b/c lawyer is the sole surviving witness to the execution of the will. B) Yes, b/c lawyer's testimony will support the validity of the will. C) No, b/c lawyer will be called to testify on a contested issue of fact. D) No, b/c lawyer will be representing an interest adverse to Client's heir at law.

C) No, because Lawyer will be called to testify on a contested issue of fact. Rule 3.7(a).

Lawyer was contacted by a mother who sought representation for a child support arrearage due to her from the father of her minor child. The mother supplied Lawyer with records dealing with both her and the father's finances. While reviewing the documents, Lawyer discovered that a judgment had been entered against the mother and father for medical bills resulting from the birth of their child. The judgment was in favor of the local county welfare department, who Lawyer was under contract to represent. Lawyer informed the mother that she would be unable to represent her because of a conflict of interest. Thereafter, Lawyer instituted a collection suit against the father, and the mother was later added as a co-defendant. May Lawyer continue with the collection suit? A) Yes, because Lawyer properly informed the mother that her representation could not continue. B) Yes, because Lawyer is using the mother's information to rectify substantial injury to the financial interests of another. C) No, because cannot use information relating to the representation of the mother without the mother's informed consent. D) No, because Lawyer did not obtain the mother's permission to continue the representation of the welfare department.

C) No, because cannot use information relating to the representation of the mother without the mother's informed consent.

Barbara is injured while on a family vacation and wishes to sue the amusement park she visited for improperly maintaining a roller coaster. She calls attorney Adam, and he informs her that he is willing to take the case on a contingent fee basis, and will charge 30% of any recovery after the deduction of the expenses of the litigation. Attorney Adam explains that Barbara will not be responsible for any litigation expenses unless there is a recovery that exceed the amount of the expenses. Barbara agrees. Attorney Adam contacts the amusement park's insurer and settles the case quickly, with Barbara's approval, for $40,000. Attorney Adam transmits $28,000 of that settlement to Barbara. Attorney Adam spent only 15 hours on the case. Was his conduct proper? A) Yes, b/c he disclosed all of the details of the fee arrangement. B) Yes, b/c a lawyer's rate need not be disclosed in writing C) No, b/c he did not disclose all the details of the fee arrangement in a writing signed by Barbara. D) No, b/c a rate of 30% is unreasonable for a matter that required so little of the lawyer's time and attention.

C) No, because he did not disclose all the details of the fee arrangement in a writing signed by Barbara. Rule 1.5(c) Rule 1.5(a)

The plaintiff in a personal injury suit arising from an automobile collision asserted that he had the right-of-way to enter the intersection where the accident occurred. The defendant claimed otherwise, but the plaintiff told his attorney that there was a witness present who would be able to verify his version of the accident. The plaintiff's attorney obtained a copy of the police report on the accident, but the name of the witness was not contained in the report. The plaintiff's attorney contemplated running an ad in the newspaper or hiring an investigator to find the witness, but she reasonably concluded that her client's testimony ought to be strong enough to win the case. The case went to trial, and the jury found for the defendant. Is the plaintiff's attorney subject to discipline for failure to try to find the witness? A) Yes, because she failed to properly prepare the case. B) Yes, because her client lost. C) No, because she reasonable believed that her client's testimony would be sufficient. D) No, because the name of the witness was not in the police report.

C) No, because she reasonable believed that her client's testimony would be sufficient.

An attorney was engaged under a general retainer agreement to represent a corporation involved in the uranium industry. Under the agreement, the attorney handled all of the corporation's legal work, which typically involved regulatory issues and litigation.The corporation told the attorney that a congressional committee was holding hearings concerning the extent of regulation in the copper industry. Because the corporation was considering buying a copper mine during the next fiscal year, the corporation asked the attorney to appear and testify that the industry was over-regulated. The attorney subsequently testified to that effect before the relevant congressional committee. The attorney registered his appearance under his own name and did not disclose that he was appearing on behalf of a client. Afterward, the attorney billed the corporation for fees and expenses related to his testimony. The attorney's testimony was truthful. Was the attorney's conduct proper? (A) Yes, because the duty of confidentiality prevented the attorney from disclosing the identity of his client. (B) Yes, because the attorney-client evidentiary privilege prevented disclosure of the identity of his client in this context. (C) No, because the attorney failed to disclose that he was appearing and testifying in a representative capacity. (D) No, because the attorney accepted compensation in return for his testimony

C) No, because the attorney failed to disclose that he was appearing and testifying in a representative capacity.

An attorney represents a company that produces chemical products. Some of the waste products of the company's manufacturing processes are highly toxic and are reason-ably certain to cause substantial bodily harm if disposed of improperly. The president of the company recently informed the attorney that a new employee mistakenly disposed of the waste products in the ground behind the company plant, an area that is part of the source of the city's water supply. The attorney advised the president that, although the con-duct was not criminal, the company could be civilly liable for negligence in lawsuits brought by any persons harmed by the waste products. The attorney advised the president to immediately report the problem to city authorities. Fearful of adverse publicity, the president declined to do so. The attorney further advised the president that she believed the president's decision was immoral. The president continued to decline to report the matter. The attorney then informed the president that she was withdrawing from the representation and would inform the authorities herself. Immediately after withdrawing, the attorney reported the company's con-duct to the authorities. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because the information was given to the attorney in confidence and may not be revealed without the client's consent. (B) Yes, because the company's conduct was not criminal. (C) No, because the attorney reasonably believed that the company's disposal of the waste products was reason-ably certain to cause substantial bodily harm. (D) No, because the attorney reasonably believed that the president was pursuing an imprudent course of conduct

C) No, because the attorney reasonably believed that the company's disposal of the waste products was reasonably certain to cause substantial bodily harm. Rule 1.6(b)(1)

An attorney who had represented a client for many years prepared the client's will and acted as one of the two subscribing witnesses to its execution. The will gave 10% of the client's estate to the client's housekeeper, 10% to the client's son and sole heir, and the residue to charity. Upon the client's death one year later, the executor named in the will asked the attorney to represent him in probating the will and administering the estate. At that time, the executor informed the attorney that the son had notified him that he would contest the probate of the will on the grounds that the client lacked the required mental capacity at the time the will was executed. The attorney believes that the client was fully competent at all times and will so testify, if called as a witness. The other subscribing witness to the client's will predeceased the client. Is it proper for the attorney to represent the executor in the probate of the will? (A) Yes, because the attorney is the sole surviving witness to the execution of the will. (B) Yes, because the attorney's testimony will support the validity of the will. (C) No, because the attorney will be called to testify on a contested issue of fact. (D) No, because the attorney will be representing an interest adverse to the interests of the client's heir.

