Professional Responsibility Multiple Choice

Ace your homework & exams now with Quizwiz!

An attorney had represented a client, who was a developer, for more than a year on a large complicated development project. The attorney recently became concerned about the adequacy of the disclosures that the client planned to make to regulatory agencies and to individuals who soon would be signing contracts with the client. The attorney advised the client that the attorney thought the client's disclosures might be viewed as fraudulent and asked the client to issue supplemental disclosures. The client refused, saying that it did not think its disclosures were fraudulent and that it was a business risk that the client was willing to take. After thinking about this answer, the attorney decided that because of this fundamental disagreement, the attorney did not want to continue representing the client. Accordingly, the attorney notified the client that the attorney was resigning from the representation and that the client should hire another lawyer. The attorney agreed to work with the client's new lawyer to protect the client's interests. After receiving the attorney's letter, the client called the attorney and said that the client refused to accept the attorney's resignation. The client stated that the client would be materially prejudiced if the attorney resigned because the client would have to pay to educate another lawyer on everything that had happened to date and because the attorney's departure might put the development project at risk because people would wonderwhy the attorney had left. The attorney resigned anyway. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because the resignation would have a material adverse effect on the interests of the client. (B) Yes, because the attorney did not have actual knowledge that the client was engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct. (C) No, because permission of a tribunal was not required. (D) No, because the attorney and the client had a fundamental disagreement about how much disclosure was necessary.

- Because client would not provide and there was a "fundamental disagreement," the attorney did not want to continue representing -- Rule 1.16(b)(4). - Attorney completes what is required under Rule 1.6(d). Client refused to accept resignation. - Client did not accept resignation because it would materially prejudice the client --- (b)(1). - The attorney only needs one grounds -- which he has (b)(4). If the attorney was only relying on (b)(1), there would be a problem because there was an adverse effect. But since we're relying on (b)(4), (b)(1) is irrelevant. So the correct answer is (d).

A legal services lawyer represents a client in eviction proceedings. The client needs to buy new shoes for a child to go to school. Which of the following actions is proper? (A) The lawyer buys the shoes for the child. (B) The lawyer gives the client money to buy the shoes for the child. (C) All of the above (D) None of the above

Answer: ? Clients over legal services are necessarily indignant. (3) -- Can pay for basic living expenses. There's no requirement that the gift be connected to the litigation.

In defending a major securities fund case, a law firm uses attorneys who receive an hourly salary. If the salaried attorneys are paid $100 per hour, is it ethical for the firm to bill the client $150 per hour? (A) Yes (B) No (C) It depends on whether the attorneys are employees of the firm or whether the law firm purchases their services from an outside agency.

Correct answer: (C).

An attorney lawyer is representing a client who has been charged with murder. The murder weapon, a gun, has never been found. In a conference with the attorney, the client says: "I'm worried about them finding that gun. I can't see any way out other than to get rid of it. I'm going to throw it in the swamp tonight; they'll never find it there." After the client leaves, the attorney calls the police and tells them about the client's plan. The police then follow the client and arrest the client just before the client is going to throw the gun away. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because there is no exception to the duty of confidentiality under these circumstances. (B) No, because the attorney should not have to sit silently while the client commits a future crime. (C) No, because the information was not privileged because the client was not seeking legal advice. (D) No, because disposing of a weapon could lead to death or serious bodily harm.

Correct Answer: (A)

An inventor retained an attorney to help the client file a patent. The inventor told the attorney that time was of the essence because there were competitors with similar ideas. The attorney and the inventor signed a retainer agreement that set forth the attorney's hourly rate and agreed that the attorney would bill the inventor monthly. After spending significant time researching the inventor's potential patent, the attorney concluded that the inventor had a reasonable chance of success. The attorney sent a bill to the inventor, but through no fault of the inventor's, the bills were not delivered (and were not returned to the attorney). During the six months that the attorney was not paid, the attorney did no further work on the inventor's potential patent. In month seven, the inventor called the attorney and asked if the patent had been awarded. The attorney explained that the attorney had not worked on the patent during the past six months because the inventor's bill was outstanding. The inventor hand-delivered a check that same day. Upon receiving the inventor's check, the attorney resumed work on the patent. The attorney checked and saw that no one had filed a similar or identical patent during the past six months. The attorney filed the patent application and took the necessary steps so that the inventor could issue her invention with the label "patent pending. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because the attorney did not work on the inventor's patent for six months. (B) Yes, because the attorney did not seek permission from a tribunal to withdraw from the representation. (C) No, because a client cannot compel an attorney to work without payment. (D) No, because the inventor did not sustain any harm as a result of the attorney's action.

Correct Answer: (A) Attorney cannot just say, you're not going to pay me, you're not my client. Attorney has a duty to represent still, or attorney can withdraw. (No tribunal here, so no need to get permission) BUT there is still a duty to give the client reasonable time to find new counsel. If the attorney still needs fees, then the attorney can sue the client civilly.

An attorney represented a client who was injured in a car accident while driving a car. The attorney negotiated and the client signed a settlement agreement with the client's insurance company in which the client provided a general release of all of the client's "personal injury protection" or PIP benefits. After this settlement agreement was signed, the client received an additional medical bill that the insurance company normally would have had to pay as part of the client's PIP insurance benefits. The attorney concluded that she had been negligent in drafting the settlement agreement because a competent lawyer would not have had her client the driver sign a general release of PIP benefits, but would have listed the specific medical bills (PIP benefits) covered by the release. The attorney disclosed the negligence to the driver, and said that if the driver agreed to settle this malpractice claim, the attorney would reimburse the driver for the new medical bill and for any future medical bills. The attorney reasonably believed that this proposed settlement was fair to the driver. The attorney advised the driver, in writing, to seek independent representation before entering this settlement agreement and gave the driver time to retain independent counsel. The driver did not retain independent counsel, but did sign the settlement agreement. Was the attorney's conduct proper? (A) Yes, because the attorney advised the driver in writing to seek independent representation before entering the settlement agreement and gave the driver time to retain independent counsel. (B) Yes, because the attorney initiated the settlement discussions with the driver. (C) No, because the attorney, rather than another lawyer, drafted the agreement that settled the driver's potential malpractice claim. (D) No, because the driver was not independently represented when signing the settlement agreement with the attorney.

Correct Answer: (A) Because we're in 1.8(h)(2) because this is about settling claims -- Has to advise client for outside counsel, and give reasonable time. But just has to advise. So here did nothing wrong.

An attorney is employed in the legal department of a large retail clothing company and represents that company in litigation. A group of current and former employees of the company filed a class action alleging that the company has and continues to engage in racial and gender discrimination. After discussing the lawsuit with the attorney, the board of directors of the company instructed the attorney to defend the case. Accordingly, the attorney filed (on behalf of the company) an answer in which the attorney asserted a defense to plaintiffs' claims. Although the attorney was aware that in the prior year the U.S. Supreme Court had rejected the use of that defense for all racial and gender discrimination claims, the attorney maintained in good faith that the Supreme Court's rejection of that defense should not apply to the factual circumstances of this case. The plaintiffs' lawyer moved for summary judgment and for sanctions against the attorney for asserting a frivolous defense. Four weeks later, the court granted plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, rejecting the attorney's defense based on the Supreme Court precedent. The court has not yet ruled on the motion for sanctions. Is the attorney subject to litigation sanction and discipline? (A) No, because in asserting the company's defense, the attorney had a good faith argument for a modification or reversal of existing law. (B) No, because the attorney was following the instructions of the board, which is authorized to direct the attorney in legal matters. (C) Yes, because the attorney should have withdrawn the defense within the time limits prescribed by Rule 11, which is 21 days after service of a motion for sanctions. (D) Yes, because the attorney never should have asserted the defense in light of the Supreme Court's recent rejection of that defense.

