MPRE First 100

An attorney was an associate at Big Firm. In his first year there, as a recent law school graduate, the attorney had a twenty-minute conversation with a more senior associate about research strategies involving a narrow issue of venue in federal court. The research was part of the representation of Big Bank, in the case of Developer v. Big Bank. The attorney's time sheets from the time clearly document the length of the conversation and its subject matter. The entire conversation focused on the facts pleaded in the complaint and answer; the attorney learned no confidential information about the matter. Eventually, the attorney left Big Firm to become an associate at Boutique Firm. Eighteen month later, a partner assigned the attorney to represent the same Developer against Big Bank in a matter that overlapped on many points with the matter in which Big Firm had represented Big Bank. Lawyers at Big Firm still represent Big Bank, and they inform the bank's officials that the attorney who worked for them is now working at Boutique Firm, representing the Developer. Big Bank instructs the lawyers at Big Firm to seek the disqualification of the entire Boutique Firm from representing the Developer in the matter. How could Boutique firm avoid the imputation of a conflict of interest to its lawyers? a) Boutique Firm cannot avoid imputation of the conflict of interest, for it should have known about the attorney's prior work before it hired him, and the matter is closely related to the matter the attorney worked on a Big Firm. b) If Boutique Firm immediately terminates the attorney and forbids the other lawyers there from having any contact with him, it can avoid disqualification in this matter. c) At most, Boutique Firm would need to screen the attorney from the matter and have other lawyers represent the Developer, but even this may be unnecessary, because the attorney learned no confidential information about Big Bank at his previous firm. d)At best, Boutique Firm could offer to serve as a mediator between the Developer and Big Bank to resolve the matter, butit cannot provide representation in the form of advocacy due to the attorney's prior work on the representation of Big Bank

At most, Boutique Firm would need to screen the attorney from the matter and have other lawyers represent the Developer, but even this may be unnecessary, because the attorney learned no confidential information about Big Bank at his previous firm

A prospective client met with an attorney at Boutique Firm for an initial consultation about a personal injury lawsuit over injuries the prospective client had sustained. The attorney declined the representation because he thought the client's case was unwinnable and would therefore generate no fees. During the consultation, the attorney asked some probing questions about the incident, and the client admitted facts indicating an unreasonable assumption of foreseeable risks beforehand, as well as the client's own intoxication at the time, which in the case would constitute contributory negligence. Furthermore, the client had failed to take obvious measures afterward to mitigate the damages. The attorney was certain that all these unfavorable facts would come out during discovery, and the client's claim would become laughable at trial. Two months later, another client came in for a consultation with another lawyer at Boutique Firm. This prospective client had was service of process in a new personal injury lawsuit, and he was the named defendant. The plaintiff in the lawsuit was the same individual who had met with the first attorney for a consultation a few weeks before. Boutique firm agreed to take the case and represent the defendant in the litigation, and it has no measures in place to screen the attorney who consulted with the prospective client from participating in the matter. Which of the following is true, according to the MRPC? a) The other lawyer at Boutique Firm can represent the defendant in the matter if the first attorney has not disclosed any confidential information to others in the firm, and he does not in fact disclose any confidential information the attorney learned during the consultation. b)Boutique Firm cannot represent the defendant in the case because an attorney there learned confidential information from the opposing party as a prospective client during an initial consultation two months ago, unless Boutique Firm obtains informed consent in writing from both the defendant and the opposing party, who was a prospective client during a one-time consultation. c) Either the attorney or the other lawyer at Boutique Firm can represent the defendant, because the plaintiff was never a client of the firm, but merely came in for an initial consultation, at the end of which the attorney immediately declined representation. d)Either the attorney or the other lawyer at Boutique Firm can represent the defendant because the unfavorable information the clientsharedduringtheconsultation, though confidential at the time, will inevitably come out during discovery no matter who represents the discovery

Boutique Firm cannot represent the defendant in the case because an attorney there learned confidential information from the opposing party as a prospective client during an initial consultation two months ago, unless Boutique Firm obtains informed consent in writing from both the defendant and the opposing party, who was a prospective client during a one-time consultation

An attorney was an associate in Big Firm for eighteen months from early 2003 to late 2004. Another lawyer at Big Firm had been representing MindGames Inc., a creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding of Education Support International since 1999. The associate left Big Firm in 2004 to work for Regional Cancer Center as general counsel, where the medical director was Dr. House. There is a long, sad story here, but the bottom line is that Education Support International, which was still in bankruptcy, also owed money to Dr. House as a major shareholder of the failed company. In the summer of 2005, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of MindGames Inc. and the shareholders, and MindGames immediately filed for sanctions against (compensation from) the shareholders, including Dr. House. At that point, Dr. House's lawyer withdrew from representation because the case had taken a complicated turn, and Dr. House asked the general counsel at his medical center - the associate we met at the beginning of this story - to represent him going forward. MindGames filed a motion to disqualify the attorney from representing Dr. House in the proceeding and the appeal, because he had formerly worked at Big Firm, in an office a few doors down from their own lawyer there. The bankruptcy judge agreed, applying an irrebuttable presumption that the attorney learned confidential information about MindGames while working at Big Firm, but the attorney insists he never worked on any MindGames matters and has did not learn any confidential information. The attorney has appealed the disqualification to the Fifth Circuit. How should the circuit court rule? a) It should reverse the disqualification order because the imputed conflict of interest disappeared when the attorney left Big Firm to work for Regional Cancer Center, given that the attorney knew no confidential information about MindGames. b) It should reverse the disqualification because so much time has elapsed since the attorney worked at Big Firm, making any confidential information he learned presumptively outdated. c) It should uphold the disqualification because the appellate court should defer to a trial court on matters of attorney conduct and conflicts of interest. d)It should uphold the disqualification because of their rebuttable presumption in the Model Rules that a lawyer who works at a firm has access to confidential information about all the clients of the firm.

It should reverse the disqualification order because the imputed conflict of interest disappeared when the attorney left Big Firm to work for Regional Cancer Center, given that the attorney knew no confidential information about MindGames.

Attorney Ames and Attorney Adams work in the corporate legal office of Risk Company. A federal regulatory agency is investigating of the activities of Risk Company and is deciding whether to initiate criminal charges against Risk Company, some of its employees, or both. The regulatory agency has a long-established practice of not charging corporations for violations that corporate employees commit, where the corporation can show convincingly that it actively sought to discourage the offense in question. Showing this practice would, however, almost guarantee that an employee would face charges individually for the violation. Stevenson is a Risk Company employee upon whose activities the agency has begun to focus. Before Attorney Adams' employment by Risk Company, she had been in private practice and had advised Stevenson with respect to the very conduct that is the subject of the agency investigation. Can Attorney Ames, who works with Attorney Adams, represent Risk Company in the matter before the regulatory agency, without obtaining informed consent from Stevenson? a) Neither Attorney Ames nor any other member of Company's corporate legal office may represent Company without obtaining Stevenson' informed consent. b) Attorney Adams can screen himself from the matter, and then Attorney Ames can represent Risk Company as in-house counsel in appearances before the agency officials. c) Attorney Ames should not undertake the representation himself, but he can arrange for an supervise outside counsel in handling the matter for Risk Company. d)Attorney Ames can represent RiskCompany in the matter, because in-house counsel for corporations are exempt from the usual imputation of conflicts of interest from one lawyer to others in the same firm

Neither Attorney Ames nor any other member of Company's corporate legal office may represent Company without obtaining Stevenson' informed consent

A husband and wife decide to divorce and reach an agreement to share the same lawyer in hopes of saving money. They hire an attorney to represent each of them in Family Court for the dissolution of marriage. The attorney explains that there is an obvious conflict of interest here, but the husband and wife insist, and sign informed consent forms waiving the conflict and their rights to assert any future claims related to the conflict. The husband and wife have no children, and they have always kept separate bank accounts. Each purchased their own car from the money in their own bank account and each car's title is in only one name. They live in an apartment whose lease is expiring soon, so there is no real property to divide. Would it be proper for the attorney to represent both in the divorce? a) Yes, because it appears on these facts that there will be no assets in dispute at all, so the theoretical conflict of interest would have no bearing on their case. b) Yes, because both clients consented in writing, the dual representation does not violate law, and the attorney could have a reasonable belief that he will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client. c) No, because contingent fees are not permissible in divorce cases, and the husband and wife's sole motivation in sharing a lawyer was to save money. d)No ,because the representation involves the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.

No ,because the representation involves the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.

A federal judge hired a clerk for the first two years after the clerk graduated from law school. During his second year as a clerk, he began applying for associate positions at local law firms, to secure a job that would begin immediately after his clerkship ended. A few of the firms to which he applied had pending matters before the same judge, and these were among the firms that interviewed the clerk for an associate attorney position. During the interviewing process, the clerk refrained from mentioning he knew about their pending matters on his judge's docket, though the interviewers always mentioned the fact that their firms regularly appeared before the judge in whose chambers the applicant was then clerking. Each firm that interviewed the clerk received a letter from the judge recommending the applicant to prospective legal employers. Even though some of these firms had pending matters on the judge's docket, the judge knew from the clerk which firms were interviewing the clerk. Was it improper for the clerk to apply for positions at firms that have pending matters before the judge for whom she was clerking? a) Yes, the fact that the judge sent recommendation letters for the clerk to these firms constituted an ex parte contact by the judge and the clerk. b) Yes, interviewing with firms that have pending matters before the judge, and where this fact was the subject of a comment or discussion in the interview, constituted an ex parte contact by the judicial clerk with a party in a litigation matter. c) No, a law clerk to a judge may negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer, even if the prospective employer is involved in a matter in which the clerk is participating personally, after the lawyer has notified the judge. d)No, any lawyers working for the government may always seek private employment with any prospective employer, even if the prospective employer is involved in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally in a substantial way

No, a law clerk to a judge may negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer, even if the prospective employer is involved in a matter in which the clerk is participating personally, after the lawyer has notified the judge

An experienced attorney had his own solo law practice. The attorney agreed to provide representation to a certain client, which would entail researching and writing several legal opinions for the client pertaining to the client's anticipated litigation, and the attorney's usual hourly rate. The proposed research and writing would require a substantial amount of time, so their agreement stipulated that the attorney would bill the client every two months. The client paid the first bill and then stopped paying. After several months, the anticipated litigation began, and the client requested copies of all the remaining legal opinions that the attorney had agreed to write. The attorney had followed state laws to secure a lien on his work product for the client after the client stopped paying. Could the attorney be subject to discipline if he were to retain the documents that the client has not yet paid for? a) Yes, the attorney has now acquired an impermissible proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of the client's litigation. b) Yes, the Model Rules forbid a lawyer to acquire a lien merely to secure the lawyer's fee or expenses. c) No, if a client refuses to pay the fees that a lawyer has already earned, the lawyer owes no ethical duties to the client, because the client has nullified the client-lawyer relationship. d)No, a lawyer may acquire and act upon a lien authorized by law to secure the lawyer's fee or expenses.

No, a lawyer may acquire and act upon a lien authorized by law to secure the lawyer's fee or expenses

A municipal election for a seat on the city council was remarkably close one year, resulting in a run-off election that was ever closer. Both candidates claimed victory, and each accused the opposing candidate of voter fraud and violations of various election rules. There is potential for litigation if the two cannot agree as to a winner in the election, with one or the other conceding. A certain attorney is a prominent lawyer in the community and has previously represented each candidate in various legal matters. Both candidates would like to hire the attorney to represent them in negotiating a resolution to the election. Each candidate fully understands their adverse interests and the potential conflicts of interest for the attorney, but each is willing to provide written informed consent to have the attorney represent them both in facilitating the negotiations. May the attorney represent both candidates in this negotiation? a) Yes, common representation is permissible where the clients' interests align overall, even though there is some difference in interest among them, so the attorney may pursue an agreement on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis. b) Yes, because conflicts of interest rules do not apply outside the litigation arena; the parties here are not litigating, and no litigation is pending, but instead are merely hiring the attorney to facilitate negotiations of an issue where the two sides are not far apart. c) No, a lawyer may not represent multiple parties to a negotiation whose interests are fundamentally antagonistic to each other, even in a negotiation. d)No, because the fact that the attorney has represented each of the parties in the past means that he would possess confidential information that would make mutual representation nonconsentable in this case

No, a lawyer may not represent multiple parties to a negotiation whose interests are fundamentally antagonistic to each other, even in a negotiation

An attorney served for a while as a municipal court judge, and during that time, she sentenced certain defendants facing criminal charges to terms of probation. Eventually the judge left the court and returned to private practice. Once settled in her new practice, three prospective clients sought to hire her file motions to end their terms of probation early, due to their good behavior and their need to relocate for their jobs. Would it be proper for the attorney to represent them in filing these motions? a) Yes, sentencing municipal defendants to probation is merely an administrative matter that would not necessitate the disqualification of a former judge who later represents the same individuals in seeking to end their probationary terms. b) Yes, filing a motion to end probation early due to good behavior is not the same matter as the original crimes for which the received the sentence. c) No, the attorney may have confidential information from her previous position as the judge in the clients' case that would be prejudicial to the opposing party in the probation-termination hearings. d) No, a lawyer who served as a judge may not represent a client in a matter in which the lawyer had personal and substantial involvement.

No, a lawyer who served as a judge may not represent a client in a matter in which the lawyer had personal and substantial involvement

Conglomerate Corporation spilled a large quantity of toxic sludge along the edge of its property, and spillage polluting two adjacent properties, one parcel owned by a private individual, and the adjoining parcel that was state-owned. The subdivision of the state that owned the polluted parcel agreed with the private landowner to be co-plaintiffs in a tort action against Conglomerate as the polluter, and to use the same attorney to represent both the state and the private landowner. The private landowner was mostly concerned about the loss to his property values, as this was an investment property. The state was concerned entirely with cleanup costs and the threat to public health. An authorized official at the state agency provided the attorney with written consent to the potential conflicts of interest inherent in the joint representation, as did the private landowner. Under such circumstances, would it be improper for the same attorney to represent both the government and a private party at the same time, in the same matter? a) Yes, the Model Rules prohibit lawyers representing the government from simultaneously representing a private party in the same matter, even with consent from the would-be clients. b)Yes,because the private party's interests are purely financial, while the state's interests involve a balancing of various competing interests of the public c) No, the fact that the state represents the public interest cancels out and potential conflict of interest on the part of the private party and makes the Rules of Professional Conduct inapplicable. d)No, after obtaining the necessary written consent,the attorney may represent both the private party and a government agency

No, after obtaining the necessary written consent,the attorney may represent both the private party and a government agency

. A certain attorney represents a client in a civil suit. The client and the attorney often discuss their hunting trips and have gone hunting together on several occasions. The client tells the attorney he is purchasing a piece of property for hunting with five other people and asks the attorney if he would like to go in on the purchase. The attorney tells the client he would like to join in the purchase and he provides the client with a check for his portion of the purchase price. Is the attorney subject to discipline? a) Yes, attorneys shall not enter into transactions with clients that result in joint ownership of property. b) Yes, attorneys shall not engage in social activities with current clients or enter into transactions that result in joint ownership of property. c) No, attorneys may enter into transactions with clients assuming the transactions are not related to the current representation of the client and the client gives informed consent. d)No, attorneys can enter into fair and reasonable business transactions with clients assuming the client receives an advisory in writing of the benefit of seeking advice from independent counsel and gives informed consent, in writing and signed by the client, of the transaction details.

No, attorneys can enter into fair and reasonable business transactions with clients assuming the client receives an advisory in writing of the benefit of seeking advice from independent counsel and gives informed consent, in writing and signed by the client, of the transaction details.

A certain attorney, a partner at a law firm, prepares a will for Sister. In the will, Sister directs the attorney to receive a substantial part of her estate. Then the attorney also recommends Sister appoint the attorney as the executor of the will because of his knowledge in this field. The attorney explains to Sister the role of the executor and the pay the executor of the estate will receive and discussed alternative executor choices with her. In addition, the attorney recommends Sister seek independent legal counsel regarding the issue of the executor. Sister does so, and then she asks the attorney to list him as executor in the will. Is the attorney subject to discipline? a) Yes, attorneys cannot include substantial gifts to themselves in legal instruments such as wills prepared by the attorney for the client. b) Yes, attorneys cannot recommend that a client appoint the attorney as the executor unless the client obtains the advice of independent legal counsel and gives informed consent confirmed in writing. c) No, attorneys may permissibly include gifts to themselves in a will prepared by an attorney for a person related to the attorney, even if the gift is substantial. d ) No, an attorney may recommend the client appoint the attorney as executor assuming the client receives advice from independent legal counsel regarding the appointment of the attorney as executor prior to signing the will.

No, attorneys may permissibly include gifts to themselves in a will prepared by an attorney for a person related to the attorney, even if the gift is substantial

A transactional attorney agreed to represent a new client who already had representation by trial counsel on another matter. The client agreed to a complex fee arrangement, which included a fixed flat fee for the first phase of the transaction, a modest hourly rate for the remainder of the transaction, and a modest contingent fee in addition to these other fees, scaled to the outcome of the transaction - that is, a higher contingent fee for obtaining more favorable final terms in the transaction. The attorney did not advise the client to seek the opinion of independent legal counsel for this transaction, and did not obtain signed, written consent from the client about the attorney's role in the transaction. The client's other lawyer reviewed the terms of the fee agreement and advised the client to accept it. Based on these facts, could the attorney be subject to discipline for violating the provisions Model Rule 1.8 that govern business transactions with clients? a) Yes, because the attorney did not advise the client in writing to seek the opinion of independent legal counsel for this transaction. b) Yes, the client did not provide signed, written consent regarding about the attorney's role in the transaction. c) No, because the client had representation by another lawyer in the transaction. d) No, because Rule 1.8 does not apply to ordinary fee arrangements between client and lawyer.