C) No, because the attorney will be called to testify on a contested issue of fact.

An attorney and her client entered into a written retainer and hourly fee agreement requiring the client to pay $5,000 in advance of any services rendered by the attorney and requiring the attorney to return any portion of the $5,000 that was not earned. The agreement further provided that the attorney would render monthly statements and withdraw her fees as billed. The agreement was silent as to whether the $5,000 advance was to be deposited in the attorney's clients' trust account or in a general account. The attorney deposited the $5,000 in her clients' trust account, which also contained funds that had been entrusted to the attorney by other per-sons. Thereafter, the attorney sent the client periodic rate billings, showing the services rendered and the balance of the client's fee advance. The attorney did not withdraw any of the $5,000 advance until one year later when the matter was concluded to the client's complete satisfaction. At that time, the attorney had billed the client reasonable legal fees of $4,500. The attorney wrote two checks on her clients' trust account: one to herself for $4,500, which she deposited in her general office account, and one for $500 to the client. Was the attorney's conduct proper? (A) Yes, because the attorney deposited the funds in her clients' trust account. (B) Yes, because the attorney rendered periodic and accurate billings. (C) No, because the attorney's failure to withdraw her fees as billed resulted in an impermissible commingling of her funds and the client's funds. (D) No, because the attorney required an advance payment against her fe

C) No, because the attorney's failure to withdraw her fees as billed resulted in an impermissible commingling of her funds and the client's funds. Rule 1.15(a)

Client walked into Lawyer's office for tax advice. Lawyer informed the client about the importance of truthfully filing IRS forms. When asked about the frequency of audits, Lawyer told the client that only 1.5% of all filings are audited. Client failed to listen to Lawyer, filed false returns, and was indicted for tax evasion. Can Lawyer be forced to testify about his warning at a resulting criminal trial? A) Yes, because Lawyer's advice concerning the frequency of audits constitutes assistance in the commission of a fraud. B) Yes, because disclosure will prevent substantial injury to the financial interests of the government C) No, because the conversation provided legal advice and was not designed to facilitate a crime or fraud and Lawyer did not know the client would commit a crime or fraud D) No, unless Lawyer has not been subpoenaed to testify.

C) No, because the conversation provided legal advice and was not designed to facilitate a crime or fraud and Lawyer did not know the client would commit a crime or fraud

Tom represents a defendant in a drug smuggling case. The defendant is in pretrial custody in a distant city and cannot be reached by telephone. One key issue in the defendant's case is on the cutting edge of search and seizure law, and Tom believes that he needs help to deal with the issues competently. Tom's former law professor is a nationally known expert on search and seizure law but is not licensed to practice law in that state. Tom calls his former professor to ask for help and also asks that the professor keep their conversation confidential. To frame the issue accurately, Tom tells the law professor some information that the defendant revealed to Tom in confidence. Tom does not tell the professor the name of his client, the defendant. Is Tom subject to discipline for disclosing the defendant's confidential information to the professor? A) Yes, because the professor was not licensed to practice in that jurisdiction. B) Yes, because the defendant did not specifically authorize Tom to make that disclosure. C) No, because the disclosure was necessary to effectively carry out the representation. D) No, because Tom did not reveal his client's name

C) No, because the disclosure was necessary to effectively carry out the representation.

The trustee of a trust for the care and support of the trustee's deceased sister's minor children wishes to sell some of the trust property to pay for the schooling of one of the children who has special needs. The trustee hires a lawyer to file the appropriate papers to obtain court approval for the sale of the trust property. In the course of the conversation with the lawyer, the trustee discloses that he has committed several breaches of trust in the past, including borrowing trust funds to pay for his home improvements and gambling trust funds at the race track. Most of the money has been repaid with reasonable interest, and the trustee tells the lawyer that he will be more careful about his handling of trust funds int he future. The lawyer urges the trustee to tell the court his wrongdoing and to resign as trustee but the trustee refuses. The lawyer proceeds to represent the trustee in seeking court approval for the sale of trust assets. The lawyer fills out all the court papers truthfully and does not in any way state anything false or misleading. The court does not inquire about the management of the trust or any dissipation of trust assets, and neither the lawyer nor the trustee volunteers the information. Is the lawyer subject to discipline? A) Yes, b/c he could have prevented future fraud by the trustee. B) Yes, b/c he owes a duty of candor to the tribunal C) No, b/c the information was confidential

C) No, because the information was confidential. Rule 1.6

An attorney has a highly efficient staff of paraprofessional legal assistants, all of whom are graduates of recognized legal assistant educational programs. Recently, the statute of limitations ran against a client's claim when a legal assistant negligently misplaced the client's file and suit was not filed within the time permitted by law. Which of the following correctly states the attorney's professional responsibility? (A) The attorney is subject to civil liability and is also subject to discipline on the theory of respondeat superior. (B) The attorney is subject to civil liability or is subject to discipline at the client's election. (C) The attorney is subject to civil liability but is NOT subject to discipline unless the attorney failed to adequately supervise the legal assistant. (D) The attorney is NOT subject to civil liability and is NOT subject to discipline if the attorney personally was not negligent.