Correct Answer: (A) Under existing SCOTUS precedent, the defense's argument is foreclosed. The Attorney argues in good faith it should not apply in this case. The answer will be no, because the attorney is making an argument in good faith. The court might disagree, and that's fine. That doesn't mean the attorney engaged in misconduct.

An attorney is a certified specialist in family law and a partner in a law firm that practices family law exclusively. The attorney was working very late one night when she received a telephone call from one of her clients who had been arrested and was currently in jail. The client told the attorney that he was claustrophobic and begged the attorney to try to get him released on bail. The attorney advised the client that the attorney did not have any criminal law expertise and did not handle criminal cases. The client said that he had now used his one free phone call and pleaded with the attorney to come to the police station and see what the attorney could do to get him out on bail. Because the attorney lived relatively close to the police station and the client was distraught, the attorney went to the police station to try to secure the client's release. As a result of the attorney's lack of experience, the attorney was unable to secure the client's release. The next morning, the attorney found an experienced criminal lawyer who obtained the client's release within one hour. Was the attorney's conduct proper? (A) Yes, because neither referral to another lawyer nor consultation with another lawyer was practical under the circumstances. (B) Yes, because the attorney did not charge the client for his services. (C) No, because the attorney did not have the legal knowledge and skill necessary to handle this criminal case. (D) No, because the attorney was not able to secure the client's release on bail.

Correct Answer: (A) Under normal circumstances, the attorney with no experience should not do this. However, there were no other options and there were difficult circumstances to deal with.

An attorney spent nearly a decade working in house for a large amusement park company as employment counsel. The attorney did all of the human resources legal work for the company, with the assistance of a several paralegals. This included oversight and review of all hiring policies, including references and background checks, employment contracts, and benefits policies. Last year, the attorney left the amusement park company and joined a multi-national law firm as a senior associate in the employment law team. Recently, a recession has decreased the amount of employment work at the firm, so the attorney is working in other practice groups as work arises. For the last month, the attorney has been working with the litigation team in various capacities. A recent case involves a property owner adjacent to the amusement park who is suing for nuisance based on the noise and lights from the park. The law firm has been hired to represent the adjacent property owner in its action against the amusement park company. Taking care not to use or reveal any confidential client information of the amusement park, the attorney assists the law firm with the representation of the adjacent proper owner. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the attorney's previous work for the park is not substantially related to the nuisance cause of action. (B) No, because it has been a year since the attorney did any work for the former employer. (C) Yes, because the attorney would be breaching the attorney's employment contract with the former employer. (D) Yes, because the attorney would be breaching the attorney's duty of loyalty to the former employer.

Correct Answer: (A) Wouldn't need to check 1.7(a)(1) because this is a former client. 1.7(a)(2) may be involved -- May be materially limited to the attorney's responsibilities to the amusement park. But for the sake of argument, let's say this is not materially limited. So we go to 1.9. Here these matters are not the same or substantially related -- One is an employee benefit situation and the other is nuisance law. -- So, no duty under 1.9(a) to get informed consent. 1.9(b) would not apply. 1.9(c): Since attorney said he is not going to use any of the confidential info to the disadvantage of the amusement park companies, (c) would also not be implicated. Since 1.7 and 1.9 are not implicated, the attorney would not be subject to discipline.

An attorney entered into a written retainer agreement with a client in a divorce proceeding. The client agreed in writing to provide the attorney 10% of the final settlement if the divorce was finalized within three months. The attorney secured a one million dollar settlement two weeks prior to the deadline, and sent the client a bill for $100,000. The client happily paid the bill, thanking the attorney for handling the matter efficiently. Is the attorney subject to discipline for entering into this agreement? (A) Yes, because the attorney agreed to a fee contingent on the securing of a divorce. (B) Yes, because $100.000 is not a reasonable fee for the services rendered. (C) No, because the client was happy with the attorney's services. (D) No, because the agreement was in writing.

Correct Answer: (A) Bells should be ringing because "divorce" Contingency fee in a domestic relations matter.

Suppose that—as in Question 58 above—Suppose that the same facts as in Question 57 above, -- Suppose that Adam—an attorney with a long period of service as an employee of the SEC—recently entered private practice. Although he was still with the SEC during its recent investigation of Dallergen, he had no involvement in that investigation. Nor in any other matter involving Dallergen during his entire SEC tenure. Dallergen approached Adam about the prospect of representing it in connection with the investigation being conducted by the SEC. Adam was satisfied that there was no significant risk that his representation of Dallergen would be materially limited by his responsibilities to the SEC (or anyone else). Moreover, he reasonably believed that he would be able to provide competent and diligent representation to Dallergen. He thus agreed to represent Dallergen upon receiving its informed consent (confirmed in writing). However, he did not receive such consent from the SEC.--except that Adam had significant involvement in the SEC's investigation of Dallergen. Is Adam subject to discipline for his representation of Dallergen in connection with the SEC investigation? Adam played a significant role in the SEC's investigation of Dallergen during his tenure at the SEC. After Adam left the SEC to enter private practice, he became a partner in a law firm in which Abigail is also a partner. Dallergen approached Abigail about the prospect of representing it in connection with the investigation being conducted by the SEC. Abigail was satisfied that there was no significant risk that her representation of Dallergen would be materially limited by any responsibilities to the SEC (or anyone else). Moreover, she reasonably believed that she would be able to provide competent and diligent representation to Dallergen. She thus agreed to represent Dallergen upon receiving its informed consent (confirmed in writing). However, she did not receive such consent from the SEC. Is Abigail subject to discipline for her representation of Dallergen in connection with the SEC investigation? a) No, provided that: (1) Adam is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and (2) written notice is promptly given to the SEC to enable it to ascertain compliance with this requirement. b) Yes, because an attorney is prohibited from representing a client in a matter when an attorney associated with the same firm participated personally and substantially in that matter while a government employee. c) No, because Abigail reasonably believed that she would be able to provide competent and diligent representation to Dallergen. d) Yes, because the SEC did not give Abigail its informed consent (confirmed in writing).

Correct Answer: (A) She could do it if Adam was properly screened. But here, she was not screened. 1.11.

An attorney is a specialist in the field of e-discovery. The plaintiff in a complex lawsuit retained the attorney to work with the plaintiff's trial counsel to frame e-discovery requests and responses. After being fully advised, the client signed the attorney's retainer agreement which specified that the attorney's representation would be limited to advice about -discovery matters. Is it the attorney's conduct proper? (A) Yes, because the client initiated the request for limited representation. (B) Yes, because a lawyer may limit the scope of the representation as long as the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent. (C) No, because the plaintiff was not independently represented in making the agreement. (D) No, because the attorney was required to work directly with the plaintiff rather than working with the plaintiff's trial counsel.

Correct Answer: (B)

An attorney represents a client in a personal injury lawsuit against the driver of a truck that collided with the client's car. In preparation for a deposition, the attorney interviewed the client, who claimed to be in perfect health before the accident. However, as the interview progressed, the attorney noticed a number of inconsistencies in the client's story. The attorney now reasonably believes, but is uncertain, that the client is lying about her health prior to the accident. The deposition is scheduled for tomorrow, and the client intends to testify about the previous "perfect health." May the attorney allow the client to testify about her health at the deposition? (A) Yes, because the duty not to offer false evidence does not apply to depositions. (B) Yes, because the attorney is not certain that the client intends to provide false testimony. (C) No, because the attorney is an officer of the court and has the obligalion to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence. (D) No, because the attorney is prohibited from offering false evidence in a proceeding.