No, because Rule 1.8 does not apply to ordinary fee arrangements between client and lawyer

Alpha Firm and Beta Firm represent the two parties in a high-stakes commercial transaction - the sale of a subsidiary corporation from one large, international conglomerate to the other. An attorney at Alpha Firm is married to a lawyer at Beta firm, but the spouse at Beta Firm is not involved in the representation. If a problem arose, would a tribunal that follows the ABA Model Rules impute the marriage-based conflict of interest that Alpha Firm's attorney to all the other lawyers in the firm, if another lawyer at Alpha Firm handled the representation in this case? a) Yes, because personal conflicts of interest automatically impute to the other lawyers at the same firm. b) Yes, because conflicts based on marriage or family relationships receive special scrutiny from the courts and are the most frequent basis for disqualification. c) No, because a conflict arising from a lawyer's marriage to another lawyer at an opposing law firm does not necessarily impute to all other lawyers in the firm. d)No, because the representation involves a transactional matter, and disqualification due to imputed conflicts of interest applies only in the litigation context

No, because a conflict arising from a lawyer's marriage to another lawyer at an opposing law firm does not necessarily impute to all other lawyers in the firm

An attorney represented a client in a residential real estate transaction. At the same time, the attorney agreed to represent the defendant in a large class-action lawsuit, an alcoholic beverage maker that understated the alcohol content of its products on its labels, leading to numerous cases of inadvertent intoxication, liver damage from continuous consumption, and a few deaths from overconsumption that led to alcohol poisoning. The client was an unnamed member of the plaintiff class in the class-action lawsuit against the alcohol producer. The attorney did not inform the client that he was representing the defendant in the class-action lawsuit or seek consent from the client or from the alcohol producer. Plaintiffs' counsel in the class action lawsuit discovered this situation, and he asked the court to disqualify the attorney from representing the defendant. Should the attorney be subject to disqualification under such circumstances? a) Yes, because the attorney represents clients whose interests are directly adverse, and he did not seek or obtain written informed consent to the conflict of interest. b) Yes, because the client will obviously feel betrayed when she learns that the attorney is representing the defendant in the class action lawsuit, and the attorney might have confidential information from representing a client in the real estate transaction that would be prejudicial in the class action lawsuit. c) No, because a lawyer seeking to represent an opponent in a class action does not typically need the consent of an unnamed member of the class whom the lawyer represents in an unrelated matter. d)No, because the interests of the client and the alcohol produce rare not adverse,as the client merely hired the attorney to handle a residential real estate matter

No, because a lawyer seeking to represent an opponent in a class action does not typically need the consent of an unnamed member of the class whom the lawyer represents in an unrelated matter

Husband and Wife wanted to hire a certain attorney to prepare their wills. Before the formalities of representation were final, husband spoke with the attorney privately by phone and disclosed that Husband had been having an affair, and that his lover might be pregnant. Husband forbids the attorney to tell Wife about this. Then the attorney realizes there could be potential conflicts of interest between husband and wife about the wills, distribution of assets, potential challenges to the will by offspring from outside the marriage, and potential claims for child support against Husband's estate. Would it be proper for the attorney to proceed with representing Husband and Wife in preparing their wills? a) Yes, assuming each provides written consent after receiving warnings about the potential conflicts that often emerge in dual representation b) Yes, because this is a transactional matter, not litigation in which adverse claims could arise. c) No, because the attorney cannot violate the duty of confidentiality to Husband, which would be necessary to obtain informed consent from Wife. d) No,because it would be improper to prepare a will for Husband under such circumstances

No, because the attorney cannot violate the duty of confidentiality to Husband, which would be necessary to obtain informed consent from Wife

. A certain state has specialized family courts that handle divorces, child custody, child removal cases brought by state social service agencies, and spousal or child support enforcement. An unmarried couple had split up but they had two children, and the family court judge awarded custody of the children to the single father, and ordered the mother of the children to pay $500 per month in child support to the father. A few months later, the judge left the family court and returned to private practice, specializing in family law, which allowed him to draw on his valuable experience as a former judge in the family court. One day, the father from the case described above came for a consultation, and he explained that the mother of the children had been delinquent for the last two months in paying child support to him. Would it be proper for the judge to represent the father in the action to enforce the child support order? a) Yes, because Comment to the Model Rules contains a specific exception to the prohibition on contingent fess in divorce and custody cases, allowing contingent fee representation for enforcement of existing child support orders. b) Yes, because the attorney will not be deciding the enforcement case as a judge, and the merits of the original order are legally irrelevant to the enforcement action. c) No, because he has a conflicting ethical duty to represent the mother in the case, who lost custody of her own children and must pay child support to the father of the children. d)No, because the attorney would be representing a party in seeking enforcement of his own order from his time on the bench

No, because the attorney would be representing a party in seeking enforcement of his own order from his time on the bench

. An attorney tells a client that certain features of the client's business proposal would constitute money laundering under current federal statutes. The discussion goes through the statute in detail, and the attorney explains why the course of action would meet the statutory definition of money laundering. In addition, the attorney discusses the various monitoring and reporting mechanisms that federal enforcement agencies have in place to detect money laundering, to convince the client that he would not escape arrest and prosecution if he proceeds. The client absorbs the information and uses it to structure a more elaborate money-laundering scheme. He exploits some ambiguity in the statute and the reporting requirements to make his enterprise much more difficult to detect, and this complicates enforcement and prosecution efforts against him. Overall, the attorney's advice turned out to be incredibly useful to the client in avoiding detection and expanding his criminal enterprise. Is the attorney a party to the client's course of action? a) No, because the attorney's subjective intentions were not wrong in the situation. b) No, because the fact that a client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent of itself does not make a lawyer a party to the course of action. c) Yes, because there is no distinction between presenting an analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending how a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity. d) Yes, because a lawyer may not discuss the legal consequences of any proposed criminal course of conduct with a client and or counsel a client to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

No, because the fact that a client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent of itself does not make a lawyer a party to the course of action

The plaintiffs' lawyers in a large class action suit against an insurer contacted an attorney at another firm seeking some advice. The attorney they called was a former commissioner with the state Insurance Commission, so he had vast insider knowledge of the regulation of the insurance industry in that state. The attorney talked to the plaintiffs' lawyers for thirty minutes on the phone, during which the plaintiffs' lawyers shared some confidential information about the class action, including their theories of the case and litigation strategies. A year later, the attorney left his firm and went to work for Boutique Firm. Around the same time, the defense team representing the insurance company in the class action - three lawyers - also moved as a group to the same Boutique Firm, but to their office in another city. Boutique Firm because the counsel of record for the defendant insurer. The plaintiffs' lawyers learned of this convergence, and they *expressed concern that an attorney who had confidential information from their side of the case was now working with opposing counsel at the same firm. Boutique Firm immediately implemented strict screening procedures, and the managing partners made inquiries to confirm that the attorney had not already transmitted confidential information to the defense team for the matter, who were working in another office. The plaintiffs' lawyers were unsatisfied and filed a motion to disqualify all the lawyer in Boutique Firm from representing the insurer defendant in the class action. While the motion was pending, the attorney who had the confidential information left Boutique Firm to accept a government appointment. Should the court disqualify Boutique Firm, due to the imputed conflict of interest? a) Yes, because there is an irrebuttable presumption that an attorney from another firm with confidential information will share that information with other lawyers at his new firm. b) Yes, because the case involves a class action, where courts are particularly sensitive to the problems of confidential information passing between lawyers. c) No, because the firm avoided imputation of the conflict by implementing effective screening measures, and the fact that the lawyer was geographically in another office, and has already departed to work elsewhere, also support denying the motion. d)No,because it was a bizarre coincidence that the defense team would end up migrating laterally to the same firm that the attorney joined around the same time, so there was no bad faith on the part of the lawyers

No, because the firm avoided imputation of the conflict by implementing effective screening measures, and the fact that the lawyer was geographically in another office, and has already departed to work elsewhere, also support denying the motion.

An attorney formerly represented Pharma Giant in obtaining FDA approval to market prescription drug Opticoton for treating diseases of the eye. Drug Conglomerate has now asked the attorney to help it obtain FDA approval for sale of prescription drug Dermicon for treating diseases of the skin. Drug Conglomerate is also interested eventually seeking FDA approval to market a variant form of Dermicon to treat diseases of the eye. If the FDA approved this application, Dermicon would significantly cut into the market share of Opticoton and Pharma Giant's profits from the drug. The attorney gleaned confidential information while representing Pharma Giant that relates extensively to work that the attorney would undertake in helping Drug Conglomerate obtain approval for Dermicon to be marketed as an eye salve, but none of the information would relate to Dermicon's use as a skin medicine. Drug Conglomerate and the attorney agree that the attorney's work will relate only to FDA approval for use of Dermicon to treat diseases of the skin. With this limitation in place, would it be impermissible for the attorney to represent Drug Conglomerate in obtaining the initial approval for Dermicon as a skin medicine, without obtaining Pharma Giant's informed consent? a)Yes, because it is foreseeable that after the FDA approves Dermicon as a skin care drug, it will be easier for Drug Conglomerate to obtain additional approval for its use as an eye salve, sold in a different form. b) Yes, because Pharma Giant has a right to the attorney's unwavering loyalty and confidentiality, and the attorney has a fiduciary duty to protect a former client's profits or commercial interests in the future. c) No, because the limitation on the representation removes any substantial relationship between the two matters or concerns about confidential information from a former client giving a strategic advantage to the new client. d)No,because otherwise the attorney would have an unethical restrain on his right to practice law or represent future clients

No, because the limitation on the representation removes any substantial relationship between the two matters or concerns about confidential information from a former client giving a strategic advantage to the new client

An attorney practiced family law. One of her previous cases involved representing a man who wanted to remove his estranged wife as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. The attorney was successful in this undertaking for the client. Two years later, the client died, never having divorced his estranged wife. The wife asked the same attorney to represent her and to convince the insurer to undo the change in beneficiary so that the wife could receive the proceeds from her husband's life insurance policy. This representation would require extensive negotiation with the insurance company to convince the company that the previous change was invalid. Prior to his death, the husband, whom the attorney had represented, had sent the wife a letter saying that he made a mistake in removing her as the insurance beneficiary, and that he did not understand at the time the consequences of what he was doing. Would it be proper for the attorney to represent the wife in this matter? a) Yes, because the husband is dead and cannot suffer any injury or adverse legal consequences from her representation of the wife. b) Yes, because the husband expressed in writing that he regretted changing the beneficiary, so the attorney can assume that representing the wife would fulfill the wishes of the former client, that is, the husband. c) No, because the subsequent representation would require the attorney to attack the same work the attorney performed for the former client. d)No, because the husband did not inform the attorney in writing that he regretted his prior decision about changing the beneficiary.

No, because the subsequent representation would require the attorney to attack the same work the attorney performed for the former client

A certain client needed to sell a parcel of real estate to pay off a large amount of credit card debt. He brought this situation to the attention of his attorney, who was representing him in his interactions with collection agencies and credit bureaus. The attorney offered to purchase the property immediately for the full amount of the client's outstanding credit card debt - just over a hundred thousand dollars - without delaying the matter by arranging a mortgage first, or having the property appraised. The client was disappointed, because he thought the property was worth more than that, but he agreed due to his dire financial circumstances. The attorney fully disclosed the terms of the purchase to the client, in understandable written form, and advised the client in writing that it would be prudent to consult with another lawyer about the transaction, which the client could not realistically afford to do. The client gave written, informed consent to the terms of the sale and the attorney's role in the transaction. Two months later, the attorney sold the property to a developer for three times the amount he had paid for it. Did the attorney act within the requirements of the Model Rules? a) Yes, the lawyer complied with the Model Rules' notice requirements for business transactions with clients. b) Yes, because the client felt disappointed after the transaction, and the attorney should have given more consideration to the client's feelings. c) No, because the client could not realistically afford to obtain the advice of independent legal counsel regarding the transaction. d) No, because the transaction was objectively unfair.

No, because the transaction was objectively unfair.

A jury convicted a defendant of murder, and they sentenced him to death. His lawyer at trial was unimpressive, and there were potential points to raise in an ineffective assistance of counsel appeal. For his appeal, the defendant used a different attorney from the same firm as his trial lawyer - one of the lawyers at the firm handled trials, and the other appeals. Can the appellate attorney from the same small firm as the trial lawyer handle this appeal? a) Yes, if the client consents to the potential conflict of interest. b) Yes, because there is no conflict of interest if the appellate attorney's own conduct is not in question. c) No, because under the legal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, the appeal would potentially require the attorney to disparage the representation of his own colleague as being unreasonably poor. d)No,because a firm that loses a death penalty case at trial is not competent to handle the appeal, which is a matter of life and death for the client

No, because under the legal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, the appeal would potentially require the attorney to disparage the representation of his own colleague as being unreasonably poor

. An attorney has applied to make a lateral move from her firm to Big Firm, and she has already gone through the first two of three rounds of interviews for the position. Then the attorney agrees to represent a client in filing a breach of contract claim against Construction Company over a commercial development project. Big Firm is representing Construction Company, and the firm's lawyers drafted the contract that forms the basis of the client's complaint. The client claims that Construction Company breached a certain provision of the contract that is ambiguous; Construction Company is confident that its conduct falls within the contractual language in that provision. Is it proper for the attorney to undertake representation of the client in this case? a) Yes, assuming the client gives informed consent to the representation despite the conflict of interest here. b) Yes, because there is no clear conflict of interest here, because the attorney has not yet started working at Big Firm and could not have participated at all in drafting the contract provision that is now in dispute. c) No, as during the previous interviews, the attorney was likely to have gleaned some confidential information about Construction Company from Big Firm. d No, because when a lawyer has discussions concerning potential employment with an opponent of the lawyer's client, or with a law firm representing the opponent, such discussions could materially limit the lawyer's representation of the client

No, because when a lawyer has discussions concerning potential employment with an opponent of the lawyer's client, or with a law firm representing the opponent, such discussions could materially limit the lawyer's representation of the client

A large municipality has a labor dispute with its police union. The chairperson of the city council is a lawyer - she works for the city council part time, and she also has a law partnership with one other lawyer. As chairperson of the city council, she has the final word on which items will be on the council's agenda at each meeting. A few city council members who support the police union want their modest proposal for police pension reform to be on the agenda at an upcoming meeting. The police pension fund has not received its full contribution from the city for several years, and even though all current retired officers are receiving their full pension benefits on time, a wave of expected retirements over the next few years will create a crisis if the pension remains underfunded. The proposal would require the city to make a significant increase in its annual contributions to the fund, which would force cuts elsewhere in the city budget. The chairperson's law firm partner represents the police union in a variety of legal matters. The chairperson has screened herself from the representation, will receive no share of any legal fees from her partner's representation of the union in the pension reform matter, and she will recuse herself from debating or voting on the proposal at the city council meeting. May the attorney who is the chairperson's partner continue to represent the police union? a) Yes, if the chairperson honors her promise to abstain from voting or even participating in the debate about the police union proposal. b) Yes, the police union is not the client of the chairperson of the city council. c) No, because some of the other city council members are already supporting the police union in the pension reform matter. d)No, due to imputation of the chair person's conflict of interest to her law firm partner

No, due to imputation of the chair person's conflict of interest to her law firm partner

An attorney agreed to represent an indigent client pro bono in a landlord-tenant dispute. The client had no money for food or medicines or other living expenses, so the attorney gave the client some money for food, transportation, medicine, and other basic living expenses. The representation was successful, and the client was able to stay in the apartment, so the representation concluded. The attorney represented other indigent clients on a pro bono basis and advertised this practice on his website, including a short video in which the attorney claimed he was always willing to help struggling clients in this way. Were the attorney's actions permissible under the Model Rules? a) Yes, modest gifts to indigent clients for living expenses are permissible in specific circumstances where the lawyer does not seek or receive reimbursement from the client, so long as the lawyer receives no reimbursement from the clients or their families. b) Yes, a lawyer representing an indigent client without fee may give the client modest contributions for food, rent, transportation, medicine, and similar necessities of life. c) No, if a lawyer representing an indigent client gives the client modest contributions for food and similar basic necessities of life, the lawyer may not publicize or advertise a willingness to provide such gifts to prospective clients. d)No,lawyers may not provide any financial assistance to clients in litigation matters

No, if a lawyer representing an indigent client gives the client modest contributions for food and similar basic necessities of life, the lawyer may not publicize or advertise a willingness to provide such gifts to prospective clients.