C) The attorney is subject to civil liability but is NOT subject to discipline unless the attorney failed to adequately supervise the legal assistant. Rule 5.3

Mary and Joyce are both lawyers admitted to practice. However, neither is engaged in active practice. Mary is CEO of "Loaned Employees, Limited" (a temporary service worker company that supplies temporary secretaries and clerks to insurance offices); Joyce works for her as the HR director. Joyce has personal knowledge (based on her conversations with several employees) that Mary is not filing her tax returns and is converting to her own use monies withheld from employees for state tax purposes. Is Joyce required to report Mary to the state bar authorities despite the fact that Mary's conduct does not involve misconduct related to clients and or the judiciary. A) No, because neither is involved in active practice. B) No, because if she were to report the misconduct, it would be a discretionary act. C) Yes. Mary is involved in fraud and perhaps criminal conduct, a violation of the rules, and Joyce has a mandatory duty to report such conduct D) Yes. As an officer of the corporation, Joyce should report lawyers not doing their job properly to tax and bar authorities. The servicing of insurance companies is also "closely related to law."

C) Yes. Mary is involved in fraud and perhaps criminal conduct, a violation of the rules, and Joyce has a mandatory duty to report such conduct

Myra was injured in a collision with a car owned by Zachary, who prepared a written accident report and submitted it to his insurance company, Magna. Magna hired Debra to defend Zachary. In the course of preparing Zachary for his deposition, Debra noticed some inaccuracies in his account of the collision that varied with his accident report. Zachary admitted that he had lied in the accident report. Debra concluded that the falsities violated Magna's policy that the insured must cooperate in the defense and that the truthful disclosure breach might eliminate Magna's duty to defend. It would be proper for Debra to: A. Inform Zachary that he needs to repeat the version of his story that is consistent with his accident report. B. Inform Zachary that he needs to change his story and give a truthful account during his deposition. C. Inform Magna of Zachary's inaccurate statements. D. Seek the court's permission to withdraw from the representation without informing Magna of Zachary's confidences.

C. Inform Magna of Zachary's inaccurate statements.

Harvey has recently opened his solo law practice in a small town. His practice is fairly evenly divided between civil litigation and criminal defense. The superior court has just appointed him to represent two defendants who will be tried jointly for their alleged kidnapping and brutal murder of nine local school children. Which of the following is not a valid reason for the attorney to decline the appointment? A. He believes that to represent the defendants will take so much time away from his newly opened practice as to impose an unreasonable financial burden on him. B. He believes that one defendant coerced the other defendant into helping kidnap and kill the children. C. He believes many of his potential clients will be outraged if he represents the two defendants. D. He believes that confidential information he received when representing one of the prosecution's key witnesses will be useful in impeaching that witness's credibility.

C. He believes many of his potential clients will be outraged if he represents the two defendants.

Lawyer is representing a client on a murder charge. The prosecution's case is built around a woman who was the only witness to the murder. Before the case goes to trial, the client tells Lawyer that he is going to "call in a favor from a friend that will shut up that woman forever." If no action is taken to protect the woman after his client's threat, is the Lawyer subject to discipline? A) Yes, because Lawyer reasonably believed that his client was going to commit a crime leading to another's death or serious bodily harm. B) Yes, but only if the client actually caused the witness to be murdered or seriously harmed. C) No, because a Lawyer is permitted, but not required, to attempt to prevent the crime his client is threatening D) No, because the attorney-client privilege attaches to all matters relating to the representation.

C. No, because a Lawyer is permitted, but not required, to attempt to prevent the time his client is threatening.

A wife whose husband was hard-drinking and abusive went to see a lawyer about getting a divorce. Because the wife did not work outside the home, she told the lawyer that she could not afford to pay a big legal fee. The lawyer was sure that the wife had adequate grounds for divorce in that her husband was adulterous, an alcoholic, and frequently beat her. Therefore, the lawyer told the wife that if she could pay the $200 filing fee, he would do all the work for 10% of whatever he was able to obtain in alimony and child support on her behalf. The wife agreed. Was the lawyer's conduct proper? A. Yes, because the fee is reasonable and is not excessive. B. Yes, because the lawyer is providing legal services to a person who might not otherwise be able to afford them. C. No, because a contingent fee arrangement is prohibited when the fee is based on the amount of alimony or a division of martial property. D. No, because the wife was indigent and the lawyer should have advanced her the filing fees.

C. No, because a contingent fee arrangement is prohibited when the fee is based on the amount of alimony or a division of martial property.

An attorney represents a plaintiff in a personal injury suit arising out of a tour bus accident in Hawaii. Nearly all of the eyewitnesses were tourists who have now returned home to the mainland. Without notifying the defense attorney, the plaintiff's attorney has interviewed most of the witnesses by phone. By far the most compelling witness, and the one most favorable for the plaintiff, is a librarian who lives in North Dakota and had spent the bulk of her life savings on a vacation to Hawaii. It was on this vacation that she witnesses the tour bus accident. She is a very appealing witness, and the attorney is confident that if a jury saw her testimony personally, the plaintiff would win his suit. The attorney tells the witness that if she is willing to come to Hawaii for one week to testify, he will pay for her plane tickets, an oceanfront hotel room at a first class hotel, all meals, and one week's salary for her lost time. This is the same offer that the attorney makes all witnesses traveling in any of his cases. The witness, who cannot believe her good fortune, readily agrees. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because a lawyer may not offer an inducement to a witness to testify. B. Yes, because he interviewed the witnesses without notifying the defense attorney. C. No, because a lawyer may pay a witness's reasonable expenses and lost wages. D. No, because the trip and accommodations are substantially more expensive than the witness could afford.