Correct Answer: (B)

For the three months, an attorney has represented a local manufacturing company in a contracts dispute with the company's landlord. Last week, an employee of the manufacturing company asked the attorney to represent he employee in an action against the manufacturing company for falling to comply with wage and hour laws. The contract dispute and the wage and hour matter have no common issues of law or fact, and the attorney reasonably believes that he can competently represent the clients in the respective matters. The attorney accepts and begins representation of the employee in the wage and hour matter after both the employee and the manufacturing company provided informed consent in writing. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the attorney is confident that the lease negotiations and the wage and hour matter have no common issues. (B) No, because both the employee and the manufacturing company gave informed consent to the representation. (C) Yes, because the employee and the manufacturing company are directly adverse. (D) Yes, because the new client is an employee of the manufacturing company.

Correct Answer: (B)

A homeowner wanted to buy a piece of property adjacent to the home to avoid development. The homeowner wanted to use a home equity line of credit for the financing, but there was not enough equity. The seller offered to loan the homeowner the money if the homeowner could get a surety, or cosigner. The homeowner's grandmother agreed to serve as surety, and the seller agreed to the loan with the grandmother as the surety. The grandmother wanted her attorney, who has worked for the family for many years, to serve as her counsel and homeowner's counsel in the transaction. The seller uses the same attorney for real estate work, and wanted the attorney to also serve as counsel to seller. This type of representation is permitted in the jurisdiction. Given the circumstances and the familiarily among the parties, the attorney reasonably believed he could adequately represent the interests of each of the three parties. All three parties gave informed consent, in writing, and the attorney began the representation. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No. because the attorney is familiar with and has worked previously with each of the parties. (B) No, because this is a consentable conflict of interest, and the parties properly consented. (C) Yes, because the attorney, having done real estate work for the seller before, will inherently favor the seller's interest. (D) Yes, because an attorney is prohibited from representing three parties with differing interests.

Correct Answer: (B) - So you have the same attorney representing all 3 of these people who have conflicting interests. Nonetheless, this is allowed in this jurisdiction, and the attorney reasonably believes he could adequately represent and he gets informed consent in writing from all 3. - So we have a concurrent conflict of interest -- They are all adverse. So we have to go to (b). - There is no claim involved, so dont have to worry about (3). Then the facts tell us we're good with (1) and (2). So we really only have to deal with (4): Informed consent. Remember, with informed consent, you need 2 things: Discussions of risks and alternatives. However, also remember, that if things become hostile, the Attorney will have to withdraw. Equal duty to all 3 -- so if something happens to compromise this arrangement,

A corporation sued the client, another corporation, for fraud after a deal went sour. Each sought discovery of thousands of emails that were relevant to the case. At the client's request, and over the corporation's objection, the court entered an order providing that any disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege during discovery would not constitute a waiver of the privilege. After the order was entered, the client produced 650,000 emails; 1000 emails involved confidential attorney-client communications. Subsequently the client was sued for fraud by a third party, another corporation, which was involved in the deal that went bad. The third party, the plaintiff in this second case, sought to use as evidence the 1000 privileged emails that the client produced in the previous litigation--arguing that the client waived the privilege by producing them in that litigation. Are the client's emails privileged in the second case? (A) Yes, because there has been no showing that any waiver was intentional. (B) Yes, because the court order protects against a waiver in any subsequent litigation. (C) No, because the order in the previous case cannot bind a person who was not a party in that case. (D) No, because the order was entered in the absence of agreement between the parties in the case.

Correct Answer: (B) Key here is that the court enters the order*** Remember, it doesn't have to be intentional. Court can enter the order even when the agreement is not yet finalized between the parties, and it takes effect.

An associate at a large law firm is working on a deal for corporation. The associate works regularly with an assistant general counsel at the corpora ton who is supervising the deal. Their close working relationship becomes a close personal relationship, and they begin to date. They are considering a sexual relationship and thinking about moving in together, so the associate stops working on the case and instead transfers the case to a colleague. Is the associate subject to discipline? (A) No, because the assistant general counsel is also a lawyer. (B) No, because the associate stopped representing the corporation before beginning a sexual relationship. (C) Yes, because if the associate is prohibited from working on the matter, so are the other lawyers in the law firm. (D) Yes, because the associate dated the assistant general counsel while representing the corporation.

Correct Answer: (B) What if lawyer and client have sexual relationship before? They are probably okay under 1.8(j). HOWEVER, you would have to still implicitly consider 1.7 -- Personal interest. *** Remember 1.7 is relevant in these analyses. -- Then would have to work through (b)(1-4).

A law firm specializes in products liability litigation. Eight years ago, an attorney in the firm defended a motorcycle manufacturer that was sued by a purchaser who alleged that he was seriously injured because of a defective design of the motorcycle. The case was settled twelve months later after extensive discovery. Recently, a plaintiff who was injured while riding the same model of motorcycle retained one of the attorney's law firm partners, who was not involved in the action eight years ago, to bring a products liability lawsuit against the same manufacturer. The partner had not participated in the earlier matter. Although the attorney did not participate in representing the plaintiff against the manufacturer, the attorney was not formally screened from the matter. Is it proper for the partner to represent the plaintiff without consent? (A) No, because the partner was not formally screened from the new matter. (B) No, because the attorney's conflict of interest is imputed to the partner. (C) Yes, because the plaintiff's current lawsuit against the manufacturer is not the same as, or substantially related to, the litigation in which the attorney defended the manufacturer eight years ago. (D) Yes, because the partner had not participated in the earlier representation of the manufacturer.

Correct Answer: (B) First Action: P1 vs MK. MK is represented by MR. MR is at Pucillo firm. Second Action: P2 vs MK. This time, BL represents P2. BL is at Pucillo firm. Here, not bringing conflict to the firm, he is still with his current firm. So MR cannot be screened out and the conflict is imputed to everyone at the firm, including BL. Providing there's no informed consent confirmed in writing, this is not going to work. Answers: (A): Screening would do nothing because this only applies when the attorney brings the conflict from former firm. (B): Correct answer. (C): Maybe some argument here, but this looks like substantially the same matter. (D): Doesn't matter. BL is presumptively disqualifies because of MR's prior representation.

An attorney spent more than a year negotiating the sale of a subsidiary of one of the attorney's largest clients. The attorney, along with the client's accountant, reviewed and analyzed the seller's financial statements as part of the due diligence. The deal closes after extensive negotiations and redrafting of certain provisions of the sale. Several months after the closing, the buyer brought an action against the seller for fraud based on a failure to disclose certain debts before the closing. The seller wants the attorney to defend it in the action at trial. While the attorney believes the attorney may be called as a witness in the action, he accepts and begins the representation. Was the attorney's conduct proper? (A) No, because the attorney violated duties owed to the seller in closing on a possibly fraudulent deal. (B) No, because the attorney likely will be called as a necessary witness in the action. (C) Yes, because there will be no contested issue on the content of the financials. (D) Yes, because the accountant is available to testify if the buyer calls a witness.

Correct Answer: (B) (Imagine that fact pattern said he believes it is likely he will be called as a witness instead of "may.") So, what had been a transaction without controversy becomes a controversy because fraud.