An attorney agreed to represent an indigent client pro bono in a litigation matter. The client had no money for food or medicines or other living expenses, so the attorney gave the client some money for food, transportation, medicine, and other basic living expenses. The representation was successful, and the client prevailed an recovered a modest amount of compensatory damages, so the representation concluded. During the representation, the attorney learned that the client had a wealthy brother with whom the client would not associate due to an offense that had occurred years before. A month after the representation ended, the client died, and the wealthy brother contacted the attorney to thank him for all he had done for the client and offered to reimburse the attorney for the financial assistance he had provided during the previous months, which over time added up to a few thousand dollars. The attorney did not ask for this, but he gladly accepted it. Did the attorney act properly, according to the Model Rules? a) Yes, modest gifts to indigent clients for living expenses are permissible in specific circumstances where the lawyer does not seek or receive reimbursement from the client, and in this case, the reimbursement did not come from the client. b) Yes, a lawyer representing an indigent client without fee may give the client modest contributions for food, rent, transportation, medicine, and similar basic necessities of life. c) No, lawyers may not provide any financial assistance to clients in litigation matters. d) No, if a lawyer representing an indigent client gives the client modest contributions for food and similar basic necessities of life, the lawyer may not seek or accept reimbursement from a relative of the client or anyone affiliated with the client.

No, if a lawyer representing an indigent client gives the client modest contributions for food and similar basic necessities of life, the lawyer may not seek or accept reimbursement from a relative of the client or anyone affiliated with the client.

An attorney meets with a potential client regarding representation in defense of a nuisance suit. Upon review of the original petition, the attorney realizes that she knows plaintiff's lawyer. The attorney and plaintiff's lawyer worked together as associates at the same law firm directly out of law school twenty years ago but have not practiced law together since the attorney started her own firm eleven years ago. The two lawyers do not regularly socialize together or otherwise encounter one another aside from occasionally crossing paths at the courthouse. From time to time, when they coincidentally come across one another at the courthouse, they have lunch together at a nearby café. The attorney discloses the nature of her relationship with the plaintiff's lawyer. The potential client states that she still wants to retain the attorney, but the client does not provide written informed consent. Will the attorney be subject to discipline if she does not decline representation in this case? a) Yes, because the attorney's relationship with opposing counsel is sufficiently close in nature that the potential client is not representable by the attorney regardless of disclosure or consent. b) Yes, because even though the attorney disclosed the relationship to the client, she failed to obtain a written informed consent from the client. c) No, because the attorney's relationship with opposing counsel is too remote to pose a risk to representation of the client and the attorney does not need to disclose the relationship with opposing counsel to the client or to obtain the client's written informed consent d)No, if the attorney believes she can provide competent, diligent representation of the client, and she discloses the nature of the relationship with opposing counsel to the client, the attorney may represent the client in the matter without obtaining written, informed consent from the client

No, if the attorney believes she can provide competent, diligent representation of the client, and she discloses the nature of the relationship with opposing counsel to the client, the attorney may represent the client in the matter without obtaining written, informed consent from the client

A certain attorney agrees to represent a group of three individuals in the same matter, a business transaction. Their interests are not directly adverse. This attorney has represented each of the clients in separate matters previously, and he is already working under a retainer to do legal work for each under the same hourly rates. Two of the clients are currently traveling overseas, but everyone agrees to the representation by conference call. The attorney explains potential conflicts of interest that could arise in common representation, and all clients consent orally to the common representation despite the potential conflicts. Then the attorney proceeds with working on their matter for three weeks until all the clients are back from traveling and can sign written consent forms. By that time, the attorney has completed 50 hours of work, and has acquired significant confidential information by and about each of the three clients. Would the attorney be subject to discipline for performing this legal work before obtaining written consent to the conflict by each conflict? a) Yes, because common representation requires informed consent in writing from each client at the outset of representation. b) Yes, because the fact that it was a transactional matter and not litigation meansthat the attorney could easily have waited three weeks until all clients could be present to sign written consent forms. c) No, it was not feasible to obtain or transmit the writing at the time the client gives informed consent, so the lawyer could obtain or transmit it within a reasonable time thereafter. d)No, because oral consent to a conflict of interest is enough when the parties are not directly adverse and each already has an established relationship with the attorney

No, it was not feasible to obtain or transmit the writing at the time the client gives informed consent, so the lawyer could obtain or transmit it within a reasonable time thereafter.

A businessperson hired a certain attorney to represent her in a tax dispute with the government, in which the government accused her of hiding assets in overseas accounts and failing to report income from certain obscure investments. During this representation, the attorney learned extensive private financial information about client, but the representation ended at the resolution of the tax case. Several years later, after the termination had ended, the husband of the client filed for divorce. The attorney was the only lawyer the husband knew, so he retained the attorney to represent him in the divorce against the client. Her new lawyer moves to have the attorney disqualified from representing the husband, but the attorney claims that the matters did not relate to each other enough to merit disqualification. Is the attorney correct? a) Yes, because resolving disputes with a government entity involves numerous procedural protections and administrative burdens of proof that are inapplicable in divorce proceedings in Family Court. b) Yes, because the attorney's representation of Businesswoman terminated at the resolution of the tax matter, so there is no potential for betraying a current client by representing Businesswoman's husband. c) No, matters are "substantially related" if there is a substantial risk that confidential information from the prior representation would materially advance the client's position in the subsequent matter, such as personal financial information. d)No,because Business woman's troubles with the government over unpaid taxes are unlikely to be what led to the divorce from her husband, and the stress that the tax case put on the marriage is likely to be a major issue in the divorce proceeding

No, matters are "substantially related" if there is a substantial risk that confidential information from the prior representation would materially advance the client's position in the subsequent matter, such as personal financial information.

Conglomerate Corporation owns a little more than half the stock of Giant Company. Conglomerate's stock, in turn, is public, available on the public stock exchange, as is the remainder of the stock in Giant Company. The president of Conglomerate Corporation has asked Attorney Stevenson to represent Giant Company in a deal by which Giant would make a proposed transfer of certain real property to Conglomerate Corporation. The property in question is unusual because it contains an underground particle collider used for scientific research, but also valuable farmland on the surface, as well as some valuable mineral rights in another part of the parcel. These factors make the property value difficult to assess by reference to the general real-estate market, which means it is difficult for anyone to determine the fairness of the transfer price in the proposed deal. Would it be proper for Attorney Stevenson to facilitate this property transfer at the behest of the president of Conglomerate, if Attorney Stevenson would be representing Giant as the client in this specific matter? a) Yes, because Conglomerate Corporation owns more than half of Giant Company, so the two corporate entities are one client for purposes of the rules regarding conflicts of interest. b) Yes, because the virtual impossibility of obtaining an appraisal of the fair market value of the property means that the lawyer does not have actual knowledge that the deal is unfair to either party. c) No, because the attorney would be unable to inform either client fully about whether the proposed transfer price would be in their best interest. d)No, not unless the attorney first obtains effective informed consent of the management of Giant Company, as well as that of Conglomerate, because the ownership of Conglomerate and Giant is not identical, and their interests materially differ in the proposed transaction

No, not unless the attorney first obtains effective informed consent of the management of Giant Company, as well as that of Conglomerate, because the ownership of Conglomerate and Giant is not identical, and their interests materially differ in the proposed transaction

An attorney represented a home builder at the closings of the sales of a few homes that the builder had constructed in a new subdivision. It is not unusual for lawyers who conduct residential real estate closings to encounter issues related to marketability title. Recently, the home builder switched to using another law firm, so the attorney no longer represents the builder. A prospective new client has consulted with the attorney about providing representation. This prospective client is a landowner in an adjacent town, who wants to sue the same home builder, that the attorney formerly represented over a parcel of land on which the home builder plans to construct a few homes. The prospective client claims to have an ownership interest in the property. The contemplated lawsuit would involve whether the landowner or home builder have clear title to the property. Would it be improper for the attorney to represent the new client against the home builder over the marketability of title for this new parcel of land? a) Yes, the marketability of title in the same geographic area would necessarily involve too much relevant confidential information, so there is a substantial relationship between the two matters and the attorney should not undertake the new representation. b)Yes, the home builder is likely to feel a sense of betrayal when his own former attorney represents an opposing party in a lawsuit against the builder, and such breaches of trust undermine confidence in the legal system. c) No, but only if both the home builder and the new client provide informed consent, confirmed in writing, and the attorney believes that he can provide competent representation to the new client without a material impairment. d)No, the attorney's knowledge of marketability of other tracts is not necessarily relevant to litigation involving the marketability of title to the new parcel, so the attorney may represent the new client without informed consent of the home builder.

No, the attorney's knowledge of marketability of other tracts is not necessarily relevant to litigation involving the marketability of title to the new parcel, so the attorney may represent the new client without informed consent of the home builder.

An attorney grew up in poverty but worked hard to overcome obstacles and achieve success. Now a successful practitioner, the attorney is idealistic and passionate about helping the less fortunate. Every Saturday morning, he uses a small conference room at the local YMCA to assist pro se litigants in divorce and custody matters - the attorney helps them complete their own court forms (court filings) for a nominal fee, gives some advice about their individual situation, and reviews forms they have completed before the individuals themselves file them. The attorney is concerned about these pro se litigants misunderstanding his role and believing he is their lawyer, so the attorney requires each one to sign a printed disclaimer declaring that no attorney-client relationship exists. It reads, in relevant part, "I understand that this attorney has no legal or ethical obligation to provide legal representation to me in this matter." Given that the pro se litigant signed a form acknowledging that no legal representation will follow, is the attorney correct in believing that no lawyer-client relationship exists in these circumstances? a) Yes, the signed express written disclaimer functions as a contractual agreement that no lawyer-client relationship exists. b) No, the lawyer is reviewing court documents and providing legal advice about pending legal proceedings, which constitutes the practice of law by the lawyer, even if the representation has a limited scope. c)No, the pro se litigants described here appear to be unsophisticated users of legal services and potentially do not understand the significance of the written disclaimer. d) Yes, these pro se litigants will file the documents in court themselves, on their own behalf.

No, the lawyer is reviewing court documents and providing legal advice about pending legal proceedings, which constitutes the practice of law by the lawyer, even if the representation has a limited scope

Attorney Stevenson was willing to represent anyone, and rarely turned clients away. In fact, Attorney Stevenson would push the permissible limits under the conflicts of interest rules. At one point, Stevenson helped a construction company obtain the necessary permits from federal, state, and municipal agencies for constructing a new shopping center in an affluent suburban area. Obtaining the permits was not difficult - in fact, Attorney Stevenson found this kind of legal work boring. Before the construction was complete, another company acquired the property and the building project, and brought the construction to completion. Seventeen months after the building was open for tenants, one of the tenants missed to pay rent for his unit for three consecutive months, and the property manager started an eviction process. The tenant hired the same attorney to represent her in the eviction proceedings. The shopping center's owner filed a motion to have the attorney disqualified due to the substantial relationship between his previous work in securing construction permits for the building and the present eviction action against the tenant. Should Attorney Stevenson's previous work for the construction company disqualify him from representing tenant in the eviction proceedings? a) Yes, because both matters involve the same commercial real estate property, so the matters have a substantial factual relationship, creating a presumption that Attorney Stevenson has confidential information that would be prejudicial to the opposing party in the new matter. b) Yes, because the lawyer now represents a party with directly adverse interests to his own former client. c) No, because another company bought the property before the construction was complete, so there is no conflict of interest for the attorney at this time. d)No, the matters are not related enough because they do not involve the same transaction or legal dispute, and any confidential information learned while obtaining the construction permits prior would be unimportant for the nonpayment of rent by a tenant sometime later.

No, the matters are not related enough because they do not involve the same transaction or legal dispute, and any confidential information learned while obtaining the construction permits prior would be unimportant for the nonpayment of rent by a tenant sometime later.

A group of several individuals seeking to form a joint venture asked an attorney to represent them in drafting the necessary documents and making the necessary filings with government agencies. Two of the individuals were to provide most of the initial funds for the startup; two others were experienced inventors who were to provide new product designs; two others had expertise in business management and were to serve as managers; and two had proven records in high-end sales and marketing. They have not yet resolved the allocation of ownership shares, bonuses for managers, whether to have anti-compete agreements for each participant, whether patents will belong solely to the joint venture or partly to the inventors themselves, and whether sales reps will work on salary or commissions. Everyone says that she wants whatever terms would be best for the joint venture overall, rather than what would be most beneficial for each one individually. The shared objectives and goals of the group lead the attorney to conclude that no conflicts of interest are present and that it would be counterproductive to try to convince each member of the group to sign an informed consent form acknowledging that conflicts of interest exist, and that the attorney may still represent everyone at once. May the attorney trust his professional judgment and proceed without obtaining separate consent forms from each person in the joint venture? a) Yes, because the mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent. b) Yes, assuming the attorney has a reasonable belief that he will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each client, because the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal. c) No, the situation is likely to limit materially the attorney's ability to recommend or advocate all potential positions that each might take because of his duty of loyalty to the others; representing the group's overall interests in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. d No, because the fact that the individuals already decided tocreate a joint venture, and sought representation together from a single lawyer, constitutes implied consent to the common representation despite any potential conflicts of interest involved

No, the situation is likely to limit materially the attorney's ability to recommend or advocate all potential positions that each might take because of his duty of loyalty to the others; representing the group's overall interests in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client

An attorney provided lobbying services as part of his practice. He represented Giant Gas Company for a few years lobbying on environmental issues related to fracking. During the representation on a certain matter, the attorney learned the basis for Giant's fracking decisions in terms of location, timing, and methodology. Conglomerate Corporation, a major purchaser of the natural gas produced from fracking, has now asked the same attorney to represent it in an antitrust lawsuit against Giant Gas, alleging a conspiracy to impose limits on production. Conglomerate's claims against Giant Gas are likely to include addressing the same production decisions that the attorney learned about in his representation of the latter. This confidential information would certainly advance Conglomerate's position in the anticipated antitrust matter. The attorney no longer represents Giant Gas, because the company was not timely in paying the attorney's fees for the lobbying work. Would it be proper for the attorney to represent Conglomerate in this matter against Giant Gas? a) Yes, because the attorney no longer represents Giant Gas, who forfeited the right to have any say in the matter when they refused to pay the attorney's fees on time. b) Yes, because the matters are completely unrelated, given that the new representation would involve antitrust litigation and the former representation involved lobbying on environmental issues. c) No, even if both parties give informed consent in writing to the attorney's representation of Conglomerate in the new matter, the fact that the attorney has confidential information relevant to the new representation makes the conflict nonconsentable. d)No, there is a substantial relationship between the matters,so the attorney may not represent Conglomerate in the matter without effective consent from both Conglomerate and Giant Gas

No, there is a substantial relationship between the matters,so the attorney may not represent Conglomerate in the matter without effective consent from both Conglomerate and Giant Gas

An attorney worked at Big Firm, which a court disqualified from representing a client in a case because one of the other lawyers at the firm had a conflict of interest regarding a former client, and this conflict was imputable to the entire firm. The firm was not timely in implementing screening measures and became subject to disqualification. The attorney was at the firm during this time but was not involved in the matter and did not learn any confidential information about the client. Eventually, the attorney left that firm and went to work at another firm. It turned out that the attorney's new firm is representing the client instead - the client hired the new firm after the previous firm was subject to disqualification. The new firm has no measures in place to screen the attorney from participation in the matter, though the attorney is not in fact participating in the representation. Will the new firm be subject to disqualification now, because the attorney joined the firm from another firm that was subject to disqualification? a) Yes, because the "taint" that the attorney brings from being part of a firm disqualified from the matter will now be imputable to the other lawyers in the new firm, without adequate screening measures in place. b) Yes, unless the opposing party gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the new firm's representation of the client despite the attorney's presence at the firm. c) No, assuming the attorney receives no part of the fees received for the representation. d)No, there is no doctrine of double- imputation that would impute a purely imputed conflict from the attorney on to the other lawyers in the new firm

No, there is no doctrine of double- imputation that would impute a purely imputed conflict from the attorney on to the other lawyers in the new firm

An attorney was preparing a will for one of her wealthy elderly clients. The client had no surviving family members - her spouse had passed away years before, as had her siblings, and she had no children. The client asked the attorney for suggestions about potential beneficiaries of the estate, besides her favorite charities, and she offered to leave the attorney some items. The attorney replied, "Well, I've represented you on various matters over the years, and I have always looked out for your best interests, so I would not object if you included me in the will. I've always admired your collection of antique furniture and books." The client was delighted by the idea and instructed the attorney to include a provision in the will bequeathing all the antique furniture and books in her large home to the attorney. The attorney prepared the will as instructed and the client executed it. Was the attorney's conduct proper? a) Yes, because the client asked her for suggestions about potential heirs and was excited about leaving something in the will to the attorney. b) Yes, because the attorney was not depriving any other potential heirs of the specific items she requested, as the client had no surviving relatives. c) No, because the way the attorney suggested a specific bequest was manipulative and the elderly client was vulnerable to coercion or exploitation. d)No,because the attorney should not have prepared the will if the document made a significant bequest to the attorney

No,because the attorney should not have prepared the will if the document made a significant bequest to the attorney

A plaintiff who had prevailed at trial needed representation for the appeal, because the defendant in the case appealed the verdict. Plaintiff's counsel did only trial work, not appellate work, and referred the client to an appellate attorney nearby. The trial lawyer even accompanied the plaintiff to the initial consultation with the appellate attorney to help facilitate the transition and to safeguard his client's interests in retaining new counsel. The appellate attorney asked the plaintiff to sign an agreement waiving potential malpractice claims against the appellate attorney, because the plaintiff had not yet terminated the representation with her trial lawyer, and the appellate attorney did not want to be responsible for the trial lawyer's mistakes. The appellate attorney did not inform the plaintiff fully about the risks or downsides of waiving future malpractice claims, nor did he advise the plaintiff of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel in connection therewith. Could the attorney be subject to discipline, based on these facts? a) Yes, because the plaintiff already had independent representation by counsel, so it was improper for the attorney to attempt to shift all potential liability onto another lawyer. b) Yes, the attorney made an agreement prospectively limiting his liability to a client for malpractice. c) No, when a lawyer brings another attorney into the matter to assist with an appeal, the lawyers and the client must agree in writing about how they will allocate responsibility and legal fees for the representation. d)No,the plaintiff already had independent legal counsel in connection to the malpractice waiver

No,the plaintiff already had independent legal counsel in connection to the malpractice waiver

An attorney has a successful blog about legal practice, and the blog generates substantial side income for the attorney. The attorney posts entertaining stories about his clients that attract the attention of his readers and make the blog successful and lucrative. He does not obtain client consent for these posts, but he is careful 1) not to post anything that would seriously injure the client's reputation or legal interests, and 2) not to post information about individuals that is truly confidential, that is not part of the public record. On the other hand, he does post about his personal observations and opinions of clients and their lifestyles, and often shares generalizations based on confidential information of former clients, such as: "On three occasions I've had clients who lived a double life, maintaining separate families in separate cities, and their families never knew." Another post recounted, "Last year I had a client who admitted after the case ended that he had been sleeping with one of the jurors." Apart from potential violations of Rule 1.6 (client confidentiality), which of the following is true? a) The attorney may share non-confidential information and opinions about clients in a public forum that generates revenue for the lawyer. b) The attorney can share confidential information about clients on social media after the representation has ended, if the client has refused to pay the legal fees owed to the attorney. c) The attorney can share information on monetized social media about what transpired in the courtroom, except in cases with a sealed record, because normally courtroom proceedings are public. d) The attorney has a common-law fiduciary duty not to profit from using client information even if the use complies with the lawyer's ethical obligations, without accounting to the client for any profits made.