C. No, because a lawyer may pay a witness's reasonable expenses and lost wages.

The mayor of a small city is also a licensed attorney who has a law partnership with a fellow attorney in the city. Under the city's charter, the mayor has authority to determine what issues are to be placed on the agenda of the city council. Several council members have told the mayor that they would like to see a particular zoning measure on the agenda. This proposed ordinance would ban commercial development in a certain area with the city. The mayor's law partner has been retained as an attorney for a development company that has acquired land in the proposed noncommercial zoning area and has plans to construct a large shopping center there. The mayor has agreed to take no direct role in the representation, not to share any fees from the case, and not to attend any city council meetings at which the matter will be discussed. May the mayor's law partner represent the development company in this matter? A. Yes, because the development company is not a client of the mayor. B. Yes, because the mayor will not be present at any city council meetings at which the matter is discussed. C. No, because of the mayor's position as mayor. D. No, because the mayor will have no direct role in the representation and will not share in any fees from the case.

C. No, because of the mayor's position as mayor.

A lawyer takes on a client who was hit by a car and was unable to work for 18 months. At the client's request, the lawyer agreed to represent the client on a contingent fee basis. The client requested that the lawyer provide him certain financial assistance during the pendency of the lawsuit. The lawyer agrees to provide a $20,000 loan, in an agreement reviewed by independent counsel. The $20,000 loan would cover $5,000 to support the client's family, $5,000 for the client's medical treatment, $5,000 to retain an expert witness, and $5,000 for job training. Which of the following is proper? A. The $5,000 to support the client's family during the pendency of the suit. B. The $5,000 for the client's medical treatment. C. The $5,000 to pay the expert witness fee. D. The $5,000 for job training.

C. The $5,000 to pay the expert witness fee.

An attorney is representing a defendant in a civil case that arose out of a business deal gone sour. One evening after courts was out of session, but with the trial set to resume the next day, the attorney attended a $5,000 per person charity fundraiser dinner. When he found his assigned seat, he was shocked to find that he was seated next to the plaintiff in the lawsuit. The attorney asked the hostess if she could change his seat, but she said it would be impossible. Determined to make the best of it, the attorney and the plaintiff did not discuss the case but made small talk about the charity, the weather, etc. They soon found that they had much in common, including a love for sports. After a long, enjoyable evening of discussing their favorite teams, the plaintiff gest up to leave. He turns to the attorney, and says he has enjoyed talking with him, and says that he intends to calls hi attorney first thing in the morning to talk about reaching an agreeable settlement in the case. The next day, the plaintiff calls his lawyer and tells her that after talking with the defendant's lawyer at the fundraiser, he has decided to settle the case for the amount proposed in the last negotiating session. The plaintiff then instructs the lawyer to draw up the appropriate papers. Furious, the plaintiff's lawyer does as her client asks, but reports the defendant's attorney to the proper bar authorities. Is the defendant's attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he communicated with a represented party without the consent of the party's attorney. B. Yes, because this is an improper ex parte communication while the matter is still pending. C. No, because they discussed the charity, the weather, and sports. D. No, because the attorney did not know he would be seated next to the plaintiff and asked to have the seating assignment changed as soon as he discovered it.

C. No, because they discussed the charity, the weather, and sports.

The court appointed a lawyer to defend an indigent teacher accused of murder. The jury convicted the teacher, and she was sentenced to 40 years in prison. The lawyer's court appointment expired at the end of the trial, but he promised the teacher that he would represent her without cost in taking an appeal from her conviction. The lawyer advanced $350 on the teacher's behalf to cover the expenses of the appeal, knowing that the teacher would probably not be able to pay him back. While the appeal was pending, the teacher wrote a manuscript for a book about life in a women's prison. She hired the lawyer to negotiate the contract with a publisher to have the book published, and in return for the contract work, she promised to pay the lawyer 30% of the royalties from her book. Is the lawyer subject to discipline? A. Yes, because he entered into a literary rights contract with his client while her appeal was pending. B. Yes, because he advanced appeal expenses for his client, knowing that she probably could not pay him back. C. No, unless 30% of the book royalties is unreasonably high for the contract negotiation. D. Yes, because he agreed to represent his client pursuant to a court appointment and therefore is not entitled to book royalties

C. No, unless 30% of the book royalties is unreasonably high for the contract negotiation.

Dennis is a defense attorney who specializes in DUI defense. Rochelle, a 21-year-old, fulltime student was charged with DUI and hired Dennis to represent her. Rochelle became delinquent in paying her legal bills. Her favorite uncle, Harry, sent Dennis a check for $5,000 and asked to apply it to Rochelle's account. Harry also told Dennis not to tell his niece because other family members were hoping Rochelle would be sentenced and spend time in jail to rehabilitate herself. Is it proper for Denise to accept Harry's $5,000 check? A. Yes, only if Harry has signed a payment guarantee of Rochelle's legal expenses. B. Yes, only if Harry does not interfere with Dennis's representation in the matter. C. No, unless Dennis first communicate the situation to Rochelle, and she gives informed consent. D. No, because this would destroy Dennis's independent professional judgment.

C. No, unless Dennis first communicate the situation to Rochelle, and she gives informed consent.

Miriam worked as an associate at the Relix law firm for many years. At Relix, she had a minor role representing Leon in a lawsuit against Tracy. In the course of that lawsuit, Miriam learned confidential information about Leon. Later, Miriam switch firms and began working for Thomson & West. While at her new firm, she was approached by Bert seeking her representation in a lawsuit against Leon. Bert v. Leon is related to Leon v. Tracy. If Miriam accepts the case, she is A. Subject to discipline. B. Subject to discipline, but only if she compromises anything she learned about Leon. C. Subject to discipline, unless she first obtains Leon's informed consent, confirmed in writing and there is no significant risk that her representation of Bert will be materially limited by her past representation of Leon. D. Not subject to discipline.