A client provides an attorney a $10,000 retainer to defend the client in a property dispute with a neighbor. The attorney charges $100/hour. The day after receiving the retainer, the attorney spends 10 hours on the matter, primarily conducting research. The client sends the attorney an email late that evening: Please don't begin working on my property dispute matter. My neighbor has agreed to settle. The attorney sends the client a bill for $1,000 for 10 hours of time spent on the matter. The client, frustrated, demands immediate return of the full $10,000, because the attorney's research or other work was not needed. What should the attorney do with the $10,000? (A) Transfer the $1,000 to the attorney's fee account and return $9,000 to the client. (B) Leave $1,000 in the client's trust account until the disagreement over the fees is resolved and return $9,000 to the client. (C) Keep the full $10.000 in the client's trust account until the disagreement over the fees is resolved. (D) Estimate the number of hours that will be involved in resolving the fee disagreement, and transfer that amount along with the $1,000 to the attorney's fee account, with the remaining amount returned to the client.

Correct Answer: (B). $9,000 goes back to the client immediately. But with the $1,000 is in dispute -- 1.15(e). Lawyer is saying the $1k is mine while client is saying it is mine.

Three defendants are charged with the murder of a local woman. An attorney represents all three defendants, each of whom agrees to the use of the same attorney. The three defendants are tried separately. The first defendant is convicted; defendants two and three are acquitted. The first defendant claims his attorney had a conflict of interest because the attorney did not call the second and third defendants to the stand in the first defendant's trial. The attorney said the reason for not calling these defendants was because the attorney represented all three of them. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the first defendant consented to the representation. (B) No, because the first defendant did not object to the conflict at trial. (C) Yes, because the attorney breached the duty of loyalty to first defendant. (D) Yes, because the first defendant was convicted of the murder.

Correct Answer: (C) Any time you see one attorney representing more than one defendant in a criminal action, you should think there may be 1.7(a)(2) analysis. **** So the first Defendant thought he could pass some or all culpability onto the second and third defendants. But since the attorney represents D2 and D3, and has a duty of loyalty to them in addition to D1. So she wither helps D2 and D3, or she helps D1. This is obviously an issue -- Significant risk of material limitation. So would have to go to (b) and work through the 4 factors. (1) would be an issue. Attorney would have to remove herself from all 3 clients.

Three defendants have been indicted for the armed robbery of a cashier at a grocery store. Together, two of the defendants met with an attorney and asked the attorney to represent them. Before agreeing to the representation, the attorney first required that the two defendants allow the attorney to interview them separately. Each told the attorney that the robbery had been committed by the third defendant while the attorney's clients each sat in third defendant's car outside the store. They each stated separately that the third defendant said he needed some cigarettes and that they knew nothing of his plan to rob the cashier. The attorney agreed to represent both defendants. One week before the trial, one of the two defendants told the attorney that he wanted to plea-bargain and that he was prepared to testify that his co-defendant had loaned the third defendant the gun used in the robbery. This same defendant also said that he and his co-defendant had shared in the proceeds of the robbery. The attorney recognizes that a conflict has arisen, but gets informed consent in writing from each of the two co-defendants. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the attorney will have complied with the requirements for consent. (B) No, because the defendants were interviewed separately prior to the commencement of the representation. (C) Yes, because defendant's desire to plea bargain makes this is a non-consentable conflict of interest. (D) Yes, because there is a per-se prohibition on co-representation of defendants.

Correct Answer: (C) Before it gets to the 1 week before trial mark, this is fine representation (Both D1 and D2). So you would have to explain that you have an equal duty of loyalty. If it turns out, your interests become antagonistic, I'm out. (Comment 18). But once it gets to the week before trial, now the clients have conflicting interests. So not you have a significant risk that the representation of one would materially limit the other. Then, you would have to go to (b)(1) -- And attorney cannot overcome this. Even if we don't have (a)(2), it's good practice for the attorney to have the conversation about potential future conflicts.

Correct Answer: (C) First Action: P1 vs MK. MK is represented by MR. Second Action: P2 vs MK. This time, MR represents P2. Here, the problem is that the matters are substantially related, and the interests of P2 are materially adverse to the former client, MK. So we have a 1.9(a) conflict. MR could ask MK for informed consent, but this is unlikely because MR had access to a lot of confidential information. Here, this would be a violation and the attorney did not even seek informed consent. So he is subject to discipline.

A law firm specializes in products liability litigation. Eight years ago, a partner and an associate in the firm defended a motorcycle manufacturer that was sued by a rider who alleged that he was seriously injured because of a defective design of the motorcycle. The case was settled twelve months later after extensive discovery by both the partner and the associate. Shortly thereafter, the partner left the firm. Last week, another victim hired an attorney at the partner's firm to represent him in an action against the motorcycle manufacturer. ls the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No. because a significant period of years has passed since the partner represented the manufacturer. (B) No, because a significant period of years has passed since the partner left the firm. (C) Yes, because the associate remaining at the firm has confidential information material to victim's action against the manufacturer. (D) Yes, because the partner who left is not available to assist with questions about the previous representation.

Correct Answer: (C) First Action: P1 vs MK. MK is represented by MR/BL. Both at Pucillo firm. MR leaves the Pucillo firm. Second Action: P2 vs MK. This time, CD represents P2. CD is a new attorney at the Pucillo firm. The problem here is that BL is still at the Pucillo firm. Additionally, BL cannot be screened because her conflict occurred at the Pucillo firm, and 1.10(a)(2) allows screens only when the conflict occurred at a prior firm.

Several years ago, while working at the state EPA, an attorney worked on a suit against hog farmers for contaminating groundwater through the use of lagoons for capturing waste. The lawsuit resulted in a permanent injunction on the use of these lagoons. Now, the attorney is in private practice in a rural area of the same state. A multi-national agricultural company hires the attorney to seek an exception from the injunction based on a variation in its lagoon system. The attorney is certain the attorney can keep secret all information learned during the attorney's work at the EPA, and begins representing the agricultural company in this matter. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No. because the attorney is certain the attorney can keep confidential government information secret. (B) No, because the Rules attempt to encourage private lawyers to enter public practice. (C) Yes, because these two actions involve the same matter. (D) Yes, because the representation would be adverse to the attorneys former employer.

Correct Answer: (C) Preliminary questions to ask: (1): Do we have a conflict that 1.11 would be concerned about?: Yes, he worked personally and substantially for the EPA previously on this same matter, and now he is working for a different client against EPA. So, could go to EPA and get informed consent, and that would solve the issue. However, 1.7 might come into play here -- (a)(2) "Materially limited" -- For example, let's say the attorney was still very close with the people at the EPA, and he is torn. Or, alternatively, we could go to 1.11(b): Could impose a timely screen, and give notice.

An attorney in a small law firm represents a pro-gun rights organization seeking to overturn a statute that imposes restrictions on gun ownership. One of the attorney's partners is a strong advocate for gun owners' rights. The attorney knows that if the partner were to participate in the representation, the partner could not provide competent representation because of the partner's strongly held beliefs. Therefore, the attorney screened the partner from participating in the matter. The attorney supports restrictions on gun ownership and reasonably believes that the attorney will not be influenced by the partner's views. The attorney did not advise the organization of the partner's views nor obtain the organization's informed consent, confirmed in writing. Is the attorney's conduct proper? (A) No, because the partner's conflict is automatically imputed to all the lawyers in the firm, including the attorney. (B) No, because the attorney did not advise the organization of the partner's views and obtain the organization's informed consent, confirmed in writing. (C) Yes, because the partner's views will not influence the attorney. (D) Yes, because the attorney was screened from participating in the matter.