The attorney has a common-law fiduciary duty not to profit from using client information even if the use complies with the lawyer's ethical obligations, without accounting to the client for any profits made.

An attorney serves as the lawyer for a corporation and is a member of its board of directors. Which of the following is true regarding this situation? a) The attorney is subject to discipline, because the responsibilities of the two roles may conflict, as when Attorney must advise the corporation in matters involving actions of the directors, and there is always a material risk that the dual role will compromise the lawyer's independence of professional judgment b) The attorney must limit his legal representation of the corporation to transactional and regulatory matters, and cannot represent the corporation in litigation against adverse parties, as there is always a material risk that the dual role will compromise the lawyer's independence of professional judgment c) The attorney must have the final word on decisions of the board when he is present as a director, because Attorney bears responsibility for the decisions in the form of potential legal malpractice liability, which does not apply to the other directors who are not lawyers. d)The attorney must advise the other board members that in some circumstances, matters they discuss at board meetings while the attorney is there as a fellow director would not be protected by the attorney-client privilege in later litigation; and that conflict of interest considerations might require the attorney's recusal as a director, or might require the attorney to decline representation of the corporation in a matter

The attorney must advise the other board members that in some circumstances, matters they discuss at board meetings while the attorney is there as a fellow director would not be protected by the attorney-client privilege in later litigation; and that conflict of interest considerations might require the attorney's recusal as a director, or might require the attorney to decline representation of the corporation in a matter

An attorney, a venture capitalist, and a land developer agreed to form a corporation to develop a new shopping mall. Their agreement allocates ownership shares based on the appraised value of the venture capitalist's land, which he is contributing for this enterprise, the market value of the developer's design and construction work, and the attorney's regular fees for the hours contributed to the formation and ongoing representation as corporate counsel. The attorney was already representing both the venture capitalist and the developer as his clients in unrelated matters. Which of the following is NOT a duty of the attorney in this situation, if the attorney performs the others? a) The attorney must fully disclose in writing all the terms of the development corporation ownership agreement to the developer and the venture capitalist in language they understand, and the terms of the agreement are objectively fair and reasonable the two clients. b) The attorney must advise the developer and the venture capitalist in writing that they should obtain the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction, and give them time to do so; c) The attorney must withdraw from representing the venture capitalist and the developer on the other matters, at least until the process of forming the corporation is complete, to avoid conflicts of interest. d)The venture capitalist and the developer give informed consent, in writing, to the terms of the transaction and the attorney's role in the transaction, including whether the attorney

The attorney must withdraw from representing the venture capitalist and the developer on the other matters, at least until the process of forming the corporation is complete, to avoid conflicts of interest

A client owns a partnership share of a closely held business, and the other partners vote to impose an involuntary buy-out of the client to remove him from the firm. The client is clearly upset about this, but the partnership agreement clearly permits involuntary buyouts by a majority vote of the other shareholders. Then the client hires an attorney to represent him in the buyout transaction, to review the necessary documents and provide legal counsel about it. No litigation is under consideration yet. The attorney's sister is also a lawyer in that city, at another firm, and the sister represents the other shareholders in the partnership. Nevertheless, the attorney did not disclose that her sister represented the other partners, as she and her sister are not close and rarely speak, and the matter is unlikely to turn into litigation. Is the attorney, or the other lawyers in her firm, subject to disqualification in this matter? a) No, because the attorney and her sister are not close enough for there to be a substantial risk that they will share confidential information, and the matter seemed unlikely to turn into litigation. b) No, so long as both sisters give informed consent in writing, and each believes that she will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to her client c)Both the attorney and her firm would be subject to disqualification, because the client did not give written informed consent d)The attorney would be subject to disqualification, but ordinarily the other lawyers in her firm would not be subject to disqualification

The attorney would be subject to disqualification, but ordinarily the other lawyers in her firm would not be subject to disqualification

. An experienced attorney practiced at a small firm in a rural area. The attorney regularly represented the county school district in employment discrimination matters. One day, a group of citizens asked the attorney to represent them before the county planning commission to oppose the widening of a county road. The school district had separate budgetary funding, and it had an elected governing Board with its own authority to hire legal counsel. In contrast, the members of the county planning commission were appointees by the County Executive, and lawyers at the County Solicitor's office handled the legal work for the commission, though the commission and the County Solicitor's office received their funding from separate line items in the county budget. Would it be proper, under these facts, for the attorney to agree to represent the citizens against the Commission, without informing them of her existing relationship with the School District, and without also securing the Board's consent? a) The attorney must obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing, from the school district and the citizen group regarding the conflict of interest. b) The attorney cannot represent the citizens group against the county, because that would constitute a nonconsentable conflict of interest. c)The attorney would have no obligation under the ethical rules to inform the citizens group about her representation of the school district, or the school district about her representation of the citizens group against the county planning commission in the road- widening dispute d)The attorney cannot provide representation to the citizen group against the county planning commission in the road-widening dispute, but another lawyer in the attorney's firm could represent them

The attorney would have no obligation under the ethical rules to inform the citizens group about her representation of the school district, or the school district about her representation of the citizens group against the county planning commission in the road- widening dispute

A doctor was facing criminal charges for an illegal kickback scheme - accepting bribes to refer patients to a certain hospital. The attorney representing the doctor in the criminal matter previously represented the hospital, and he had drafted one of the contractual agreements between the doctor and the hospital that federal prosecutor now allege to have been a sham agreement (payment for services never rendered). The attorney also provided some legal advice several years ago to another doctor, in one passing conversation, and that doctor now turns out to be part of the same kickback scheme. This other doctor, in fact, has turned state's witness in the case against the attorney's current client. The federal prosecutors have filed a motion to disqualify the attorney from the case because he is a potential witness about the agreement between the doctor. On the other hand, it has not yet listed him as a witness who will testify at trial, and it does not appear his testimony would be necessary to prove any of the elements in the case, given the number of other witnesses and documentary evidence available. How should the court rule on the motion to disqualify? a) The court should grant it because the co- defendant in the case, the hospital, was a former client of the attorney. b) The court should deny it because the government has not met its burden of showing that the attorney would be a necessary witness in the case, or that he possessed confidential information about the other doctor who will serve as a hostile witness in the case. c) The court should deny it because disqualifying the attorney would be unduly prejudicial to the doctor who is the defendant. d)The court should grant it because the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness in the case, and because he will have to cross- examine a former client, the other doctor who is a hostile witness.

The court should grant it because the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness in the case, and because he will have to cross- examine a former client, the other doctor who is a hostile witness

An attorney served for several years as an appellate court judge. At one point, the judge was on a panel that affirmed two trial orders in an ancillary probate proceeding. Soon thereafter, the attorney left the appellate court and returned to private practice at Boutique Firm. The larger probate matter was still dragging on, and relators brought a mandamus appeal arising out of the same ancillary proceeding and hired Boutique Firm to represent them on the appeal. This necessitated filing a motion to substitute counsel from a previous firm that had provided representation up to that point. Opposing counsel did not oppose the motion, as they did not know Boutique Firm had hired a former appellate judge who had signed earlier orders in the case. Boutique Firm did not screen the former judge from the matter. When opposing counsel eventually realized this fact, the lawyer immediately filed a motion to disqualify Boutique Firm from the appeal. Boutique Firm responded that opposing counsel had already consented to the potential conflict when it did not oppose the motion to substitute counsel; moreover, there was no demonstrated prejudice to the opposing party. How should the court rule on the disqualification motion? a) The court should deny the motion because the moving party already consented to the conflict by choosing not to oppose the motion to substitute counsel. b) The court should deny the motion because the former appellate judge had merely affirmed some trial orders in the ancillary probate matter, so there is no actual prejudice to the moving party. c) The court should grant the motion as the matters related to each other, and the moving party did not have adequate notice about the conflict to give informed consent. d) The court should grant the motion because relators in a mandamus appeal can easily find substitute counsel.

The court should grant the motion as the matters related to each other, and the moving party did not have adequate notice about the conflict to give informed consent

A potential client sought representation from an attorney in a legal dispute over the inheritance rights in an estate matter. The attorney was indecisive, because the estate was extremely complicated, so he met with the client several times over the next few months, trying to understand the intricacies of the will, the trusts involved, and the rival heirs. The potential client provided extensive confidential information about the estate to the attorney in meetings, phone calls, and emails. Eventually, however, the attorney declined the representation. During this time, the attorney had been in negotiations with another lawyer about forming a new law firm together. The other lawyer, unfortunately, was representing the rival heir, that is, the opposing party in the same estate matter. When the attorney and the other lawyer formed their new firm, the heir who had been the potential client then sought to have the attorney's new firm disqualified from the estate matter, arguing for imputation of the attorney's knowledge of confidential information to the other lawyer, who was the heir's opposing counsel in the case. The other lawyer, who was now partners with the first attorney, argued that no client-lawyer relationship had existed between the heir and the attorney, because the attorney had declined the representation at the end. The heir who had been the prospective client insisted that the attorney had received confidential information from her, and that he had disclosed it to the other lawyer, who represented the rival heir in the matter. As a factual matter, the judge ruled that the prospective client-heir had introduced substantial evidence that she had provided extensive confidential information to the attorney in the process of seeking representation from him; conversely, the judge was surprised that the attorney had almost no evidence to show that he had not disclosed any confidential information to his new partner. How should the court rule on the motion to disqualify both lawyers? a) The court should deny the motion, if no client-lawyer relationship formed between the attorney and the heir who is now requesting the disqualification. b) The court should deny the motion, if the attorney who had the confidential information is not participating at all in the estate matter. c) The court should grant the motion, because lawyers have some ongoing duties of confidentiality toward prospective clients, even after declining the representation, and the other lawyer has a conflict of interest by imputation. d)The court should grant the motion, because the formation of a new firm or partnership between lawyers when a legal dispute is already pending creates an irrebuttable presumption that the lawyers disclosed confidential information to each other

The court should grant the motion, because lawyers have some ongoing duties of confidentiality toward prospective clients, even after declining the representation, and the other lawyer has a conflict of interest by imputation.

An attorney worked as a prosecutor in a local district attorney's office. A month before leaving there to go into private practice, she briefly worked on a case in which applied for the search warrants for the police to try to locate a fugitive suspect. When the police apprehended the fugitive a few weeks later, another prosecutor filed the charges and proceeded with the case. Eventually, the attorney who had left to start her own practice received a referral client who turned out to be the same defendant. When she filed an appearance to represent the defendant, however, the prosecutor filed a motion to have her disqualified, because she had worked on the same case by applying for the warrants. The attorney responded that the defendant was not even in custody yet when she applied for the warrants, that the warrant application was a purely administrative chore, and that the filing of the charges did not occur until after she left her position there. How is the court likely to rule? a) The court will disqualify the attorney from serving as defense counsel because she had participated in the matter personally and in a substantial way as a prosecutor. b) The court will disqualify both her and the prosecutor from the case, as they were colleagues when she participated in the matter personally and in a substantial way. c) The court will deny the motion to disqualify the attorney because she did not participate in a substantial way in the case while she was at the district attorney's office. d)The court will first assess whether the attorney has confidential information that could be prejudicial to the opposing party in the case

The court will disqualify the attorney from serving as defense counsel because she had participated in the matter personally and in a substantial way as a prosecutor

An Assistant District Attorney, who has recently joined a county prosecutor's office, represented a defendant at a preliminary hearing in a pending criminal case while in private practice. Now that this attorney has joined the prosecutor's office, how can the office proceed with the prosecution of the same defendant? a) The new attorney, or any other lawyer in the prosecutor's office, could proceed with the prosecution, because there an exception in the conflict-of-interest rules for prosecutors. b) The office must either hire a special prosecutor for the case, borrow a prosecutor from a neighboring jurisdiction, or implement effective screening measures to exclude the new attorney from the prosecution. c)The prosecutor's office cannot prosecute the defendant for the same charge (it must drop the charges), but it could charge him for other crimes in the future

The office must either hire a special prosecutor for the case, borrow a prosecutor from a neighboring jurisdiction, or implement effective screening measures to exclude the new attorney from the prosecution

A prospective client met with an attorney at Boutique Firm for an initial consultation about a personal injury lawsuit over injuries the prospective client had sustained. The attorney declined the representation because he thought the client's case was unwinnable and would therefore generate no fees. During the consultation, the attorney asked some probing questions about the incident, and the client admitted facts indicating an unreasonable assumption of foreseeable risks beforehand, as well as the client's own intoxication at the time, which in the case would constitute contributory negligence. Furthermore, the client had failed to take obvious measures afterward to mitigate the damages. The attorney was certain that all these unfavorable facts would come out during discovery, and the client's claim would become laughable at trial. Two months later, another client came in for a consultation with another lawyer at Boutique Firm. This prospective client had was service of process in a new personal injury lawsuit, and he was the named defendant. The plaintiff in the lawsuit was the same individual who had met with the first attorney for a consultation a few weeks before. Boutique firm agreed to take the case and represent the defendant in the litigation. Which of the following is true, according to the MRPC? a) Boutique Firm cannot represent the defendant in the case because an attorney there learned confidential information from the opposing party as a prospective client during an initial consultation two months ago, and it would be subject to disqualification if it handled the litigation. b) The other lawyer at Boutique Firm can represent the defendant in the matter if the first attorney has not disclosed any confidential information to others in the firm, and the firm carefully screens the attorney completely from the matter and provides written notice to the other party. c) Either the attorney or the other lawyer at Boutique Firm can represent the defendant, because the plaintiff was never a client of the firm, but merely came in for an initial consultation, at the end of which the attorney immediately declined representation. d) Either the attorney or the other lawyer at Boutique Firm can represent the defendant

The other lawyer at Boutique Firm can represent the defendant in the matter if the first attorney has not disclosed any confidential information to others in the firm, and the firm carefully screens the attorney completely from the matter and provides written notice to the other party.

Attorney Stevenson did not know anything about the construction industry, but he thought he knew how to draft contracts. Giant Equipment Corporation manufactures cranes, bulldozers, and large backhoes used for building construction. These machines are pricey. Twenty-seven months ago, the manufacturer hired Attorney Stevenson to help with drafting Purchase and Sale Contracts for the manufacturer to use for all these items of heavy equipment. Attorney Stevenson advised the company on what provisions to include and some of the exact wording they should use in the Purchase and Sale Agreements. Then the representation ended, and the company has not contacted an attorney since. Last week, Ashby Building Construction retained Attorney Stevenson to handle a dispute with a manufacturer of one of its construction cranes. It soon becomes apparent learns that the piece of equipment came from Giant Equipment Corporation, and that the procurement officer for Ashby consummated the purchase by signing one of the contacts on which Attorney Stevenson had advised Giant. Now Ashby wants to rescind the contract and return the machine for a full or partial refund, because it used the crane for a week before it broke down. Would Attorney Stevenson be subject to disqualification in a such a latter, if litigation ensued? a) Yes, because the items are so expensive, and Ashby used the machine for only a week before it became unusable. b) Yes, Attorney Stevenson cannot seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on behalf of the former client. c) No, because Ashby is not seeking any damages besides a refund in exchange for returning the faulty machine, and this merely puts the manufacturer back in the same place as if the sale had never occurred, so there is no potential harm to the manufacturer. d)No, because representation of the manufacturer ended a while ago, so there is no conflict of interest or direct adversity between current clients.

Yes, Attorney Stevenson cannot seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on behalf of the former client.