C. Subject to discipline, unless she first obtains Leon's informed consent, confirmed in writing and there is no significant risk that her representation of Bert will be materially limited by her past representation of Leon.

A family-owned chemical company receives information that some of its sales associates may have entered into price fixing agreements in violation of federal antitrust laws. The shares of the chemical company are not publicly traded and the company is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The general counsel of the company hires an outside antitrust lawyer to investigate the matter. The investigation by the antitrust lawyer and her associate revealed that some of the sale associates had indeed entered into agreements that could make the company civilly and criminally liable under antitrust laws. The antitrust lawyer reported these findings and her antitrust advice in a confidential letter addressed jointly to the company's CEO and general counsel. The general counsel wrote back, asking the antitrust lawyer to stand by to defend the company if needed. Months went by and the antitrust lawyer heard nothing more. Her associate grew restless, and without telling the antitrust lawyer, he told a friend in the Justice Department what the company's salespeople had done. The Justice Department began a price fixing investigation of the company and its competitors. Which of the following is correct? A. The antitrust lawyer is subject to discipline for failing to report the company's situation to the antitrust enforcement authorities in the Justice Department, but her associate's conduct was proper. B. The conduct of both the antitrust lawyer and the associate was proper, and neither of them would be subject to civil liability if the company sues them for malpractice. C. The associate is subject to discipline for tipping off the Justice Department, but the antitrust lawyer's conduct was proper. D. Neither the antitrust lawyer nor the associate is subject to discipline, but both of them may be subject to civil liability if the company sues them for legal malpractice.

C. The associate is subject to discipline for tipping off the Justice Department, but the antitrust lawyer's conduct was proper.

Tommy, a law student, is applying for admission to the OH bar. When he was in high school, Tommy lived in KY, Gina, Tommy's neighbor in KY, was licensed to practice law in KY. Gina liked Tommy; Tommy mowed Gina's lawn and seemed to be a good student. Gina was disappointed to learn that, during Tommy's senior year of high school, he was convicted for a petty theft. After serving a brief sentence, Tommy went to college and later to law school. Gina has had no contact with Tommy since those high school years, and as far as she knows, the law student has not done anything since then that would reflect poorly on his character. Ohio sends Gina a routine questionnaire asking a series of questions about Tommy's character. Gina does not know whether Tommy disclosed the petty theft conviction on his bar application nor does she know how to contact Tommy. Which of the following would be a proper response to the questionnaire? A) Gina should not respond because she has no relevant information. B) Gina should not respond because she is licensed only in Kentucky and therefore is not obligated to provide information to the Bar of Ohio. C) Gina should not mention Tommy's conviction in her response unless she first contacts Tommy and obtains his permission. D)Gina should state what she knows about Tommy, including the conviction.

D) Gina should state what she knows about Tommy, including the conviction.

A police officer was charged with murder. He is alleged to have savagely beaten and ultimately killed a teenage gang member in the course of an arrest. Neither the police department nor the officer's union was willing to provide him legal counsel for his defense, and the officer himself lacked the funds to hire private counsel. The public defender's office could not represent him due to a conflict of interest from a related case. The trial court therefore appointed Simon to defend the officer. Simon is only three years out of law school. Simon practices criminal defense but he has never handled a murder case before. For which of the following reasons may Simon decline the court appointment? A. Based on what he has read in the newspapers, he sincerely believes that the officer is guilty. B. He had no experience in the defense of a murder case. C. He is of the same race as the teenage victim and sympathetic to the plight of young gang members. D. His clinical depression is affecting his ability to handle his existing caseload.

D) His clinical depression is affecting his ability to handle his existing caseload.

Lawyer represents defendant in an attempted murder case. Defendant tells Lawyer in confidence that he murdered a prostitute the next county over, for which another man was sentenced to life imprisonment. Must Lawyer disclose that her client has committed a crime for which another person is now serving time for? A) Yes, because incarceration is likely to lead to serious bodily harm. B) Yes, because Lawyer knows that an innocent man was convicted for a crime that he did not commit. C) No, unless Lawyer investigates and confirms Defendant's confession with substantial evidence D) No, because Lawyer has no discretion to disclose her client's confidences that relate to a completed criminal act that would incriminate her client.

D) No, because Lawyer has no discretion to disclose her client's confidences that relate to a completed criminal act that would incriminate her client.

An attorney has experienced several instances in which clients failed to pay their fees in a timely manner when it was too late in the representation to withdraw without prejudicing the clients. To avoid a recurrence of this situation, the attorney has drafted a stipulation of consent to withdraw if fees are not paid according to the fee agreement. She proposes to have all clients sign the stipulation at the outset of the representation. Clients will be provided an opportunity to seek independent legal advice before signing the stipulation. Is it proper for the attorney to use the stipulation to withdraw from representation whenever a client fails to pay fees? (A) Yes, because a lawyer may withdraw when the financial burden of continuing the representation would be substantially greater than the parties anticipated at the time of the fee agreement. (B) Yes, because the clients will have consented to the withdrawal in the stipulation. (C) Yes, because clients will be provided an opportunity to seek independent legal advice before signing the stipulation. (D) No, because a client's failure to pay fees when due may be insufficient in itself to justify withdrawal.