Correct Answer: (C) So this problem is getting at 1.7(a)(2) conflicts -- materially limited by the lawyer's personal interests. So the partner would have a 1.7(a)(2) personal conflict. So the partner can't represent the gun rights group. Then, we have to look at 1.10(a)(1) -- So imputation does not occur if the conflict is based on personal issue and there would be no material limitation. The fact that the attorney screened the partner is irrelevant -- its not needed because there is no imputation under 1.10(a)(1). So it doesn't matter that no informed consent was obtained. Option (d) is not correct because the partner did not need to be screened.

An attorney has been asked to represent an inventor who wants to bring a multimillion dollar lawsuit for patent infringement. Although the attorney reasonably believes that he is capable of conducting the lawsuit competently, he does not have sufficient insurance coverage in the event of malpractice. The attorney asks the client to agree to an upper limit of $20 million on the attorney's potential malpractice liability. The attorney shows the client the proposed agreement and fully discusses the consequences of including such a provision in the retainer agreement. The attorney also recommends that the client consult independent counsel before signing the retainer agreement, but the client decides to sign the agreement without doing so, explaining that he did not want to pay the legal fees to have another lawyer review this agreement. The limitation of liability agreement is not prohibited by law in the client's jurisdiction. Is the attorney's conduct proper? (A) Yes, because the agreement is not prohibited by law in the client's jurisdiction. (B) Yes, because the client gave informed consent, the agreement was in writing, and the client was told of the advisability of consulting independent counsel. (C) No, because the client did not consult independent counsel before signing the agreement. (D) No, because a lawyer may not make an agreement limiting malpractice liability to a client.

Correct Answer: (C) Here, the problem is that he recommends the client to have another attorney involved, but HE NEEDS to have another attorney. So it was misconduct to even put this in the agreement.

An attorney represents a client who suffered injuries when the client was run down by a car in a crosswalk. The attorney investigates the matter and comes upon a surveillance tape indicating that the client, one minute before the accident, had exited from an XXX rated adult theater with a person who was not the client's spouse. Before trial, the attorney receives a discovery request from defense counsel, demanding production of any surveillance tapes that are or may be relevant to the action. The attorney refuses to produce the surveillance tape. Is the attorney's conduct proper? (A) Yes, because the surveillance tape is privileged. (B) Yes, because producing the surveillance tape would violate the duty of confidentiality. (C) No, because the information on the surveillance tape is not privileged, and the attorney *must* turn over non-privileged information if a lawful demand is made. (D) No, because even though the information on the surveillance tape is privileged, the attorney must comply with the discovery request.

Correct Answer: (C) So, here, because there is no communication, this is not attorney client privilege. This is just duty of confidentiality. And here, the attorney would have to turn over the tape. However, even if he refuses to turn it over, (b)(6) is still just a "may," so the attorney would not be required and subject to a violation of the rules of conduct. But, he does have a legal duty and could be subject to sanctions.

An attorney represents a client who suffered injuries when the client was run down by a car in a crosswalk. The attorney investigates the matter and comes upon a surveillance tape indicating that the client, one minute before the accident, had exited from an XXX-rated adult theater with someone who was not the client's spouse. At a dinner party, the attorney tells everyone the "ironic" story of the client, who got run down after being so "naughty." Was the attorney's conduct proper? (A) Yes, because the information about the client's whereabouts was not protected by the attorney-client privilege. (B) Yes, because the attorney did not violate any duties to the client because the information was not secret--it was known by the person who was with the client at the time. (C) No, because the attorney violated the duty of confidentiality by disclosing information protected by attorney-client privilege. (D) No, because the attorney violated the duty of confidentiality by disclosing information related to the representation that was not covered by any of the exceptions.

Correct Answer: (D)

A local woman is accused of the gruesome killing of her spouse. The court appointed a public defender to represent the accused, but her family wanted a lawyer in private practice. The family found a local attorney willing to take the case. One of the primary reasons the attorney took the case was to increase visibility for the attorney's law firm through trial publicity. Even though the alleged murder took place in rural area of the country, the horrific details of the murder have made national headlines. The family of the accused did not have the resources to pay for counsel. With consent of the accused, they offered to give the attorney one million dollars from the proceeds of any network movie made about the murder. The attorney's legal assistant drafts an engagement letter, detailing the arrangement, including how any expenses will be paid. The assistant sends it to the accused, advising her to seek independent legal advice before signing. The accused signs the agreement, after consulting with another lawyer, and the attorney proceeds with the representation. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the attorney suggested, and the accused received, advice from another lawyer before signing the agreement. (B) No, because the attorney is permitted to enter a business transaction with a client. (C) Yes, because one million dollars is an unreasonable fee in this case. (D) Yes, because this fee agreement is not permitted during representation.

Correct Answer: (D) As soon as the client and the attorney make the deal to give the attorney $1 million, then we need to check 1.8(a). We're looking good here. Because the client worked with outside client on the deal, the attorney is relieved of the need to advise to get outside counsel. However, we still have 1.8(d). Remember, the attorney only gets the one million dollars If the movie sells and does well.

Client was an experienced oil and gas developer. Client asked Attorney for representation in a suit to establish Client's ownership of certain oil and gas royalties. Client did not have available the necessary funds to pay Attorneys reasonable hourly rate for undertaking the case. Client proposed instead to pay Attorney an amount in cash equal to 20% of the value of the proceeds received from the first year royalties Client might recover as a result of the suit. Attorney accepted the proposal and put these terms into the written fee agreement. Is Attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because the agreement gave Attorney a proprietary interest in Client's cause of action. (B) Yes, unless the fee Attorney receives does not exceed that which Attorney would have received by charging a reasonable hourly rate. (C) No, because Client, rather than Attorney, proposed the fee arrangement. (D) No, because Attorney may contract with Client for a reasonable contingent tee.

Correct Answer: (D) Client is not suing for cash -- Wants the royalties/rights. "Might" -- This is a contingency fee **** In writing, which it must do because it is a contingency fee. There is nothing wrong with this Under 1.8(i) -- This is okay because can reasonably contract in CIVIL action if CONTINGENCY FEE (as long as it is reasonable). Contingency fee can vastly exceed what it would receive hourly, and it would still be reasonable. There is a big risk, but also a potential big reward.

Software Start-up, Inc. seeks legal representation with regard to its initial public offering. Software wants to hire High Tech Law, but believes it cannot afford High Tech's hourly billing rate. Software also believes that payment of an equity interest will best ensure High Tech's devotion to the matter. Software offers High Tech an equity interest in exchange for representation. High Tech agrees to represent Software in exchange for a 2% equity interest. High Tech provides Software with a written fee agreement explaining that High Tech will take a 2% equity interest in Software and advising Software to consult outside counsel on the propriety of the fee agreement. High Tech explains verbally, but not in the written agreement, that potential conflicts might arise as a result of High Tech obtaining an equity interest but that no significant risk of a conflict exists under the circumstances. Software decides not to consult outside counsel and signs the agreement. The initial public offering is far more successful than expected and raises the total equity value of Software to $500 million. Software decides that the $10 million in stock that High Tech gains as a result of the initial public offering is an excessive fee and files a disciplinary complaint against High Tech. What result? (A) Discipline, because lawyers cannot take a proprietary interest in their client. (B) Discipline, because the fee was much higher than if High Tech had charged Software an hourly fee. (C) Discipline, because High Tech failed to ensure that Software consulted an outside counsel before signing the fee agreement. (D) No discipline, because High Tech complied with the ethics rules.