Big Bank hired Big Firm to represent it in a matter against Developer. Big Firm's partners explained to Big Bank before commencing the representation that they had hired an associate who previously worked for the firm that was representing Developer, and that he had worked on various matters for Developer while there. None of the associate's work was on the same case that was now pending, but it was unclear whether some of the matters had overlapping factual or legal issues with the present matter. Big Firm gives consent to the representation despite the conflict of interest, but it conditioned its consent on Big Firm implementing strict measures to screen the associate from any participation in the matter - including relocating the associate to another office at the firm, where he would not have day to day contact with lawyers representing Big Bank. The partners agreed, but it took a few months for them to free up office space to move the associate out of his current office, which was the office between the two lawyers serving as lead counsel in Big Bank's matter. Otherwise, the firm followed the standard screening procedures delineated in Model Rule 1.10. If a disciplinary action or legal malpractice action arose later regarding the representation of Big Bank, would the associate's conflict of interest be imputable to the other lawyers at Big Firm? a) No, because Big Firm complied with the screening requirements of the Model Rules, and it was unreasonable for the bank to require more screening procedures than those delineated in the Model Rules. b) No, because Big Bank consented to the conflict of interest, and it was not Big Firm's fault that it took a long time to find another office for the associate. c) Yes, because the presence of an attorney who might have worked on closely related matters created an imputed conflict of interest, and the imputation was not removable in this case. d)Yes, a client's informed consent to a conflict can be qualified or conditional, as here, and Big Firm violated the client's condition, so it did not have valid consent to the conflict

Yes, a client's informed consent to a conflict can be qualified or conditional, as here, and Big Firm violated the client's condition, so it did not have valid consent to the conflict

Two separate clients hired the same attorney, signing their retainer agreements one week apart, on unrelated matters, though both involve property owners' rights under the state's common law doctrine of public trust for beaches, which guarantees public access to beaches up to the vegetation line on the shore. In one case, erosion has moved the boundary back on the property owner's lot to the point where his house is now clearly on the public access portion, and he seeks a declaratory judgment that erosion cannot jeopardize the private ownership of a building and its curtilage. Current public trust doctrine in the state would suggest that the property owner has lost all the value in his property, so he needs to seek a change or exception to the current law. The other case involves a property owner whose lots had always been separated from the beach by a small public park, but erosion has eliminated the park and given him water access from his property, which has doubled the value of his land under current public trust doctrine. The state government, however, is seeking a declaratory judgment in his case, arguing for an exception or change to the current law that would rob the owner of the windfall he received due to the erosion. Does this situation present a conflict of interest that would require the attorney to obtain informed consent, in writing, from both clients, before proceeding with the representation? a) No, the mere fact that advocating a legal position on behalf of one client might create precedent adverse to the interests of a client represented by the lawyer in an unrelated matter does not create a conflict of interest. b) No, given that both are declaratory judgment actions, it is not possible that one client's interests could be adverse to the other's. c) Yes, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer's action on behalf of one client will materially limit the lawyer's effectiveness in representing another client in a different case, as when a decision favoring one client will create a precedent likely to seriously weaken the position taken on behalf of the other client. d)Yes, but this type of conflict involves a question of law,so it is non consentable by the two clients

Yes, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer's action on behalf of one client will materially limit the lawyer's effectiveness in representing another client in a different case, as when a decision favoring one client will create a precedent likely to seriously weaken the position taken on behalf of the other client.

A certain attorney obtained a successful outcome in a client's matter, and the client was grateful. The client sent the attorney a gift basket that year as a holiday gift, containing high-quality fresh fruit, sample-size jars of gourmet fruit preserves, and a few other delicacies. The gift basket cost the client $50. Is it proper for the attorney to accept this gift, or must the attorney refuse it? a) Yes, because assuming a lawyer does not solicit the gift, there is no restriction on lawyers accepting unsolicited gifts from clients. b) Yes, a lawyer may accept a simple gift such as a present given at a holiday or as a token of appreciation. c) No, a lawyer shall not accept any substantial gift from a client, unless the lawyer or other recipient of the gift is a relative of the client. d) No, because the lawyer's entire compensation for obtaining the favorable outcome should have been in the original retainer agreement and its schedule of fees, so any additional compensation or transfers from a client to a lawyer constitute an unwritten modification of the retainer agreement

Yes, a lawyer may accept a simple gift such as a present given at a holiday or as a token of appreciation

An attorney had his own firm specializing in small business transactions. The clients were small business owners who did not have in- house counsel or other legal representation. His representation agreements with clients included all necessary disclosures, fee schedules and rates, and a clause stipulating that all potential legal malpractice claims would go through binding arbitration. The attorney would explain this term fully to each client, but he would decline representation for any potential client who would not agree to binding arbitration. The attorney did this in hopes of limiting his future malpractice liability to clients. Was it permissible for the attorney to do this? a) Yes, because the clients gave informed consent, confirmed in writing. b) Yes, a lawyer may make an agreement with the client to arbitrate legal malpractice claims, provided such agreements are enforceable and the lawyer fully informs the client of the scope and effect of the agreement. c) No, a lawyer may not make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability to a client for malpractice unless the client has independent legal representation in making the agreement. d) No, a lawyer cannot make a binding arbitration agreement with a client if the lawyer's purpose in doing so is to limit the lawyer's liability for future malpractice claims by the client

Yes, a lawyer may make an agreement with the client to arbitrate legal malpractice claims, provided such agreements are enforceable and the lawyer fully informs the client of the scope and effect of the agreement

A certain attorney represents Conglomerate Corporation in a regulatory compliance matter, drafting documents for Conglomerate to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission regarding executive salaries (for the SEC) and product market share (for the FTC's antitrust inquiry). Conglomerate Corporation owns or co-owns numerous subsidiaries and affiliates in unrelated industries. This attorney's retainer agreement limits his representation exclusively to the SEC and FTC regulatory matters. Victim hires the attorney to represent him in a personal injury suit against Subsidiary Corporation, partly owned by Conglomerate Corporation, over a slip and fall accident in Subsidiary's parking lot.Is it proper for the attorney to represent Victim in a tort action against an affiliate or subsidiary of his other client, Conglomerate Corporation? a) Yes, a lawyer who represents a corporation or other organization does not, by virtue of that representation, necessarily represent any constituent or affiliated organization, such as a parent or subsidiary, and the lawyer for an organization may provide representation adverse to an affiliate in an unrelated matter. b) Yes, so long as the attorney obtains written informed consent from both Victim and the legal representative of Conglomerate Corporation, after explaining the conflict of interest fully to each client. c) No, unless the attorney obtains written informed consent from both Victim and the corporate director of Conglomerate. d) No, because the parties are directly adverse in litigation, and therefore the conflict of interest described here is nonconsentable under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Yes, a lawyer who represents a corporation or other organization does not, by virtue of that representation, necessarily represent any constituent or affiliated organization, such as a parent or subsidiary, and the lawyer for an organization may provide representation adverse to an affiliate in an unrelated matter.

An attorney served for several years as a professional mediator. She decided to change careers and become a litigator, and one of the parties from her final mediation sought to retain her as their attorney in a matter closely related to the subject of the litigation. The other party, which already had legal representation, provided written, informed consent to this arrangement. Under such circumstances, would it be permissible for the former mediator to represent a party in the same matter in which the attorney served as mediator? a) Yes, as it appears all parties to the proceeding gave informed consent, confirmed in writing. b) Yes, a mediator or arbitrator selected as a partisan of a party in a multimember arbitration panel may subsequently represent that party. c) No, a lawyer who served as a mediator may not represent a client in a matter in which the lawyer personally participated. d)No, because the other party already had legal representation and therefore did not have the same opportunity to hire the mediator as their lawyer for the trial

Yes, as it appears all parties to the proceeding gave informed consent, confirmed in writing

The Workers' Union at a manufacturing plant is having annual collective bargaining negotiations with the Management. Wages and benefits are not in dispute this year, as the parties reached an agreement in the previous year's collective bargaining about a five-year schedule for wages and benefits that was acceptable to both the Union and Management. The sole issue in dispute this year is about hiring. The Workers' Union wants the plant to hire five or six new assembly line workers so that there will be more efficiency and more flexibility for workers requesting days off or changes in their shifts. The Management wants to hire fewer new workers, potentially two at most, to keep payroll costs down and their stock share prices high. The Union and Management agree to hire a certain attorney, an experienced labor lawyer at an outside firm, to facilitate the collective bargaining negotiations. Neither side is currently expecting a breakdown in bargaining that would lead to litigation. Would it be proper for the attorney to have both the Union and the Management as clients while facilitating the negotiations? a) Yes, assuming both clients provide written informed consent, common representation is permissible where the clients' interests mostly align, even though there is some difference in interest among them, so a lawyer may seek an agreement between them on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis b) Yes, because conflicts of interest rules do not apply outside the litigation arena, and the parties here are not litigating and do not expect to litigate, but instead are merely hiring the attorney to facilitate negotiations of an issue where the two sides are not far apart. c) No, because the parties' interests are directly adverse, and a lawyer may not seek to establish or adjust a relationship between clients on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis. d)No, because conflicts of interest in a negotiation situation are nonconsentable, as no lawyer would be reasonable to believe that the conflict of interest would not materially limit his ability to represent both sides; this is especially true of collective bargaining in the employment context

Yes, assuming both clients provide written informed consent, common representation is permissible where the clients' interests mostly align, even though there is some difference in interest among them, so a lawyer may seek an agreement between them on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis

An experienced attorney handles claims against banks for many clients for issues regarding the failure of banks to investigate in a timely manner claims of fraud or unauthorized use of bankcards. Most of the attorney's work consists of sending demand letters, and most cases never actually result in the filing of a suit. Bank, a small local bank, retains the attorney to handle a certain claim against a customer for non-payment of a loan. The attorney has not represented any clients against Bank. Even so, the attorney includes in his contract for services a clause in which Bank waives any conflicts that may arise in the future - conflicts that involve the attorney representing clients against Bank for issues regarding failure to investigate claims of fraud or unauthorized use of bankcards. Is the attorney's conduct proper? a) Yes, attorneys may include waivers of future conflicts assuming clients are aware of the waiver. b) Yes, attorneys can include waiver clauses for specific future conflicts in their contracts, if the clients are aware of the waiver, and if the contract delineates the types of future representations that may arise. c) No, attorneys cannot ever include waivers of future conflicts in contracts. d)No, attorneys cannot include waivers of future conflicts in contracts specifically for financial claims

Yes, attorneys can include waiver clauses for specific future conflicts in their contracts, if the clients are aware of the waiver, and if the contract delineates the types of future representations that may arise

A client hired a certain attorney to represent her in a personal injury lawsuit in which the client is the plaintiff. After an initial consultation and two meetings to review the main evidence in case and to discuss the nature of the claims, the attorney drafted the initial pleadings, served the opposing party, and filed the pleadings in the appropriate court. Nevertheless, the attorney did not allow the client to review the pleadings before filing them, and afterward, the client expresses disappointment that she did not have the opportunity to review the pleadings beforehand and make suggested edits, given that it is her case and that the attorney is working for her. Was it proper for the attorney to draft the pleadings based on conversations with the plaintiff and file the documents without first having the plaintiff review them? a) Yes, because a lawyer may take whatever actions the client has impliedly authorized as part of the representation. b) Yes, unless the client is an English teacher or a professional editor and might therefore have special expertise in proofreading texts for grammatical errors and stylistic problems. c) No, because a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to how to pursue these ends. d)No, because the attorney may have to spend time later revising the pleadings, which could affect the legal fees in the case, and such revisions may have been unnecessary if someone else had proofread the attorney's draft before filing it

Yes, because a lawyer may take whatever actions the client has impliedly authorized as part of the representation

A client explains to his attorney that he is operating an illegal website where users can anonymously upload and download pirated music and videos, in violation of copyright laws and other anti-piracy statutes. The website is very lucrative for its operator, and the client has become a multimillionaire by founding and operating the site. The client is concerned about potential criminal charges or civil lawsuits over the website. His attorney explains to the client how he could use a series of dummy limited liability corporations, mail forwarding addresses, and offshore bank accounts to avoid detection. Each of the steps of the process the attorney describes is technically legal - creating the corporate entities, purchasing mail-forwarding services, and opening bank accounts in Belize. The attorney decides not to charge the client for this advice session but bills the client for other transactional work performed. Is the attorney subject to discipline? a) Yes, because the attorney did not bill the client for the consultation, in violation of their regular retainer agreement. b) No, because the individual steps that the attorney proposed would be legal in isolation, and merely gave an honest opinion about the actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client's conduct. c) Yes, because a lawyer must avoid assisting a client in fraudulent or criminal activity, which includes suggesting how to conceal the wrongdoing. d) No, because the attorney did not bill the client for the advice, and therefore did not benefit personally from counseling the client.

Yes, because a lawyer must avoid assisting a client in fraudulent or criminal activity, which includes suggesting how to conceal the wrongdoing

An attorney agreed to represent a new client in a potential litigation matter, but the client had insufficient funds to pay the attorney's fees. Instead, the client asked the attorney to propose an amount that would be a reasonable fixed fee for the matter. The client then offered to sign over title to a small parcel of real estate worth about the same amount as the proposed fixed fee, and the attorney agreed. The value of the property, and the proposed fixed fee, were fair and reasonable, and the client agreed to these terms in writing. The attorney did not advise the client to seek the opinion of independent legal counsel for this transaction, and did not obtain signed, written consent from the client about the attorney's role in the transaction. Based on these facts, could the attorney be subject to discipline for violating the provisions Model Rule 1.8 that govern business transactions with clients? a) Yes, because a lawyer must meet the written notice requirements of Model Rule 1.8 when the lawyer accepts an interest in the client's business or other nonmonetary property as payment of all or part of a fee. b) Yes, because an attorney may not accept an ownership interest in the client's property as part of the fee for undertaking a representation in a litigation matter. c) No, because Rule 1.8 does not apply to ordinary fee arrangements between client and lawyer. d)No,because the fee was fair and reasonable, and the attorney provided the terms to the client in written form

Yes, because a lawyer must meet the written notice requirements of Model Rule 1.8 when the lawyer accepts an interest in the client's business or other nonmonetary property as payment of all or part of a fee.

A certain attorney represents a defendant in a murder case. At trial, the jury convicted the client and sentenced him to death, and the appellate courts upheld the conviction as well as the sentence. The attorney has now offered to file a habeas corpus petition in federal court to appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary. The defendant, however, has developed terminal cancer, and does not expect to live another six months. The defendant tells the attorney to drop the appeals because even if they won, the defendant would not live long enough to enjoy his freedom. Even so, the defendant does not terminate the representation, because he wants the attorney to handle his estate planning matters while he is on death row, and he has some administrative complaints in progress against the prison where he is living. The attorney strongly opposes the death penalty and believes his client is innocent, so he files the habeas petition anyway. While the habeas petition is making its way through the federal appellate process, the defendant succumbs to his illness and dies in prison. Is the attorney subject to discipline for filing the habeas petition, despite the client's reservations? a) Yes, because the appeals are clearly a waste of public resources in a case where the defendant will die anyway before the appeals process would be complete. b) No, because filing appeals is merely a matter of strategy and methods, and lawyers do not have to defer to the client about strategy and methods. c) No, because the client died before the attorney's actions produced any actual results that could affect the client. d)Yes, because a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to how to pursue these ends

Yes, because a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to how to pursue these ends

An attorney represents criminal defendants. One day, a client appeared in the attorney's office and explained that he had been blackmailing his former employer for the last year. The client had hired a prostitute to seduce the former employer in a room with hidden cameras, then showed the embarrassing photographs to his former employer and demanded monthly payments of $500, which the employer paid, not wanting to destroy his marriage. The prostitute subsequently died of a drug overdose. The client's former employer eventually tired of making the monthly blackmail payments and went to the police about the matter. The client is now worried that he will face charges for blackmail, which would violate his parole and result in a lengthy incarceration. The client retained the only copies of the photographs, as he merely showed them to the former employer a year ago to extort the payments. After the client explained all this to his attorney, he gave the attorney the documents and instructed the attorney to destroy them or hide them so that the police could not find them. Attorney put the photos in a folder marked ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT - PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, and sent the folder to a secret overseas document storage service in the Caymans. The police obtained an arrest warrant for the client based on the former employer's affidavit, and at trial, the prosecutor obtained a conviction based on the employer's testimony and the bank records showing the monthly transfers. Is the attorney subject to discipline? a) Yes, because the lawyer was clearly incompetent or negligent if he lost the trial even without the prosecutor having the photographs or the prostitute's testimony to admit as evidence. b) Yes, because a lawyer shall not assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, such as destroying evidence when there is a pending criminal investigation. c) No, because the court convicted the client anyway, so the lawyer's feeble attempt to help the client made no difference to the outcome. d)No, because once the client told the lawyer about the matter privately and gave him the documents,they came under the protections of attorney-client privilege

Yes, because a lawyer shall not assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, such as destroying evidence when there is a pending criminal investigation

Client is the leader of a radical religious group that protests at the funerals of soldiers who died tragic combat deaths overseas. The protests are not against the war, however, but against society's increasing tolerance of homosexuality and gay marriage. The client and his followers stand outside the funerals as grieving family members arrive, and they hold large picket signs emblazoned with hateful sayings against homosexuals, some of which use shocking language. They also hold signs indicating they are happy that American soldiers die frequently, because they believe these deaths validate their point that the country is on the wrong course morally and has become evil by being more tolerant. The group heckles those attending the funerals, but then disperses once the funeral ceremony starts. The group receives regular national media coverage because of the intentionally sensational and shocking nature of their protests. The client now faces a tort lawsuit by the father of a deceased soldier whose funeral the group picketed; the plaintiff claims intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The client is certain that his First Amendment rights trump such subjective-harm tort claims and has a recent Supreme Court case supporting his position. The client asks an attorney to represent him in the matter. The attorney reluctantly agrees to take the case and the trial court gives an unfavorable verdict against the client. After the case, reporters interview the attorney asking how he could represent such a client and the attorney states during the interviews that he did not necessarily endorse the client's religious, social, moral, or political views, but was merely providing representation. Are the attorney's actions proper in this case? a) Yes, because the attorney did not win the case on behalf of this client, so justice prevailed in the end, as this client advocates intolerance of others in our society. b) No, because the attorney has a duty under the Rules of Professional Conduct to refuse representation of a client if he cannot endorse the client's political, social, or moral views, especially those who preach intolerance and hate. c) No, because the attorney lost the case, and then tried to justify himself in the media by denying any endorsement of the client's political, social, and moral views. d) Yes, because a lawyer's representation of a client does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political,economic,social,or moral views or activities

Yes, because a lawyer's representation of a client does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political,economic,social,or moral views or activities

A client hires an attorney to represent her in business litigation. Another lawyer in the firm, unknown to the attorney, approaches the client with a proposal for an unrelated business transaction, the sale of a parcel of real estate adjacent to the lawyer's own land. The client agrees to sell the other lawyer in the firm the parcel of real estate for a reasonable price. The lawyer is not involved at all in the representation of the client and works exclusively in the estate- planning department of the firm, rather than in litigation. Must the lawyer nevertheless advise the client in writing of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel, and obtain written informed consent from the client before proceeding with the purchase? a) Yes, because the fact that the lawyer owns the adjacent real estate to the client's parcel of land means that he has a special conflict of interest with the client that would not necessarily apply to the other lawyers in the same firm. b) Yes, because a prohibition on conduct by an individual lawyer under the conflicts of interest rules would automatically apply to all lawyers associated in a firm with the personally prohibited lawyer, even if the first lawyer is not personally involved in the representation of the client. c) No, because the lawyer who is buying the real estate from the client is not involved in the representation of the client, and the Rules of Profession Conduct would not impute the attorney's potential conflicts of interest to the other lawyers in the firm. d) No, because the lawyer is willing to pay a fair and reasonable price for the parcel of land,so there is no risk that the transaction will be to the disadvantage of the client

Yes, because a prohibition on conduct by an individual lawyer under the conflicts of interest rules would automatically apply to all lawyers associated in a firm with the personally prohibited lawyer, even if the first lawyer is not personally involved in the representation of the client.