D) No, because a client's failure to pay fees when due may be insufficient in itself to justify withdrawal. Rule 1.16

A consumer who bought a defective product that injured him hired a lawyer to represent him in a personal injury action against a large corporation. As the consumer and lawyer discussed the case, the consumer stated that he probably would not agree to a settlement under $500,000. The lawyer agreed that the claim was worth at least that, but felt they would receive a much higher award if the case went to trial. Shortly before trial, the lawyer for the corporation contacted the lawyer for the consumer with a settlement offer of $150,000. The consumer's lawyer tried to call his client but could not reach him. After two hours of trying to reach his client, the consumer lawyer called the corporate lawyer and rejected the offer. At trial, the jury awarded the consumer $1 million. Is the consumer lawyer subject to malpractice liability for his actions? A) Yes, because a lawyer has a duty to keep his client informed of all settlement offers. B) Yes, because decisions to accept or reject settlement offers are to be made by the client. C) No, because the consumer impliedly authorized his lawyer to reject any offer under $500,000. D) No, because the jury award was much greater than the settlement offer

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

An attorney is a general practitioner with extensive experience in personal injury litigation. The attorney has also handled legal malpractice cases, but does not hold herself out to be experienced in such cases. A man contacted the attorney by telephone and asked her to represent him in a legal malpractice case that he wanted to file against the lawyer who had handled his divorce. The attorney refused even to meet with the man, saying that she was troubled by how high malpractice insurance premiums were getting and was not going to take any new legal malpractice cases. She did not offer to refer the man to other lawyers who took legal malpractice cases. The man tried to contact several other lawyers, each of whom indicated that he or she would be happy to accept the representation but was too busy to take on any new matters. Six months later the statute of limitations expired without the man filing his lawsuit. If the man can establish that a legal malpractice action against the divorce lawyer would have succeeded, is the attorney subject to civil liability for refusing to accept the representation? (A) Yes, because the attorney did not have good cause to refuse the representation. (B) Yes, because the attorney did not make reasonable efforts to find a competent lawyer to represent the man. (C) No, because the attorney does not hold herself out as experienced in legal malpractice cases. (D) No, because the attorney had no legal obligation to accept the man's case.

D) No, because the attorney had no legal obligation to accept the man's case.

An experienced oil and gas developer asked an attorney to represent him in a suit to establish the developer's owner-ship of certain oil and gas royalties. The developer did not have available the necessary funds to pay the attorney's reasonable hourly rate for undertaking the case and pro-posed instead that, if he prevailed in the lawsuit, he would pay the attorney 20% of the first year's royalties recovered in the suit. Twenty percent of the first year's royalties would likely exceed the amount that the attorney would have received from charging his regular hourly rate. The attorney accepted the proposal. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because the agreement gave the attorney a pro-prietary interest in the developer's cause of action. (B) Yes, because the fee was likely to exceed the amount that the attorney would have received from charging his regular hourly rate. (C) No, because the developer rather than the attorney proposed the fee arrangement. (D) No, because the attorney may contract with the devel-oper for a reasonable contingent fee.

D) No, because the attorney may contract with the developer for a reasonable contingent fee. Rule 1.5, Rule 1.8(i)

A wife retained an attorney to advise her in negotiating a separation agreement with her husband. Even though he knew that his wife was represented by the attorney, the husband, who was not a lawyer, refused to obtain counsel and insisted on acting on his own behalf throughout the protracted negotiations. The attorney never met or directly communicatedin any way with the husband during the entire course of the negotiations. After several months, the wife advised the attor-ney that the parties had reached agreement and presented the attorney with the terms. The attorney then prepared a proposed agreement that contained all of the agreed-upon terms. The attorney mailed the proposed agreement to the husband, with a cover letter stating the following: "As you know, I have been retained by your wife to represent her in this matter. I enclose two copies of the separation agreement negotiated by you and your wife. Please read it and, if it meets with your approval, sign both copies before a notary and return them to me. I will then have your wife sign them and furnish you with a fully executed copy." Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because the attorney did not suggest that the husband seek the advice of independent counsel before signing the agreement. (B) Yes, because the attorney directly communicated with an unrepresented person. (C) No, because the attorney acted only as a scrivener. (D) No, because the attorney's letter did not imply that the attorney was disinterested.

D) No, because the attorney's letter did not imply that the attorney was disinterested. Rule 4.3

An attorney represented a client who was the plaintiff in a personal injury action. The personal injury action was settled, and the attorney received a check in the amount of $10,000 payable to the attorney. The attorney deposited the check in her clients' trust account. One day later, the attorney received a letter from a bank, which had heard of the settlement of the personal injury lawsuit. The bank informed the attorney that the client had failed to make his monthly mortgage payments for the last three months and demanded that the attorney immediately release $900 of the proceeds of the settlement to the bank or the bank would institute mortgage foreclosure proceedings against the client. The attorney informed the client of the bank's letter. The client did not dispute the $900 debt to the bank, but responded: "I don't care what the bank does. The property is essentially worthless, so let the bank foreclose. If the bank wants to sue me, I'll be easy enough to find. I don't think they'll even bother. You just take your legal fees and turn the rest of the proceeds over to me." Is the attorney subject to discipline if she follows the client's instructions? (A) Yes, because the client did not dispute the $900 debt to the bank. (B) Yes, because the attorney knows that the client is plan-ning to force the bank to sue him. (C) No, because the attorney did not represent the client in the mortgage matter. (D) No, because the bank has no established right to the specific proceeds of the client's personal injury judgment.

D) No, because the bank has no established right to the specific proceeds of the client's personal injury judgment. Rule 1.15(e)

Nicolas represents Jackie who is under indictment for homicide. In the course of the representation, Jackie told Nicolas that she had previously killed two other people. These murders are completely unrelated to the murder indictment for which the attorney is providing representation. With Jackie's consent, Nicolas made a tape recording of Jackie's confession regarding the unrelated homicides. At Nicolas's request, Jackie also drew a map of the remote location of the victim's graves from the unrelated killings. Those bodies have not been found by the police, and the client is not a suspect in either crime, both of which remain unsolved. Is Nicolas subject to discipline if he fails to voluntarily disclose to the authorities his knowledge of the two prior murders and the locations of the victims' bodies? A) Yes, b/c as an officer of the court, Nicolas must disclose any knowledge that he has, whether privileged or not, concerning the commission of the prior crimes by his client. B) Yes, b/c Nicolas is impeding the state's access to significant evidence. C) No, b/c Nicolas did not represent or advise Jackie with respect to the prior crimes. D) No, b/c the information was obtained by Nicolas in the course of the representation