Correct Answer: (D) Here however, we're dealing with a situation where the attorney's payment will be an equity interest in the client itself. That's fine, as long as it is reasonable. -- This covers the 1.5 analysis ... BUT, we also have to look at 1.8(a) because this would be a business transaction. Here, the attorney is exchanging his services for an interest in the client Here, high tech has the risk that they will come out with nothing. This is not a contingent fee -- High tech gets the 2% equity interest regardless of what happens. Opposed to getting a % fee of the IPO's yields. What are the issues here: (1): Reasonableness or lack thereof of the fee. 2% interest is overall reasonable. (2): 1.8(a): So, preemptively, this arrangement is invalid -- Only if the lawyer complies with all the conditions. (3): Outside counsel: This is like advising client similar to limiting malpractice What about advising about the potential conflicts?: 1.7(a)(2): Significant risk ... materially limited ... by software's ... personal interest. So would still have to satisfy 1.7.

A mother and her daughter are partners in a business venture to develop a software program. Their business is not incorporated, but is a general partnership, with a partnership agreement. The daughter is the primary creative contributor and the mother is the primary business contributor. The mother wants to retire, but their partnership agreement is unclear about certain issues related to the financial settlement upon dissolution of the partnership. State law is also ambiguous on these issues. The mother and her daughter both agree that they only want a fair split of the partnerships assets, but they need help determining what is fair. A good friend has been the attorney for the partnership since its inception. The attorney also has represented the mother in her estate planning and the daughter in the purchase of her first home and in a personal injury suit. The mother and her daughter visit the attorney together and ask whether the attorney can assist with a determination of what is fair. The attorney, reasonably believing he can provided competent and diligent representation, agrees, without discussing the risks of joint representation and the alternative of obtaining separate representation. The attorney provides an engagement letter detailing the scope and cost of the representation, and confirming that the parties "agree to this joint representation" Both the mother and her daughter sign the agreement, and the attorney proceeds with the representation. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the attorney has represented the partnership since its inception. (B) No, because both the mother and the daughter agree that they want a fair distribution, and the attorney reasonably believes he can provide competent and diligent representation. (C) Yes, because the attorney previously represented the parties individually as well as the partnership. (D) Yes, because the mother and daughter did not provide informed consent to the joint representation.

Correct Answer: (D) However, does not discuss the risks of joint representation and the alternative of obtaining separate representation. 1.7(b)(4) requires informed consent -- He did not discuss the risks or alternatives. There has to be real discussion. It does not matter that the clients signed the waiver -- Still need informed consent.

A lawyer contacted by telephone a nationally-recognized malpractice defense attorney after being sued by a client for negligently handling a case. The defense attorney, who had never worked for the lawyer before, immediately began handling the matter. The two met in person the next week to discuss details about the representation. During the conversation, the defense attorney stated the customary hourly fee and expense reimbursement policy. The lawyer felt the fee was high, but agreed to pay it. The defense attorney intended to follow up with a letter to document the conversation, but forgot to do so. The defense attorney continued to work on the matter for several months, and after it was successfully resolved, submitted a bill to the lawyer. The bill accurately reflected the hourly fees and expenses, which were reasonable. Did the defense attorney violate Rule 1.5? (A) Yes, because the hourly rate was not disclosed prior to commencement of the representation. (B) Yes, because the defense attorney did not document the conversation about fees and expenses in writing. (C) No, because the defense attorney successfully handled the representation. (D) No, because the defense disclosed the basis of her fee within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.

Correct Answer: (D) The lawyer can start working on stuff prior to agreeing. Communicate fees within a reasonable time of after commencing representing. No problem with the fact that it is not in writing -- This is not a contingency fee, so there is no requirement to put it in writing.

A client corporation is being investigated by the Environmental Division of the DOJ on suspicion that it had illegally dumped toxic chemicals for a number of years. Before the DOJ investigation began, the client had hired an attorney with an outside law firm to investigate how the client was disposing of the chemicals. The attorney interviewed corporate agents of the client and filed a report with the client. The DOJ requests this report from the client. The client agrees to turn over the report "in the spirit of cooperation" but only if the DOJ signs a confidentiality agreement under which the DOJ will not turn over the report to any private parties. After receiving the report, the DOJ concludes its investigation of the client. But private parties allegedly injured by the client's activities bring a lawsuit against the client. They serve a discovery demand for the report. The client refuses to turn over the report, citing the attorney-client privilege. Is the report privileged? (A) Yes, because the client was forced to turn over the report to the DOJ in order to avoid a criminal prosecution. (B) Yes, because the disclosure of the report was not a general waiver and the private parties cannot take advantage of the selective waiver, and the DOJ agreed to keep the disclosure confidential. (C) No, because the attorney was acting as a factual investigator, and the "legal advice" requirement of the privilege is not met. (D) No, because the client waived any privilege by disclosing the report to the DOJ.

Correct Answer: (D) When attorney delivers the report to the client, that is covered by attorney client privilege. But then the client sends that to the DOJ. Client and DOJ have a signed confidentiality agreement (but this applies to DOJ only). But, the moment the client disclosed to the DOJ, they waived confidentiality as to all third parties, including private parties who may have been injured. No courts really recognize selective waiver.

Two defendants, a brother and a sister, were indicted in connection with the robbery and fatal shooting of a store owner. There were no eyewitnesses to the robbery, but the defendants were seen leaving the store shortly after the store owner was shot, and merchandise from the store was found in their possession. The defendants agreed to be represented jointly by an attorney. The attorney did not secure their informed consent, confirmed in writing to the joint representation. The defendants told the attorney truthfully that the brother committed the robbery and shooting without the sister's advanced knowledge or participation. But the brother was unwilling to plead guilty, because he believed the prosecution's case was weak. The attorney knew that it was in the sister's best interest to present her version of the events to the prosecutor and to offer to testify against her brother in exchange for dismissal of the charges against her, or for her to testify in her own defense. But the attorney did not advise her of these options, because he did not want to prejudice the brother. Even if the attorney had given this advice, it is uncertain whether the sister would have followed it and testified against her brother. Both defendants were convicted following a trial at which neither testified. Afterward, the sister retained a new lawyer who argued on her behalf that her conviction should be overturned because her trial attorney had a conflict of interest. Is the court likely to set aside the sister's conviction? (A) No, because the defendants' interests were aligned, since neither wanted to be convicted. (B) No, because it is uncertain whether the sister would have taken advice the attorney's advice to testify against her brother. (C) Yes, because the attorney's conflict of interest adversely affected the representation. (D) Yes, because the defendants did not give informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Correct Answer: (Didn't write it down -- figure it out lol). Only when there is a concurrent conflict of interest in this situation within the meaning of (a)(1) and (2) is when we have to worry about informed consent. Non constable because no way attorney passes (b)(1). This is a nonconsentable conflict. So they technically are directly adverse to one another, but the comment says that this is a (b)(2) analysis.