A local abortion clinic hires the McCorvey Law Firm to represent it in an enforcement action brought by a state health agency. The action pertains to alleged health code violations at the clinic. The firm's principle partner, Norma McCorvey, has strong, outspoken political beliefs against abortion, and cannot set aside her personal convictions to provide representation to the clinic in the matter. An associate at the firm, however, supports the clinic's mission, and offers to represent the clinic instead of Attorney McCorvey. If McCorvey agrees to let the associate represent the clinic, would it be proper for the associate to do so, despite the partner's strong convictions that the clinic should close? a) No, because the named partner at the firm has a material limitation that creates a conflict of interest that would be imputed to the rest of the lawyers at the firm. b) No, because the lawyers at the firm hold opposing political beliefs on a matter that is material to the representation, and this disagreement creates a conflict of interest for the firm as an entity. c) Yes, because Attorney McCorvey's political beliefs are not relevant in the decision about whether to provide representation, given that the opposing party is a state health agency enforcing the health code, and the underlying constitutional issues surrounding abortion are unlikely to affect the case. d)Yes, because even though Attorney McCorvey could not effectively represent the client due to her political beliefs, this would not materially limit the representation by the associate at the firm

Yes, because even though Attorney McCorvey could not effectively represent the client due to her political beliefs, this would not materially limit the representation by the associate at the firm

A client hired an attorney to research the legality of a musical "mash-up," a sound recording that includes brief sound clips and samples from many other artists' commercial recordings. The client's unique approach puts it in the gray area around "fair use" and "composite works of art" under prevailing copyright law, and no court has yet ruled on the precise issue, though the question has been the subject of seventeen lengthy law review articles in the last two years, reaching a range of different conclusions. No litigation is pending, and the client has not yet undertaken any activity that could constitute a copyright infringement; he is seeking reassurance before proceeding that he would not face liability for copyright infringement. Because the client primarily wants a memorandum of law answering his hypothetical legal question, he asks the attorney to limit his research and writing to two hours of billable time. The attorney agrees, spends an hour reading and an hour writing, and gives the client a short memorandum. Given that the client's objective was merely to secure general information about the law the client needs, was it improper for the attorney to agree to this limitation on the scope of representation up front? a) Yes, because given the complexity of the subject and the uncertainty about this certain point of law, two hours was not a reasonable amount of time to yield advice upon which the client could rely. b) Yes, because the other artists have a right to receive compensation for their creative work, and the attorney is helping the client potentially infringe on other artists' copyrights. c) No, because the client had a limited objective of securing general information about the law the client needs, so the lawyer and client may agree that the lawyer's services will be no more than an hour of research and an hour of writing. d)No, because it would be too costly or burdensome to have the attorney read seventeen tedious law review articles and try to formulate a plausible synthesis of the positions they advocate

Yes, because given the complexity of the subject and the uncertainty about this certain point of law, two hours was not a reasonable amount of time to yield advice upon which the client could rely

Big Firm represents hundreds of corporate clients out of a dozen offices in different states. The firm has no formal procedures in place to check for conflicts at the outset of representation for new clients, but the managing partner of the firm has an incredible memory and has never failed to spot a potential conflict of interest in the past. An attorney agrees to represent a new corporate client that owns many subsidiaries, and checks with the managing partner, who assured Attorney there are no potential conflicts. After the new corporate client had disclosed a substantial amount of confidential information, it emerged that some of its subsidiaries were directly adverse to other clients of Big Firm. The attorney was completely unaware of the potential conflicts at the time he agreed to the representation, despite asking the corporate client a few questions about the opposing parties in pending litigation it might have. Will the attorney be subject to discipline for not declining representation in this case? a) Yes, because ignorance caused by a failure to institute reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, will not excuse a lawyer's violation of the Rules regarding conflicts of interest. b) Yes, because there is a presumption that a company owning several subsidiaries will have at least one adverse interest to other clients of a Big Firm. c) No, as he was unaware of the conflict at the time, but now that the conflict is apparent, Attorney must withdraw from representation d) No, because the attorney at least partly relied upon the managing partner's prowess in identifying conflicts, given that the managing partner had never before made a mistake.

Yes, because ignorance caused by a failure to institute reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, will not excuse a lawyer's violation of the Rules regarding conflicts of interest.

A thirty-lawyer firm in Chicago affiliated with Boutique Firm, three lawyers in a small city in New England. Each firm includes, on its masthead under the list of its own lawyers, the affiliation of the other firm (with its lawyers each named). Each firm also mentions the affiliation with the other in its Martindale-Hubbell listing. Boutique Firm has represented Conglomerate Corporation in intellectual property matters for a few years, and has on file extensive information about Conglomerate's patents, patent applications, and prior patent litigation. Recently, Copycat Company has hired the thirty- lawyer firm in Chicago to seek a declaratory judgment that it is not infringing on certain patents owned by Conglomerate Corp., or in the alternative, that these specific patents are invalid. Conglomerate Corporation hired a new litigation firm to represent it in the matter, due to its concern about its regular firm having a conflict of interest. During the pleading and discovery phase, Conglomerate filed a motion to disqualify the Chicago firm from representing Copycat Company, due to its affiliation with Boutique Firm, even though Boutique Firm is not handling Conglomerate's litigation in this matter. Should the court grant the motion to disqualify the Chicago firm? a) Yes, because it was misleading advertising for a firm in one state to identify a separate firm in another state as "affiliated," as this creates the impression for potential clients that the lawyers from one firm are also employees of the other. b) Yes, because separate firms that publicly identify themselves as "affiliated," even if they are located several states away from each other, count as the same firm for purposes of imputed conflicts of interest under Rule 1.10. c) No, because Boutique firm is not representing Conglomerate in the pending patent litigation, and the firm that does represent Conglomerate has no obvious connection to the Chicago firm. d)No,because the Chicago firm and Boutique Firm (in New England) are separate firms, far away from each other geographically, and there is no reason to think that confidential information from a tiny firm in New England would pass over to a Chicago firm that merely has an "affiliation" for marketing purposes

Yes, because separate firms that publicly identify themselves as "affiliated," even if they are located several states away from each other, count as the same firm for purposes of imputed conflicts of interest under Rule 1.10

An attorney made an agreement to borrow money from a client who had received a large inheritance. The attorney agreed to pay the client the same interest rate that banks in that area were charging for unsecured business loans, and she gave the client a detailed written disclosure of the terms and conditions of the loan, with phrasing that a nonlawyer could understand. The client gave written, signed consent to the essential terms of the loan, including the fact that the attorney was not representing the client in the transaction. During one of their conversations about the loan, the attorney also advised the client in writing that it would be prudent to obtain the advice of another lawyer about the transaction, and she offered to give the client time to find another lawyer, but the client did not want to do this. Upon consummation of the agreement, the client transferred the loan amount to the attorney, who made regular payments according to the terms of the agreement, eventually repaying the full amount with interest. Based on these facts, were the attorney's actions proper in this transaction? a) Yes, because the attorney repaid the loan with interest, so the client suffered no adverse consequences. b) Yes, because the attorney complied with the requirements of the Model Rules for this type of transaction with a client. c) No, based on the facts here, the client did not sign the written advisement to seek the opinion of independent legal counsel. d)No,it was impermissible for the attorney to borrow money from a current client, even though the attorney fully repaid the loan

Yes, because the attorney complied with the requirements of the Model Rules for this type of transaction with a client

An attorney worked in the legal department of Conglomerate Corporation for a few years, then left there to start his own firm. His experience at Conglomerate proved useful, as he regularly represented some of Conglomerate's newer industry rivals in their transactional and pre-litigation work - small startup businesses that did not have in-house counsel. Whenever a new client needed legal representation in a matter that could potentially be adverse to the legal interests of one of his other clients, the attorney would obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing to the potential conflict of interest. In such cases, the attorney would also ask new clients to sign a waiver of liability for all potential legal malpractice by the attorney. Attached to the waiver was a cover sheet explaining what the waiver entailed, the downsides for the client in signing a waiver, and recommending the client seek the advice of independent legal counsel in connection therewith. As with the consent to conflicts of interest, the clients normally gave informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the waiver of malpractice claims against the attorney. Could the attorney be subject to discipline, based on these facts? a) Yes, because the attorney is representing industry rivals or competitors of his former client and employer, Conglomerate Corporation, without obtaining Conglomerate's consent. b) Yes, because the attorney is making an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability to a client for malpractice, and the client does not have independent representation in making the agreement. c) No, the clients gave informed consent, confirmed in writing, to both the conflict of interest and the waiver of malpractice claims. d)No, the attorney advised the clients in writing of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel in connection therewith

Yes, because the attorney is making an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability to a client for malpractice, and the client does not have independent representation in making the agreement.

An attorney represented a client in a litigation matter, and while the matter was still pending, the attorney and the client also agreed to purchase an investment property together. The client had another lawyer who regularly represented the client in transactional matters, but not litigation. The litigation attorney and the client contributed equal amounts toward the purchase of the investment property, and each received an equal share. The attorney did not advise the client in writing of the desirability of obtaining the opinion of independent legal counsel in the transaction, but the client nevertheless asked his other lawyer, who handled the client's transactional matters, to review the terms and render an opinion. The other lawyer provided the client with a written disclosure of the terms and conditions of the agreement and recommended that the client proceed. Did the litigation attorney act properly in this transaction, purchasing an investment property with the client? a) Yes, because the client had representation by another lawyer in the transaction. b) Yes, because the joint investment did not relate to the attorney's representation of the client, which pertained to a litigation matter. c) No, because the attorney did not advise the client in writing to seek the opinion of independent legal counsel for this transaction. d)No, because the transaction was not fair and reasonable to the client

Yes, because the client had representation by another lawyer in the transaction

A certain defendant was indigent and received court-appointed defense counsel in his felony larceny case. The defendant insisted that he was completely innocent and that he would not accept any plea bargains, because he wanted an opportunity to prove his innocence at trial. When the defendant told the attorney his expectations, the attorney explained that there is a special type of plea called an "Alford Plea," in which a defendant may agree to accept a conviction while still contesting his guilt or maintaining his innocence. The defendant refused, and told the attorney, "Do not even contact me with offers from the prosecutor for a guilty plea. I will not plead guilty. I will prove my innocence in a court of law!" The prosecutor indeed made several plea offers, and each time the attorney presented the offer to the defendant, who rejected it and reminded the attorney that he did not want to hear about any offers to "make a deal." The defendant's hard line proved effective as a negotiating strategy, and eventually the prosecutor called the attorney to say they would reduce the charges to a misdemeanor and the sentence to "time served" if the defendant would plead guilty. The attorney thought this was a ridiculously generous offer but simply rejected it without consulting his client. The client proceeded to trial and the jury convicted him, and he received the maximum sentence for the crimes charged. Was it proper for the attorney to reject the final plea bargain offer without informing the client? a) Yes, because clients have a right to dictate the overall objectives of the representation, but the lawyer has a right to decide the means of achieving that objective. b) Yes, because the client has previously indicated that the proposal will be unacceptable and has authorized the lawyer to reject the offer. c) No, because a lawyer who receives from opposing counsel a proffered plea bargain in a criminal case must promptly inform the client of its substance. d)No, because the ultimate result was a conviction and a severe sentence for the defendant,which he could have avoided by accepting the final plea offer

Yes, because the client has previously indicated that the proposal will be unacceptable and has authorized the lawyer to reject the offer.

A certain client calls an attorney to ask if it is possible to apply for an extension on filing his annual tax returns, if the deadline for filing returns is still two weeks in the future. This attorney offers to research the matter for a few hours and write a formal legal memorandum for the client about filing extensions. Even so, offhand, the attorney can assure the client over the phone that it is indeed possible to apply for an extension and that the IRS routinely grants them if an application for extension arrives before the regular deadline. The attorney practices tax law and is familiar with the rules. The client thanks the attorney and says that he is satisfied with the "short answer," and that he does not want the attorney to do any more research or writing about it, but to send a bill for the phone call. Then the attorney agrees and bills the client for the telephone conversation and conducts no further research on the matter. Is it proper for the attorney to limit his representation to a single telephone call like this? a) Yes, because the client's objective is no more than securing general information about the law the client needs to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem, so the lawyer and the client may agree that the lawyer's services will be no more than a brief telephone consultation. b) Yes, because the lawyer should defer to the client about costs and the objectives of the representation and should not assist a client in committing a crime or fraud, such as tax evasion. c) No, because such a limitation on the representation does not allot enough time to yield advice upon which the client could rely, and the client could face devastating fines for being late with his tax returns. d) No, because such an agreement ignores the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation necessary for the representation

Yes, because the client's objective is no more than securing general information about the law the client needs to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem, so the lawyer and the client may agree that the lawyer's services will be no more than a brief telephone consultation

Three individuals plan to form a joint venture and ask an attorney to represent them in drafting the necessary documents and making the necessary filings with government agencies. They have already agreed that everyone will contribute exactly one-third of the startup funds for the venture, each will own a one-third share, each will have equal control over the Board, and each agrees to indemnify the others for a one- third share of any personal liability related to the joint venture. They have also agreed that they will have no non-compete agreements. The joint venture will hire managers, marketers, and other employees to operate the business. The three individuals are co-owners of a patent that could potentially be very lucrative when they bring it to market, and they have known each other and worked together for a long time. The attorney cannot find any current areas of conflict between them, though he knows that it is technically possible that some unforeseen conflict could arise in the future. The shared objectives and goals of the group lead the attorney to conclude that no conflicts of interest are present and that it would be counterproductive to try to convince each member of the group to sign an informed consent form acknowledging that conflicts of interest exist and that the attorney may still represent everyone at once. May the attorney trust his professional judgment and proceed without obtaining separate consent forms from each person in the joint venture? a) Yes, if the attorney has a reasonable belief that he will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each client, because the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal. b) Yes, because the mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent. c) No, the situation is likely to limit materially the attorney's ability to recommend or advocate all potential positions that each might take because of his duty of loyalty to the others; representing the group's overall interests in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. d)No, because the fact that the individuals already decided to create a joint venture, and sought representation together from a single lawyer, constitutes implied consent to the common representation despite any potential conflicts of interest involved.