D) No, because the information was obtained by Nicolas in the course of the representation. Rule 1.6(a)

Lawyer Larry and lawyer Laura are partners in a small firm. Lawyer Larry represents authority manufacture in all of its litigation, including a present lawsuit where it is a defendant. Int hat lawsuit, driver Dan is alleging that a car manufactured by the auto manufacturer malfunctioned when he was driving it, causing him to hit and kill pedestrian pam. The executor of the pedestrian pam estate has asked lawyer Laura to represent the estate in a lawsuit against driver dan and auto manufacturer. Both lawyers believer they will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to their clients. They have agreed not to talk with each other or share documents concerning the matter. Auto Manufacturer and the executor of Pedestrian Pam's estate both give verbal consent to the representation after full disclosure of all material risks. Is it proper for lawyer Laura to accept reorientation of pedestrian pass estate? A) Yes, b/c both lawyers could reasonably believe they could give competent and diligent representation to their clients. B) Yes, b/c the lawyers have agreed not to talk with each other or share documents C) No, b/c although the conflict is consentable, the informed consent is not in writing D) No, b/c there is a non-consentable conflict of interest

D) No, because there is a non-consentable conflict of interest. Rule 1.7(a)

Jimmie walked into the law offices of Vivian, a lawyer. Because Vivian was not busy she agreed to talk with Jimmie. He told her that he was concerned that he might be indicted soon. He explained the details of his predicament at length to Vivian, but after he finished, she explained to him that she only handled civil matters and urged Jimmie to consult with her friend Alvin who was a criminal lawyer. Jimmie retained Alvin to represent him. A few days later, Vivian read a news story announcing Jimmie's indictment. It quoted the prosecuting attorney at some length. After reading the article, Vivian became convinced that something Jimmie had told her during their interview would probably exonerate him or, at the very least, lead to a reduction in the charges against him if the prosecutor became aware of this information. May Vivian reveal the information to the prosecutor? A) Yes, because Jimmie did not retain Vivian to represent him B) Yes, because the information will help Jimmie C) No, because the Vivian learned the information during the course of an attorney-client relationship. D) No, unless Jimmie consents to the disclosure

D) No, unless Jimmie consents to the disclosure

Janice represents a pharmaceutical company that has hired her to investigate whistleblower allegations that there are serious quality control problems with one of its manufacturing plants. She commutes to and from the client via mass transit. She leaves her briefcase behind on a seat one morning in the rush of exiting the train. The briefcase has no lock, and her phone has no password on it. The woman who finds her briefcase opens it to see if it has a name on the inside so she can return it. When she sees the documents about the pharmaceutical company's problems, she becomes enraged and send the briefcase and phone to a local newspaper. Reporters review all of the document and her phone, and publish the story skewering the pharmaceutical company. Is Janice subject to discipline? A) No, b/c the newspaper had no right to publish the information. B) No, b/c she had no obligation to report out about an internal investigation. C) Yes, b/c she should not have taken confidential client documents on mass transit. D) Yes, b/c she failed to take reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information relating to her representation of the pharmaceutical company.

D) Yes, because she failed to take reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information relating to her representation of the pharmaceutical company. 1.6c

A law firm has 300 lawyers in 10 states. It has placed the supervision of all routine administrative and financial matters in the hands of a nonlawyer administrator. The administrator is paid a regular monthly salary and a year-end bonus of 1% of the law firm's net income from fees. Organizationally, the administrator reports to the managing partner of the law firm. This partner deals with all issues related to the law firm's supervision of the practice of law. The administrator has access to client files but does not have control over the professional judgment of the lawyers in the firm.Is it proper for the partner to participate in the law firm's use of the administrator's services in this fashion? (A) No, because the administrator has access to client files. (B) No, because the law firm is assisting a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law. (C) No, because the law firm is sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer. (D) Yes, because the administrator does not control the professional judgment of the lawyers in the firm

D) Yes, because the administrator does not control the professional judgment of the lawyers in the firm. Rule 5.4(d), Rule 5.3, Rule 5.4(a)(3).

Attorney Pat is married to Attorney Drew. Pat and Drew work for different law firms. Pat Represents Client A, who initiates a lawsuit against Company B. Company B. approaches Drew's law firm (but not Drew specifically) about representing it. May Drew's law firm do so without obtaining Company B's informed consent. A) No, b/c a lawyer married to another lawyer ordinarily may not represent a client in a matter where the lawyer is representing another party, unless each client gives informed consent, and conflicts for one lawyer are imputed to the entire firm that lawyer works for. B) No, b/c Client A retained Pat before Company B sought out Drew's firm. C) Yes, b/c corporations are not required to give informed consent. D) Yes, because the disqualification arising from a close family relationship is personal and ordinarily is not imputed to members of firms with whom the lawyers are associated.

D) Yes, because the disqualification arising from a close family relationship is personal and ordinarily is not imputed to members of firms with whom the lawyers are associated. Rule 1.7 Rule 1.10

John has been arrested for 3 DUIs during law school. He plead guilty to one, no contest to another, and the third is still pending. Must he reveal these facts on his application for admission to the bar? A) No, because in such cases, the burden of proof is on the bar admissions committee to find the violations, and they are a matter of public record. B) No, John is arguably protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. C) Yes, but only if he feels he is morally compelled to come forward. This is an individual matter. D) Yes, full disclosure of such matters is normally required, and failure to make disclosure could risk not only admission, but the future termination of his right to practice law if his failure to disclose is discovered

D) Yes, full disclosure of such matters is normally required, and failure to make disclosure could risk not only admission, but the future termination of his right to practice law if his failure to disclose is discovered.