An attorney spent nearly a decade working in house for a large amusement park company as employment counsel. The attorney did all of the human resources legal work for the company, with the assistance of a several paralegals. This included oversight and review of all hiring policies, including references and background checks, employment contracts, and benefits policies. Last year, the attorney left the amusement park company and joined a multi-national law firm as a senior associate in the employment law team. Recently, a recession has decreased the amount of employment work at the firm, so the attorney is working in other practice groups as work arises. For the last month, the attorney has been working with the litigation team in various capacities. A recent case involves a young child injured horrifically on a water slide at an amusement park owned by the company where attorney used to work as in-house counsel. The law firm has been hired to represent the child and the child's family in an action against the amusement park company for negligent hiring of the water slide operator. Taking care not to use or reveal any confidential client information of the amusement and the child's family. park, the attorney assists the law firm with the representation of the child Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because there is no substantial risk that the attorney has confidential information relevant to the action. (B) No, because an attorney is permitted to work outside of her designated practice group. (C) Yes, because the negligent hiring action is substantially related to the work attorney did for the former employer. (D) Yes, because the attorney and the law firm are prohibited from representing both the child and the child's family.

Correct Answer: (a) We don't have to worry about 1.9(c) because he said he's not going to use confidential info to disadvantage. 1.9(b) is not implicated. But there is an issue under 1.9(a). His previous work was focused on hiring policies and background checks. And there is a lawsuit, so there is obviously material adversity. But the attorney could still represent the property owner if he gets informed consent. -- But here, attorney did not get informed consent.

For the three months, an attorney has represented a local manufacturing company in a contracts dispute with the company's landlord. Last week, an employee of the manufacturing company asked the attorney to represent the employee in an action against the manufacturing company for failing to comply with wage and hour laws. The contract dispute and the wage and hour matter have no common issues of law or fact, and the attorney reasonably believes that he can competently represent the clients in the respective matters. Without discussing it with the manufacturing company, the attorney accepts and begins representation of the employee in the wage and hour matter. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the attorney reasonably believes that he can represent both the company and the employee competently in the respective matters. (B) No, because there are no common issues of law or fact in the respective lawsuits. (C) Yes, because the attorney did not terminate the representation of the company before agreeing to represent the employee. D) Yes, because the attorney's representation of the employee is directly adverse to the manufacturing company.

Correct Answer: (d) Suit #1: Manufacturing company v. Landlord (Breach of contract). Here, Manufacturing company is represented by Phil. Suit #2: Employee v. Manufacturing Company (Employee Dispute). Here, Phil represents Employee. So here, even though these are different issue, Phil has two current clients with adverse interests. This is a conflict. Rule 1.7(b)(3) would not apply because its not the same litigation.

An attorney has been hired by a client to represent the client in a civil commitment proceeding initiated by the state. The client is now undergoing psychiatric evaluation to determine whether civil commitment should be ordered. The client told the attorney that the client intends to commit suicide as soon as the tests are completed, and the attorney believes that the client will carry out this threat. Suicide and attempted, suicide are crimes in the state. The attorney discloses the client's intentions to the authorities. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because there is no evidence that the attorney knows that the client has attempted suicide in the past. (B) Yes, because disclosure would aid the state in its civil commitment case against the client. (C) No, because the information concerns a future crime and is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. (D) No, because disclosure of the information might prevent the client's death.

Correct answer: (D)

An attorney's client is a used car salesman. The client has been sued by a buyer who claims the buyer bought a car with a turned-back odometer. The client retains the attorney to defend the case. When the attorney asks the client to describe the background of the dispute, the client makes the following statements to the attorney in confidence: 1) "Ive destroyed a number of documents that could be used to prove the buyer's case." 2) "I still think there might be some documents in the files that could be relevant to the buyer's case. Could you look through the files and let me know what you think the buyer might ask for in discovery?" Are both of these statements privileged? (A) Yes, because the client sought advice on a legal matter and both statements were made in confidence. (B) Yes, provided the client abandons any plan to destroy more records. (C) No, because each statement can be used to prove that the client engaged in crime or fraud. (D) No, only the first statement is privileged and the second is not privileged because the second statement was made to further a crime or fraud.

Correct answer: Could be (b), depending on jurisdiction. We need to know more. Could be (d), depending on jurisdiction. We need to know more. We see that the discussion only concerns things that the client has done already, and there's no future plan for crime/fraud, we know that the exception doesn't apply for statement #1. With statement #2 however, the act about which the attorney is being consulted hasn't occurred yet. Depends on how the jurisdiction does it. If the jurisdiction depends on purpose w/o regard to later abandonment -- then its over. But if in jurisdiction where it allows for abandonment, then the crime fraud exception will not apply. Remember, 1.6 -- This allows the attorney to share confidential information. Pairs nicely with the crime/fraud exception.

An attorney represents six homeowners, who live in the same housing development, against their developer. The suit arose after the developer built a road adjacent to the homeowners' property line. As a result of the new road, each of the six homeowners lost a linear section of their property. The developer compensated them for the land, but has refused to pay the cost of replacing the grass or landscaping these strips of property, leaving the property unimproved. After the suit was filed, the developer calls the homeowners' attorney and offers $12,000 to settle, but the offer is conditioned on settling with all six homeowners' claims. The homeowners each own different amounts of land, but their attorney has determined that it is fair to divide the total settlement by the percentage of the total impacted land owned by each homeowner. The attorney's paralegal prepares agreements for each of the six homeowners, detailing how much money they will receive of the total settlement amount. The attorney meets individually with each homeowner and explains the settlement, including how much each homeowner will receive. Each homeowner agrees to the settlement and signs the agreement. Is the attorney's conduct proper? (A) Yes, because each homeowner was informed of the amounts received by all homeowners and agreed in writing. (B) Yes, because an attorney should seek to effectuate settlements and avoid litigation. (C) No, because the attorney should not represent all parties on one side of an action. (D) No, because the attorney shared with the homeowners the settlement amounts of the other homeowners.

Correct answer: (A)

An attorney's oldest daughter is to begin college this fall at a prestigious university. The attorney did not have enough money to pay the tuition, but did not want the daughter to take out student loans. After sharing this information with a long-time client who owns a successful petroleum engineering firm, the client offered to loan the attorney the money for the tuition with no interest, if the attorney would agree to recommend that the daughter come to work for the client after graduation. The attorney was hesitant, but agreed when the client gave him the money directly, so the daughter would not know of the arrangement. The next day, the attorney prepared a promissory note reflecting what the client and the attorney agreed to and mailed a copy to the client to sign. The client signed the note and returned it to the attorney, who also signed the note and sent the client a fully executed copy. Was the attorney's conduct proper? (A) No, because this is an improper business transaction with a client. (B) No, because the attorney should never have made such an agreement without the daughter's input. (C) Yes, because the loan was the client's idea, not the attorney's. (D) Yes, because the terms of the loan were fair and reasonable to the client.

Correct answer: (A) So here, there was no recommendations in writing to seek the advice of separate counsel AND there was no informed consent.

An attorney received a $10,000 retainer from a client for a new matter, and promptly placed the money in the client's trust account. The attorney anticipated doing at least 10 hours of work per week on the matter over the next four weeks. The attorney's standard hourly rate is $200/hour. In order to cover some unusual office expenses that month, the attorney decided to transfer the $2,000 of anticipated earnings into an account used for business expenses. The attorney explained to the client that the $2,000 had been moved from the client's trust account. The client approved and, as the attorney expected, the matter did in fact require 10 hours of time each week for four weeks. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because the attorney withdrew money from the client's trust account before the fees were earned or expenses incurred. (B) Yes, because the attorney used the client's funds for business expenses. (C) No, because the client approved of the attorney's conduct. (D) No, because the attorney accurately predicted the number of hours that would be worked over the four weeks.

Correct answer: (A). It can't transfer when anticipated. Can only be transferred when it is actually earned. So yes, the attorney is subject to discipline.