Yes, because the mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent

An associate in a law firm consulted with a prospective client about providing legal representation. The prospective client wanted to file a lawsuit against a nightclub. A fistfight had erupted at the nightclub between two other patrons, and the potential client had intervened to try to break it up. One of the fighting patrons shoved him out of the way, and he sustained some bruising when he fell. Worse, the nightclub's security guard then arrived and misinterpreted the situation, and he thought the prospective client had started the fight. The security guard dragged him outside behind the nightclub, where the two had an angry exchange of words. The security guard became enraged and beat the prospective client badly, leaving him with a concussion, black eyes, some missing teeth, and broken ribs. The security guard had been since quit working there and was judgment- proof, but the nightclub had a long prior history of problems with this guard resorting to unnecessary violence against unruly patrons and the club. The associate attorney immediately agreed to represent the prospective client, and only later discovered that the managing partner at his firm owned a 50% share of the same nightclub as a side investment. Even so, the partner gave the associate permission to represent the victim, because he said the bar's liability insurer would cover the claim and settle quickly, and it would generate fees for the firm. Furthermore, the potential client, who ran a real estate business, might hire the firm for other lucrative legal matters. The nightclub's liability insurer, however, refused to settle the matter before the plaintiff had filed a claim in court, and as soon as the associate filed the claim, the insurer's lawyer filed a motion to disqualify the associate's entire firm from the case. Should the court disqualify the firm because one of the partners has invested money in the nightclub, even if that partner is not directly involved in the representation? a) Yes, because the partner's conflict of interest would impute to all the other lawyers in the firm, especially if the managing partner has the conflict and associates are handling the representation with his permission. b) Yes, because the motivation of the partner and the associate is to generate legal fees for the firm, in the short term from the nightclub's liability insurer, and in the long run from future legal work brought to the firm from this client. c) No, because the partner with the ownership interest in the nightclub is not the one providing representation to the victim, and he expressly allowed the associate to take the case, saying it would be good for the firm and would not injure his commercial interests. d)No,because the potential client deserves to have legal representation, and it would be prejudicial to him to disqualify his entire law firm after the filing of the claim

Yes, because the partner's conflict of interest would impute to all the other lawyers in the firm, especially if the managing partner has the conflict and associates are handling the representation with his permission

Media Company holds the exclusive right to license and distribute certain pay-per-view sporting events, which commercial establishments must license to broadcast at their facilities. It sued a sports bar, for broadcasting one of its major sporting events without a license. The Three Brothers Law Firm were involved before the Media Company filed suit, and Three Brothers Firm had managed to broker a tentative settlement agreement between the parties. Afterward, however, the parties reneged on the agreement and litigation ensued. Three Brothers Firm now represents the defendant sports bar in the matter, and it is counsel of record. Media Company has filed a motion to disqualify Three Brothers from the case, but the attorneys there claim that Media Company was never their client. There was no representation agreement between Media Company and Three Brothers, and Media Company never paid Three Brothers any legal fees. On the other hand, Media Company was otherwise unrepresented during the pre-trial attempt at negotiating a settlement, and its managers asked attorneys from Three Brothers for advice about whether to agree to the settlement instead of going to trial, and initially followed their legal advice on several points. Should the court now disqualify Three Brothers Firm from the case entirely? a) Yes, because they obtained confidential information during the negotiations in the same matter, or a matter with significant overlap. b) Yes, but only if the lawyers at Three Brothers Firm advised the sports bar to abandon the tentative settlement agreement. c) No, because the attorneys are blood relatives working in the same firm. d)No, because the firm was serving as a third- party neutral in the previous settlement negotiations, so neither party had a client- lawyer relationship with the firm

Yes, because they obtained confidential information during the negotiations in the same matter, or a matter with significant overlap.

An attorney sued Giant Company on behalf of a client in a personal injury matter. During the protracted litigation that ensued, Conglomerate bought Giant Company. The attorney was already representing Conglomerate in a regulatory compliance matter before a federal administrative agency. Assuming this development was unforeseeable at the outset of representing the client against Giant Company, will the attorney have the option to withdraw from one of the representations to avoid the conflict? a) Yes, because one matter is in state court and the other matter is a completely unrelated federal administrative proceeding. b) Yes, but the attorney must seek court approval where necessary and take steps to minimize harm to the clients, and he must continue to protect the confidences of the client from whose representation the lawyer has withdrawn. c) No, if a conflict arises after representation is underway, the lawyer ordinarily must withdraw from the representation of both clients, unless the lawyer has obtained the informed consent of each client at the outset of the representation. d) No, because the federal administrative matter would preempt state tort law under the Supremacy Clause.

Yes, but the attorney must seek court approval where necessary and take steps to minimize harm to the clients, and he must continue to protect the confidences of the client from whose representation the lawyer has withdrawn

Three co-owners of a successful startup business hire a certain attorney to help with working out the financial reorganization of their enterprise. The attorney seeks to resolve potentially adverse interests by developing the parties' mutual interests. In assenting to represent all the parties as clients simultaneously, the attorney agrees to adjust the relationship between clients on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis. The clients each provide written consent to the potential conflicts of interest. Is it proper for the attorney to represent three clients with potentially adverse interests in a negotiated transaction? a) Yes, common representation is permissible where the clients' interests mostly align, even though there is some difference in interest among them, so the attorney may pursue an agreement on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis. b)Yes, because conflicts of interest rules do not apply outside the litigation arena, and the parties here are not litigating and do not expect to litigate, but instead are merely hiring the attorney to facilitate negotiations of an issue where the two sides are not far apart. c) No, because the parties' interests are directly adverse, and a lawyer may not seek to establish or adjust a relationship between clients on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis. d) No, because conflicts of interest in a negotiation situation are nonconsentable, as no reasonable lawyer would believe that the conflict of interest would not materially limit his ability to represent both sides; this is especially true of collective bargaining in the employment context.

Yes, common representation is permissible where the clients' interests mostly align, even though there is some difference in interest among them, so the attorney may pursue an agreement on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis.

Two sisters are co-tenants of a house that they inherited from their father. They want to sell the house and hire an attorney to handle the real estate transaction. This attorney explains the potential for conflicts of interest in detail, and each sister readily agrees to provide written informed consent in the form of a waiver of future conflicts of interest. After a prolonged period, they finally find a buyer who is interested in the house, but the buyer wants to impose several onerous conditions on the purchase and engages in unreasonably protracted negotiations over the purchase price. The sisters themselves cannot agree on whether to accept any of the buyer's proposals, further dooming the negotiations. Eventually, one sister becomes frustrated with the attorney over the prolonged, hitherto unsuccessful negotiations, and fires the attorney. The other sister wants the attorney to continue the representation. Regarding the sister who seeks to discharge the attorney, may she do so? a) Yes, but only if discharging the lawyer will not be prejudicial to the interests of the buyer, who has already invested a lot of time and energy in the negotiations to purchase the property. b) Yes, each client in the common representation has the right to discharge the lawyer as stated in Rules of Professional Conduct and the accompanying Comments. c) No, because she signed a waiver of future conflicts of interest, which is binding and safeguards the attorney against premature discharge. d)No, because by agreeing to common representation with her sister,she implicitly agreed that discharging the attorney would require assent of both sisters, as they are both clients

Yes, each client in the common representation has the right to discharge the lawyer as stated in Rules of Professional Conduct and the accompanying Comments

1. An attorney represented an indigent client in a civil rights claim matter on a pro bono basis. The client had trouble paying rent or affording basic living expenses. The attorney and the client had recurring disagreements about litigation strategy and tactics, and at one point the client informed the lawyer that he wanted to terminate the representation and find another lawyer to drop the matter. The attorney thought the client was feeling discouraged, so he offered to provide some financial assistant to the client - just enough to cover rent, food, and other basic living expenses until the case concluded. The client agreed to continue with the representation. Was the attorney's conduct improper? a) Yes, lawyers may never subsidize lawsuits brought on behalf of their clients, including making loans to their clients for living expenses, because such assistance gives lawyers too great a financial stake in the litigation. b) Yes, even under the exception that allows lawyers to provide financial assistance to an indigent client in a pro bono matter, a lawyer may not promise, assure or imply the availability of such gifts prior to retention or as an inducement to continue the client- lawyer relationship after retention. c) No, financial assistance, including modest gifts for food, rent, transportation, medicine, and other basic living expenses, may be provided even if the representation is eligible for fees under a fee-shifting statute. d) No, the Model Rules permit lawyers to provide assistance in other contemplated or pending litigation in which the lawyer may eventually recover a fee, such as contingent- fee personal injury cases or cases in which fees may be available under a contractual fee- shifting provision.

Yes, even under the exception that allows lawyers to provide financial assistance to an indigent client in a pro bono matter, a lawyer may not promise, assure or imply the availability of such gifts prior to retention or as an inducement to continue the client- lawyer relationship after retention.

An attorney agreed to represent a client in a litigation matter and had checked for conflicts of interest regarding the opposing party. Soon after agreeing to take the case, however, the attorney learned that opposing counsel was one of his closest friends. They gave each other gifts for their birthdays and celebrated special occasions together, socialized together regularly, and their children were friends and his children had gone for sleepover parties at the home of opposing counsel. The two families had even vacationed together on two occasions. In fact, opposing counsel was one of the few friends that the attorney felt he could talk to about his personal problems. Even so, the matter seemed straightforward and the positions of the two parties were close enough that a quick settlement seemed likely. Does the attorney have an obligation to inform the client about the nature of his friendship with opposing counsel and obtain written, informed consent from the client? a) Yes, any type of friendship between a lawyer and opposing counsel requires disclosure to the client and informed consent before proceeding with the representation. b) Yes, every affected client should be aware of this type of close friendship and must give consent to proceed with the representation. c) No, the attorney should inform of the client of this type of friendship but does not need to obtain informed consent. d) No, mere friendships between the lawyers on opposing sides of a case do not create the same type of conflict as family relationships or intimate romantic relationships

Yes, every affected client should be aware of this type of close friendship and must give consent to proceed with the representation

An attorney has a private practice in a large rural township, and she specializes in commercial real estate transactions, such as the sale and lease of farmland, stables, granaries, and mills. As the only lawyer in the township with expertise in this area, she has represented most of the parties who buy and sell commercial real estate there. As a result, most of her clients pose potential conflicts of interest with other current, former, or future clients, so the attorney has a standard "waiver of future conflicts" form that explains conflicts of interest that typically arise in commercial real estate transactions, and she asks every client to sign it at the commencement of representation. The client is a major landholder in the township, who inherited extensive tracts of farmland from his family, who in previous generations were some of the original settlers in the area. Over the years, the client has sold off dozens of small parcels of farmland to neighboring farmers or small businesses such as honey processors, taxidermists, a hardware store, and a veterinarian. The client has also bought properties at times that were adjacent to his existing landholdings. The client has always used other lawyers for these transactions in the past, and in each previous instance, the other party had separate counsel. The client now wants to hire the attorney to sell a parcel to a real estate developer. Buyer (the developer) is also a client of the attorney on unrelated matters, but the Buyer has hired another lawyer to handle this certain matter. The client and Buyer have had a good working relationship in the past and have consummated a few transactions that went smoothly. When the client meets with the attorney to review and sign a retainer for this representation, the attorney includes with the retainer her standard "waiver of future conflicts" form, without additional oral explanation except to mention that she represents Buyer in an unrelated matter. The client reads the form and signs it. As the negotiations for the sale to the developer proceed, a new conflict arises between the client's interests and the unrelated matters for which the attorney has represented the developer, as one will significantly affect the road traffic for the other. This was an unexpected development, though not unusual - such situations were familiar and routine for the attorney and the parties. Is the attorney's standardized "waiver of future conflicts," signed by the client, likely to be effective in this situation? a) Yes, if the client agrees to consent to a specific type of conflict with which the client is already familiar, then the consent ordinarily will be effective regarding that type of conflict. b) Yes, because the conflict of interest was unforeseeable at the time the representation began, and the client was aware that the attorney represented the Buyer. c)No, because it violates the Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to ask a client to waive future claims such as a conflict of interest, unless the client has representation by outside counsel in deciding whether to sign the waiver. d) No, because it violates the Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to use a standard, one-size-fits-all consent form without additional oral explanation

Yes, if the client agrees to consent to a specific type of conflict with which the client is already familiar, then the consent ordinarily will be effective regarding that type of conflict

A producer of popular energy drinks and the owner of a popular chain of video-rental kiosks wanted to undertake a joint venture to distribute energy drinks and DVD rentals through the same kiosks. They approached a certain attorney to work out the details of the joint venture and draft the necessary legal documents. The attorney would provide common representation to both as clients in the matter. As part of obtaining informed consent from the clients regarding potential conflicts, the attorney explains that all information would be available to the other client, even information that otherwise would have been confidential information in a normal representation with a single client. Then the attorney explains he will have to withdraw if one client insists that the attorney keep certain information from the other, if the information was relevant and material to the representation. The energy drink maker, however, has a secret formula for the drinks, and the DVD kiosk owner has a trade-secret method of tracking the distribution and stocking of the DVDs in the kiosks minute-by-minute. Neither wanted the other to discover their trade secrets, but the attorney may eventually possess the secrets as part of his document review for the joint venture. Neither client clearly needs to know the trade secrets of the other, however, to proceed with the joint venture. Eventually, the attorney concludes that failure to disclose one client's trade secrets to another client would not adversely affect the representation in this case and agrees to keep that information confidential with the informed consent of both clients. Is the attorney's conduct proper? a) Yes, in limited circumstances like this, it would be appropriate for the lawyer to proceed with the representation when the clients have agreed, after receiving adequate disclosures, that the lawyer will keep certain information confidential. b) Yes, because no litigation is pending between the clients and the lawyer has not represented them before in other matters, and both are willing to provide written informed consent to the conflicts inherent in common representation. c) No, continued common representation will certainly be inadequate if one client asks the lawyer not to disclose to the other client information relevant to the common representation. d)No, because the lawyer has an equal duty of loyalty to each client,and each client has the right to know about anything bearing on the representation that might affect that client's interests and the right to expect that the lawyer will use that information to that client's benefit

Yes, in limited circumstances like this, it would be appropriate for the lawyer to proceed with the representation when the clients have agreed, after receiving adequate disclosures, that the lawyer will keep certain information confidential

Two brothers work together in a family landscaping business, and each is a named defendant in a lawsuit over a broken sewage pipe on a client's property where the brothers were digging holes to plant new trees. The two brothers hire their family's attorney to represent them. Though the brothers get along reasonably well, there are several topics they avoid discussing, especially related to family matters and the inheritance, and who is to blame for some lost clients and damaged equipment in the recent past. Then the attorney explains the potential for conflicts of interest in the common representation and asks if they are willing to sign a waiver to the conflicts. One asks the lawyer privately about the issue of confidentiality and privileged information, because it is possible that litigation could emerge within the family later over various issues - the inheritance, control of the business, liability for business losses, and even a marital dispute. Does the common representation have implications for the attorney- client privilege? a) Yes, regarding the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between jointly represented clients, the privilege does not attach, and lawyers should assume that if litigation eventuates between the clients, the privilege will not protect any such communications. b) Yes, regarding the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between jointly represented clients, common representation provides extra protections for privileged information, and this is one of the main benefits of sharing the same lawyer. c) No, regarding the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between jointly represented clients, attorney-client privilege still applies to all communications between each client and the lawyer, so clients sharing a lawyer should know that the lawyer may not disclose to them confidential information from the other clients. d)No, regarding the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that,as between jointly represented clients,the awyer may not have ex parte communications with any of the clients, but all communications must occur when all clients are present,to safeguardthe privilege

Yes, regarding the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between jointly represented clients, the privilege does not attach, and lawyers should assume that if litigation eventuates between the clients, the privilege will not protect any such communications

Business Manager and Shift Supervisor, who worked at a customer service call-center, became co-defendants in a lawsuit by a disgruntled former employee. The plaintiff claimed to have been the victim of gender discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment, as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress related to the same factual allegations about her treatment at the workplace. Business Manager hired a certain attorney to represent both himself and the Shift Supervisor, who had been the plaintiff's direct superior. Based on Business Manager's initial investigation and review of the personnel files of the plaintiff and the Shift Manager, he believes the allegations are baseless and that the suit will end in a dismissal or summary judgment before trial. Shift Supervisor had a spotless work history, but the plaintiff had numerous interpersonal conflicts with her peers, was frequently late for work or missed work completely, and was the subject of several customer complaints. From his consultations with the defendants, the attorney understood that the complaints targeted the Business Manager and Shift Supervisor equally. Business Manager and Shift Supervisor both gave the attorney written informed consent to the potential conflicts of interest in having the attorney represent both. Business Manager obtained tentative permission to have the business cover the legal fees for the attorney. Near the end of the discovery phase, however, plaintiff produced numerous inappropriate love letters to her from Shift Supervisor, many with explicit sexual overtures, and a few that sounded threatening based on her lack of response to previous letters. In addition, several co-workers of plaintiff gave depositions explaining that they had witnessed Shift Supervisor engaging in inappropriate and unwanted touching of plaintiff on many occasions. Several also testified that Shift Supervisor would often accost her for ten or fifteen minutes outside, before she could reach her workstation, and that this was the cause of her tardiness for work. Business Manager had never heard about any of these problems before. Moreover, during depositions the plaintiff explained that she always had little contact with Business Manager and had no direct complaints about his treatment of her, and she acknowledged that she had never complained to Business Manager about Shift Supervisor's harassment of her. She disclosed that Business Manager was a co-defendant only because her attorney believed it was necessary to name someone from upper management in the lawsuit to trigger the legal protections of Title VII and other antidiscrimination laws. Business Manager then revoked his consent to the conflict of interest, explaining that he wanted separate representation from Shift Supervisor. Trial was due to begin two weeks later. Would it be proper for the attorney to continue representing either Shift Supervisor or Business Manager, but withdraw from representing the other? a) Yes, the attorney can potentially continue to represent Business Manager but not Shift Supervisor, because Shift Supervisor engaged in misconduct that was unknown to Business Manager, and Business Manager is the one who arranged for the payment of the legal fees. b) Yes, the attorney can potentially continue representing Shift Supervisor but not Business Manager, given the nature of the conflict, the fact that Business Manager revoked consent because of a material change in circumstances, the expectations of Shift Supervisor, and so on. c) No, the attorney must petition the court to withdraw from representing both clients, as he has now obtained confidential information about each of them, and one is unwilling to consent to the continued common representation. d)No, the attorney must continue to represent both clients,because it is the eve of trial and withdrawing would be prejudicial to them, and both consented in writing to the potential conflicts involved with using the same lawyer.