A solo practitioner is one of only three lawyers in a small town. The solo practitioner is presently defending a client in a criminal action for assault and battery. This morning one of the solo practitioner's regular clients, a gas and grocery store, asked the solo practitioner to sue the same client to recover the past due amount on a gasoline and grocery charge account. Would it be proper for the solo practitioner to represent the gas and grocery store in the charge account case? A. No, because it is presumed that a lawyer obtains confidential information in the course of representing a client. B. No, unless the other two lawyers in town are disqualified from representing the gas and grocery store. C. Yes, because there is no substantial relationship between the charge account case and the assault and battery case. D. Yes, if both the client and the gas and grocery store consent in writing after full disclosure of the conflict.

D. Yes, if both the client and the gas and grocery store consent in writing after full disclosure of the conflict.

Jeff, a solo practitioner, represented Carl in a property dispute against Adam. The trial court ruled in favor of Carl. Adam decided to appeal. Both Carl and Adam decided to get different lawyers. In the meantime, Jeff was hired by Smith & Jones. Adam decided to hire Bonny, who also works at Smith & Jones. Who may work on Adam's appeal? A. Neither Bonny nor Jeff B. Only Jeff C. Both Jeff and Bonny because Jeff will give Adam an advantage and the firm is obligated to take the advantage. D. Bonny, if Jeff is not allowed to participate in the case, and Smith & Jones inform Carl of the steps taken to prevent Jeff from participating in the case.

D. Bonny, if Jeff is not allowed to participate in the case, and Smith & Jones inform Carl of the steps taken to prevent Jeff from participating in the case.

Adam represented Harry and Wilma in setting up their family restaurant business. During the course of the representation, Adam became highly familiar with the personal financial circumstances of both clients. Running the business has put a strain on the couple's marriage, and Harry and Wilma decide to divorce. Wilma is served with a divorce petition from Harry. After reading the petition, Wilma notices that Adam is already representing Harry in the divorce proceedings. Angry, Wilma calls Harry to complain. A short time later, Wilma receives a letter from Adam asking her to consent in writing to his representation of Harry. Wilma reluctantly agrees. Has Adam acted properly? A. Yes, because there is no substantial relationship between the divorce case and the business representation B. Yes, because he obtained a conflict waiver from Wilma. C. No, because Adam did not have the waiver notarized. D. No, because Wilma's conflict waiver was requested after the representation had already begun.

D. No, because Wilma's conflict waiver was requested after the representation had already begun.

The Department of Children's Services (DCS), a state agency, has removed a woman's children from her home and is attempting to terminate her parental rights. The woman retains a lawyer to fight DCS's actions. Prior to the first hearing on the matter, a lawyer from DCS contacted the woman's brother to set up an interview. The lawyer told the brother that he wanted to talk to him about his sister, and that the interview would last for about one hour. The brother, who is childless, had never had any contact with DCS before, and did not know what his duties were. He told the lawyer he would get back to him. The brother then called his sister's lawyer. He told her that he does not want to talk to DCS because he is afraid he might inadvertently say something that will hurt his sister's case. He asked his sister's lawyer how he should proceed. She advised him simply to refuse the interview, because he was not required to talk to them and his sister would be better off if he did not. Is the lawyer subject to discipline? A. Yes, because she is attempting to secure the noncooperation of a witness. B. Yes, because she gave advice to an unrepresented party. C. No, because she did not advise the brother to seek the advice of independent counsel. D. No, because the brother is her client's brother and he did not want to hurt her case.

D. No, because the brother is her client's brother and he did not want to hurt her case.

Andy represents Sean, a criminal defendant. In a seemingly unrelated criminal case, Andy's law partner, Ted, represents Greg, another criminal defendant. During an interview, Sean tells Andy that he was involved in the crime with which Greg is charged and that Sean is willing to testify against Greg if he can be granted immunity from prosecution on that charge and plea bargain the crime with which he is presently charged down to a lesser offense. Which of the following courses of action is proper for Andy? A. Inform Ted of what Sean has told him and continue representing Sean. B. Inform Ted of what Sean has told him and withdraw from representing Sean. C. Not inform Ted of what Sean has told him and continue representing Sean. D. Not inform Ted of what Sean has told him and withdraw from representing Sean.

D. Not inform Ted of what Sean has told him and withdraw from representing Sean.

A worker sued his employer, claiming that he was permanently and totally disabled due to a back injury he suffered on the job. The employer's lawyer strongly suspected, but had no proof, that the worker continued his hobby of skydiving after the alleged back injury. In due course, the employer's lawyer met with the worker's lawyer for a settlement discussion. The employer's lawyer told the worker's lawyer that they had videos of the worker jumping out of an airplane two weeks after his purported injury. The worker's lawyer excused herself to make a call to the worker. When she asked the worker whether he had ben skydiving after the accident, he admitted that he had. With the consent of their respective clients, the two lawyers then settled the case for $4000. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. No, because bluffing is accepted tactic in settlement negotiations. B. No, because the employer's lawyer's bluff successfully unmasked a fraudulent client. C. Yes, because it was improper to pay $400 to settle a fraudulent claim. D. Yes, because the employer's lawyer lied about having the videos

D. Yes, because the employer's lawyer lied about having the videos

Nina, an elderly widower has one living child, Monica. Nina's main asset is a 51% partnership interest in a wealthy real estate syndicate, Prop Corp, that owns and operates mobile home parks throughout the state. Monica's husband Steve is an attorney. One of the Steve's regular clients asks Steve to represent him in negotiating the sale of 3,000 acres of roadside property to Prop Corp, which is represented by its own lawyer in the matter. May Steve represent his regular client in a sale with Prop Corp? A. No, even if the client gives informed, written consent B. No, because to do so would create an appearance of impropriety. C. Yes, because Steve has no significant personal interest in Prop Corp D. Yes, but only if the client gives informed, written consent.

D. Yes, but only if the client gives informed, written consent.