Yes, the attorney can potentially continue representing Shift Supervisor but not Business Manager, given the nature of the conflict, the fact that Business Manager revoked consent because of a material change in circumstances, the expectations of Shift Supervisor, and so on

The Office of the Attorney General in Texas ordered administrative suspensions of driver's licenses for parents who failed to pay child support, pursuant to state statutes. An attorney worked for the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), the agency that adjudicated license suspensions like this one. When he decided to leave the SOAH, the attorney surreptitiously copied a database of individuals facing license suspensions and used the names to solicit clients as he started his own firm. The attorney represented clients who wanted to appeal their license suspensions in court, though he did not represent anyone whose case he had personally worked on during his time at the SOAH. Could the attorney be subject to discipline in the cases in which he represents clients appealing their license suspensions? a) Yes, the attorney had access to confidential government information from his time working for the state. b) Yes, a former government lawyer cannot represent any clients against the same state entity for whom the lawyer once worked. c) No, there is no conflict because the lawyer did not participate directly or personally in the client's cases. d)No,disqualification of former government lawyers does not apply to merely administrative matters such as license suspensions

Yes, the attorney had access to confidential government information from his time working for the state

An attorney regularly represented clients in transactional matters. While she was representing a certain client in negotiating and drafting a contract, the client asked the attorney to represent her in a lawsuit as well. The attorney felt nervous because she rarely did litigation work, so she asked the client to sign a waiver of potential malpractice claims that could arise from the litigation work. She orally advised the client to talk to another lawyer about the waiver before signing it, but the client felt that she already had legal representation, as this attorney was handling her transactional matters. The client readily agreed to the waiver. The attorney competently handled the litigation matter, and the case settled before trial with a favorable result for the client. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for obtaining a malpractice waiver from the client? a) Yes, the attorney is making an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability to a client for malpractice, and the client does not have independent representation in making the agreement. b) Yes, because she did not advise the client in writing about the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel about the waiver, but merely gave an oral recommendation. c)No, the client already had legal representation from the attorney on another matter,so is was permissible for the attorney to make an agreement limiting future malpractice claims d)No, the waiver was moot because the attorney did not commit malpractice and the client obtained a favorable result

Yes, the attorney is making an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability to a client for malpractice, and the client does not have independent representation in making the agreement.

A plaintiff who had prevailed at trial needed representation for the appeal, because the defendant in the case appealed the verdict. Plaintiff's counsel did only trial work, not appellate work, and referred the client to an appellate attorney nearby. The trial lawyer even offered to accompany the plaintiff to the initial consultation with the appellate attorney to help facilitate the transition and to safeguard his client's interests in retaining new counsel. Instead, the plaintiff fired the trial lawyer, terminating the representation, and then went alone to the consultation with the appellate attorney. The appellate attorney asked the plaintiff to sign an agreement waiving potential malpractice claims against the appellate attorney, because the appellate attorney did not want to be responsible for the trial lawyer's mistakes. The appellate attorney did not inform the plaintiff fully about the risks or downsides of waiving future malpractice claims, nor did he advise the plaintiff of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel in connection therewith. Could the attorney be subject to discipline, based on these facts? a) Yes, because the plaintiff already had independent representation by counsel, so it was improper for the attorney to attempt to shift all potential liability onto another lawyer. b) Yes, the attorney made an agreement with an otherwise unrepresented client that prospectively limited his liability for malpractice. c) No, the plaintiff already had independent legal counsel in connection to the malpractice waiver. d)No, when a lawyer brings another attorney into the matter to assist with an appeal, the lawyers and the client must agree in writing about how they will allocate responsibility and legal fees for the representation

Yes, the attorney made an agreement with an otherwise unrepresented client that prospectively limited his liability for malpractice

Asylum Now is a nonprofit organization that advocates for refugees and immigrants from poor countries. The Board of Directors for Asylum Now wants to bring a test case in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of detaining refugees who enter the country under duress without a visa. Asylum Now has offered to pay an attorney to seek the release of a certain refugee currently in federal detention, and to use this case to challenge current federal laws and regulations that mandate such detentions. The refugee consents to the representation, as well as the payment of legal fees by Asylum Now, and agrees to have his case be the test case that might benefit others. During the representation, the attorney meets several times with the directors of Asylum Now to discuss how to frame their argument in the case in a way that would shape public policy in the right direction. Is it permissible for the attorney to undertake the representation, given this arrangement? a) Yes, the attorney may accept payment by Asylum Now and may agree to make contentions that Asylum Now wishes to have tested by the litigation. b) Yes, if the attorney agrees to prioritize the interests of Asylum Now as the payor over the personal wishes of the refugee, who is merely a representative of the larger class of victims that will benefit from the litigation. c) No, a lawyer may not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client. d) No,a lawyer may accept payment from a third party, but that party cannot ask the lawyer how the representation is progressing

Yes, the attorney may accept payment by Asylum Now and may agree to make contentions that Asylum Now wishes to have tested by the litigation.

An attorney worked as in-house counsel for Conglomerate Corporation for eight years, dealing with every aspect of management and corporate affairs, in addition to regulatory compliance. Conglomerate then hired a new CEO, who promptly fired the attorney and replaced him with another lawyer who was a nephew of the CEO. Giant Company has asked the attorney who formerly worked for Conglomerate to represent Giant in an antitrust matter against Conglomerate Corporation. The contemplated lawsuit focuses on specific incidents that took place after the attorney left Conglomerate, but the lawsuit involves sweeping charges of longstanding anti-competitive market strategy and pricing practices by Conglomerate, which would include the time when attorney worked there. Would it be improper for the attorney to represent Giant Company in this matter against Conglomerate? a) Yes, the breadth of confidential client information of Conglomerate previously accessible to the attorney during the prior representation, and the breadth of issues open in Giant Company's contemplate lawsuit, creates a substantial risk that the information would materially prejudice Conglomerate in the upcoming litigation. b) Yes, because Conglomerate fired the attorney and replaced him with the new CEO's nephew, there is a substantial risk that the attorney would have personal animosity toward Conglomerate and the CEO that would materially impair the attorney's ability to provide competent, zealous representation to Giant Company. c) No, because the factual basis for the contemplated lawsuit involves decisions that transpired after the attorney left Conglomerate, and the sweeping charges of longstanding anti-competitive practices are too general to involve specific confidential information known to the attorney from his employment there. d) No, by terminating the attorney who was in- house counsel, Conglomerate effectively waived any future conflicts of interested related to the attorney's work there, so the attorney would only need consent from Giant Company, who will certainly provide it.

Yes, the breadth of confidential client information of Conglomerate previously accessible to the attorney during the prior representation, and the breadth of issues open in Giant Company's contemplate lawsuit, creates a substantial risk that the information would materially prejudice Conglomerate in the upcoming litigation

A federal judge hired a clerk for the first two years after the clerk graduated from law school. During his second year as a clerk, he began applying for associate positions at local law firms, to secure a job that would begin immediately after his clerkship ended. A few of the firms to which he applied had pending matters before the same judge, and these were among the firms that interviewed the clerk for an associate attorney position. During the interviewing process, the clerk refrained from mentioning he knew about their pending matters on his judge's docket, though the interviewers always mentioned the fact that their firms regularly appeared before the judge in whose chambers the applicant was then clerking. Each firm that interviewed the clerk received a letter from the judge recommending the applicant to prospective legal employers. The judge did not know where the clerk applied, or which firms were interviewing the clerk; the recommendation letter was a general letter that opened with "To Whom It May Concern." Was it improper for the clerk to apply for positions at firms that have pending matters before the judge for whom she was clerking? a) Yes, interviewing with firms that have pending matters before the judge, and where this fact was the subject of a comment or discussion in the interview, constituted an ex parte contact by the judicial clerk with a party in a litigation matter. b) Yes, the fact that the judge did not have notice of where the clerk applied, or which firms were interviewing the clerk. c) No, a law clerk to a judge may negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer, even if the prospective employer is involved in a matter in which the clerk is participating personally. d) No, any lawyers working for the government may always seek private employment with any prospective employer, even if the prospective employer is involved

Yes, the fact that the judge did not have notice of where the clerk applied, or which firms were interviewing the clerk.

Mr. Burns, the chief executive officer of Conglomerate Corporation, now faces criminal charges of discussing prices with the president of a competing firm. If found guilty, both Mr. Burns and Conglomerate Corporation will be subject to civil and criminal penalties under state and federal antitrust laws. An attorney has been representing Conglomerate Corporation. She has conducted a thorough investigation of the matter, and she has personally concluded that no such pricing discussions occurred. Both Conglomerate Corporation and Mr. Burns plan to defend on that ground. Mr. Burns has asked the attorney to represent him, as well as Conglomerate Corporation, in the proceedings. The legal and factual defenses of Conglomerate Corporation and Mr. Burns seem completely consistent at the outset of the matter. Would the attorney need to obtain informed consent to a conflict of interest from both Mr. Burns and a separate corporate officer at Conglomerate Corporation before proceeding with this dual representation? a) Yes, the likelihood of conflicting positions in such matters as plea bargaining requires the attorney to obtain the informed consent of both clients before proceeding with the representation. b) Yes, because it will always be in the best interest of a corporation to blame the individual who acted in the situation, to avoid liability under a theory of respondeat superior. c) No, because their legal and factual assertions appear identical in this case, so the risk of contradiction or adverse positions in the litigation is de minimis. d)No, because no one else at Conglomerate Corporation would be able to provide effective consent to the potential conflict of interest on behalf of the organization, if the chief executive officer has required the dual representation to occur

Yes, the likelihood of conflicting positions in such matters as plea bargaining requires the attorney to obtain the informed consent of both clients before proceeding with the representation

Husband hired a certain attorney to represent him in a divorce; the husband and wife had three adult children. Husband was quite upset when he met with the attorney, because his wife had filed for divorce and he felt deeply betrayed. The couple had a prenuptial agreement that clearly delineated the division of assets in case of divorce, and child custody is not an issue as the children are in their twenties. As part of his routine consultation questions, the attorney asked if there had been any marital infidelity on the part of either the husband or wife. Husband admitted to the attorney that he once had an affair many years ago, that the wife never discovered, and that he wanted to keep secret, if possible. He then speculated that he had no idea if his wife had ever had an affair, then became very emotional as he considered the possibility. Within minutes, he had convinced himself that his wife had been having affairs with other men for years, though he never knew it, and that the three children were unlikely to be his offspring. The attorney had already looked at Husband's photograph of his children, and their resemblance to their father (Husband) was remarkable. the attorney finds repugnant the idea of subjecting the adult children to paternity tests, which would traumatize them unnecessarily, regardless of the result. The attorney also believes that accusing the wife of infidelity would be imprudent, as it will ensure that the family would discover Husband's previous affair, which otherwise might not happen. Without the accusations of infidelity, all the issues of the divorce would come under the prenuptial agreement and not be in dispute. Then the attorney insists on limiting his representation to the divorce and wants to include in the retainer agreement that there will be no accusations of infidelity or paternity testing of the children, unless the other side initiates in this regard. After Husband calms down, he agrees to the attorney's conditions of representation. Is it proper for the attorney to insist on such conditions of representation? a) Yes, because it would be fraudulent for the husband to accuse the wife of marital infidelity, of which there is no evidence, while hiding the fact that he himself had an affair. b) No, because there is always a chance that the other party in a divorce was guilty of marital infidelity, and the children should get to know with absolute certainty who is their real father. c) Yes, the terms of the representation agreement may exclude specific means that might otherwise serve used to accomplish the client's objectives, such as actions that the lawyer regards as repugnant or imprudent. d) No,because the lawyer should always defer to the client about the objectives of the representation,while the client should defer to the lawyer about the means of achieving the goals of the representation.

Yes, the terms of the representation agreement may exclude specific means that might otherwise serve used to accomplish the client's objectives, such as actions that the lawyer regards as repugnant or imprudent

An attorney represented a client who was a stockbroker in a boundary dispute with the client's neighbor. Before the conclusion of the representation, the attorney also made some personal investments using the same client's brokerage services, receiving the same terms, services, and fee waivers that other customers of the brokerage firm received. The attorney did not advise the client to seek the opinion of independent legal counsel for this transaction, and did not obtain signed, written consent from the client about the attorney's role in the transaction. The terms of the brokerage services agreement were in writing, as usual. Based on these facts, were the attorney's actions proper in this transaction? a) Yes, because the essential terms of the agreement were in writing, and it does not appear that the attorney charged the client any additional legal fees for this transaction. b) Yes, this is a standard commercial transaction between the attorney and the client for a service that the client normally would market to others. c) No, because the attorney did not advise the client in writing to seek the opinion of independent legal counsel for this transaction. d)No,the client did not provide signed,written consent regarding about the attorney's role in the transaction.

Yes, this is a standard commercial transaction between the attorney and the client for a service that the client normally would market to others

During a trial recess, the judge asked the lawyers for both parties to meet with him briefly in chambers. Once there, the judge explained that he planned to retire from the bench soon and was wondering if either of their firms were hiring litigation attorneys, as he might be interested. Could the judge be subject to discipline under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for making this inquiry? a) Yes, the judge should not have talked to the two lawyers together, because if one of them immediately offers the judge a job at his firm, the other will also feel compelled to do so, may even feel it necessary to offer a higher salary than the first. b) Yes, under the Model Rules, a lawyer shall not negotiate for employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating as a judge personally and in a substantial way. c) No, the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility do not apply to judges, because the Code of Judicial Conduct regulates judicial behavior and activities. d)No, this was merely an initial inquiry, not negotiation for employment at either of the lawyer's firms

Yes, under the Model Rules, a lawyer shall not negotiate for employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating as a judge personally and in a substantial way.

After law school, an attorney worked for the local City Attorney's office in a mid-sized municipality, working mostly on enforcement of anti-pollution and anti-littering ordinances. After five years, the attorney left the position at the municipality and went to work for the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In some cases, the EPA intervenes in litigation over pollution in which the same municipality is also a party. In that situation, may the EPA ignore the usual screening requirements that would apply to a lawyer moving to a private firm? a) Yes, when a lawyer is employed by a city and subsequently is employed by a federal agency, the latter agency does not have to screen the lawyer. b) Yes, the EPA can always assert federal preemption over a municipality if a conflict arises in litigation. c) No, because the attorney may know confidential government information that would provide an unfair advantage to the lawyers at the EPA. d) No, the rules for screening attorneys originally applied only to government lawyers, and the screening requirements are even stricter than they are for lawyers who move to private firms.

Yes, when a lawyer is employed by a city and subsequently is employed by a federal agency, the latter agency does not have to screen the lawyer

Three individuals hire an attorney to represent them as co-defendants in a tort action. At the outset, the attorney tells them that there could be a potential conflict of interest if he represents all three of them, and that they will need to sign informed consent forms, which they do. The three individuals have common goals and interests in the litigation, so they do not hesitate to sign the forms or inquire further about the implications of the potential conflicts. No further discussion occurs about the issue, and the attorney proceeds with the representation. Could the attorney end up having a duty to withdraw from representation later in the litigation, if the clients gave written consent to the shared representation at the outset? a) Yes, when undertaking representation of multiple clients in a single matter, the information must include the implications of the common representation, including potential effects on loyalty, confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege and the advantages and risks involved. b) Yes, if the liability insurers for the three co- defendants disagree on the terms of settlement and were unincluded in the original written consent. c) No, because the attorney dutifully obtained written consent from each client, as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. d No, assuming no situations arise where the lawyer obtains confidential information from one client that he could use to harm the interests of another client, and none of the clients

Yes, when undertaking representation of multiple clients in a single matter, the information must include the implications of the common representation, including potential effects on loyalty, confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege and the advantages and risks involved.

Attorney Stevenson is a partner in ABC law firm, and Lawyer Best formerly was a partner. A new client has sought to retain Attorney Stevenson to file suit on behalf of the client against Conglomerate Corporation. Before joining the ABC firm, Lawyer Best had represented Conglomerate Corporation at an earlier stage of the current dispute. Lawyer Best has now resigned from the ABC firm, disclosed no confidential information about Conglomerate Corporation relevant to the matter to other lawyers in ABC, left no files at ABC that relate to the proposed suit, and will not share in fees derived by the ABC firm from the representation of the new client. Given that Lawyer Best represented Conglomerate Corporation in the same matter, and then worked for ABC law firm in between (but has recently left the firm), is it proper for Attorney Stevenson to represent the new client in the matter against Conglomerate? a) No, because Lawyer Best worked on the same matter, so his conflict of interest applies by imputation to all the lawyers who worked with him at ABC firm. b) No, unless Conglomerate gives informed consent, in writing, to the potential conflict of interest that arose from having Lawyer Best at the firm until recently. c) Yes, the firm could have represented the new client even if Best was still working there, because his work for Conglomerate occurred while he worked at another firm, at an earlier stage in the current dispute. d)Yes,given Lawyer Best's departure and the fact that nobody else at the firm learned confidential information about Conglomerate Corporation, there is no remaining imputation of Best's conflict of interest

Yes,given Lawyer Best's departure and the fact that nobody else at the firm learned confidential information about Conglomerate Corporation, there is no remaining imputation of Best's conflict of interest