Is it ethical for an attorney to bill two clients the hourly fees for work performed at the same time (e.g. billing one client for reviewing a contract while traveling for another client)? (A) Yes (B) No

Correct answer: (B)

A homeowner meets with an attorney to discuss a possible property claim against an apartment building owner. After the homeowner explains the claim, the attorney determines that the homeowner cannot afford the attorney's services and refuses the case. The apartment building owner then meets with the attorney and offers to meet all of the attorney's financial terms. In representing the apartment building owner, the attorney uses the information the homeowner provided, reasoning that because they never had an attorney-client relationship, the attorney did not owe the homeowner a duty of confidentiality. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because the homeowner was a client. (B) Yes, because the homeowner was a prospective client. (C) No, because the homeowner was not a client. (D) No, because the information was not dispositive of the property claim.

Correct answer: (B) Also here -- Directly adverse in the same matter, and received information that could be significantly harmful to prospective client. But could get informed consent confirmed in writing (but not likely).

Suppose that the same facts as in Question 57 above, -- Suppose that Adam—an attorney with a long period of service as an employee of the SEC—recently entered private practice. Although he was still with the SEC during its recent investigation of Dallergen, he had no involvement in that investigation. Nor in any other matter involving Dallergen during his entire SEC tenure. Dallergen approached Adam about the prospect of representing it in connection with the investigation being conducted by the SEC. Adam was satisfied that there was no significant risk that his representation of Dallergen would be materially limited by his responsibilities to the SEC (or anyone else). Moreover, he reasonably believed that he would be able to provide competent and diligent representation to Dallergen. He thus agreed to represent Dallergen upon receiving its informed consent (confirmed in writing). However, he did not receive such consent from the SEC.-- except that Adam had significant involvement in the SEC's investigation of Dallergen. Is Adam subject to discipline for his representation of Dallergen in connection with the SEC investigation? a) Yes, because an attorney is prohibited from representing any client who was subject to an investigation by a government agency at the time that the attorney was employed by that agency. b) Yes, because the SEC did not give Adam its informed consent (confirmed in writing). c) No, because Adam was satisfied that there was no significant risk that his representation of Dallergen would be materially limited by his responsibilities to the SEC (or anyone else). d) No, because Dallergen gave Adam its informed consent (confirmed in writing).

Correct answer: (B) Here, he would need informed consent from government agency. (Under 1.11). But he did not get informed consent, so he is subject to discipline.

Several years ago, while working at the state EPA, an attorney worked on a suit against hog farmers for contaminating groundwater through the use of lagoons for capturing waste. The lawsuit resulted in a permanent injunction on the use of these lagoons. Now the attorney is in private practice in a rural area of the same state. A multi-national agricultural company is seeking an exception from the injunction based on a variation in its lagoon system. The attorney represents a local environmental trade group it in its challenge against the exception. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the representation is not adverse to the attorney's former employer. (B) No, because these actions do not involve the same matter. (C) Yes, because these two actions involve the same matter. (D) Yes, because once the attorney leaves the EPA, the attorney may no longer work on environmental matters.

Correct answer: (C) This time, you dont have adversity -- He's on the side of his previous employer. BUT there is still a conflict here under Rule 1.11 -- He participated personally and substantially. SO even without adversity, once we have participation that is personal and substantial, the attorney is presumptively disqualified. **** Here, rather than the last question, more likely to get informed consent in writing because he is advocating for the same position as the EPA. (Remember, still have to get informed consent from other client). But even if no informed consent, as long as timely screened and notice.

Suppose that, instead of seeking to retain Margaret as her attorney—as discussed in Question 46 above—-- Suppose that the court—in response to Arnold's request in Question 45 above—-- Suppose that, after Carrie and Dolly's efforts to negotiate a resolution of their dispute failed, they decided to pursue a resolution through mediation. They then retained Margaret—a licensed attorney who was also widely respected as a mediator. During the mediation, Margaret met separately with each of the parties, assuring them that she would keep confidential their respective communications with her. Albert stated to Margaret at that time that, although Carrie hoped that the matter would be resolved quickly, she would be unwilling to accept anything less than a significant share of the royalties from Dolly's song. Regrettably, the mediation ultimately concluded without the parties achieving a resolution of the dispute. Carrie then filed an action for copyright infringement against Dolly in federal court. After several years of discovery, Dolly became disenchanted with her attorney (Arnold), and decided to discharge him. Arnold responded by requesting the court's permission to withdraw from his representation of Dolly. After the court denied that request, Arnold continued the representation. -- permitted him to withdraw from his representation of Dolly. Dolly then sought to have Margaret—the attorney who had participated in the dispute as a mediator several years earlier—represent her in the action. Notwithstanding her participation in the mediation, Margaret was satisfied that there was no significant risk that her representation of Dolly would be materially limited by any responsibilities to Carrie. She thus agreed to the representation upon receiving informed consent (confirmed in writing) from Dolly. However, Margaret did not receive such consent from Carrie.-- Dolly sought to retain Andrea as her attorney. As it turns out, Andrea and Margaret are partners in the same law firm. Notwithstanding Margaret's participation in the mediation, Andrea was satisfied that there was no significant risk that her representation of Dolly would be materially limited by any responsibilities to Carrie. Andrea thus agreed to the representation upon receiving informed consent (confirmed in writing) from Dolly. However, Andrea did not receive such consent from Carrie. Is Andrea subject to discipline for her representation of Dolly in the dispute with Carrie? a) Yes, because an attorney is prohibited from representing a party to a dispute in which an attorney associated with the same firm participated personally and substantially as a mediator. b) Yes, because Carrie did not give informed consent (confirmed in writing) to Andrea's representation of Dolly. c) No, provided that: (1) Margaret is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and (2) written notice is promptly given to the parties and to the court to enable them to ascertain compliance with this requirement. d) No, because Andrea was satisfied that there was no significant risk that her representation of Dolly would be materially limited by any responsibilities to Carrie.

Correct answer: (C) Carrie v. Dolly (Represented by Andrea). Rule 1.12 If there's informed consent from all parties, Margaret could do it. But Andrea is conflicted by imputation because of Margaret's conflict. BUT under (c), if Margaret is timely screened, no fee, written notice, etc. --- Here, screening works even though Margaret never left the firm (unlike rule 1.10). So, provided that Margaret is screened properly, there should be no problem with Andrea representing dolly, even though Carrier has not given informed consent in writing.

An attorney represents a client who is under indictment for murder and attempted murder. In the course of the representation, the client told the attorney that the client had previously killed three other people. These other murders are completely unrelated to pending charges against the client. The client tells the attorney that the bodies of the other victims are buried in a ravine near the corner of a local cemetery. The attorney goes to the location described by the client, and the attorney finds the bodies at the bottom of the ravine. The attorney does not touch or disturb the dead bodies in any way. The attorney does some investigation, and learns that three persons have been reported missing and that the authorities have an ongoing investigation into their whereabouts. The attorney does not disclose the location of these bodies to the authorities or any other information provided to the attorney by the client. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because as an officer of the court, the attorney is required to disclose information the attorney has concerning the commission of the prior crimes by the attorney's client. (B) Yes, because the attorney is impeding the authorities access to significant evidence. (C) No, because the attorney obtained the information about the dead bodies in the course of representing the client. (D) No, because the attorney did not represent or advise the client with respect to the prior crimes.

Correct answer: (C) No duty to disclose.

Suppose that Adam—an attorney with a long period of service as an employee of the SEC—recently entered private practice. Although he was still with the SEC during its recent investigation of Dallergen, he had no involvement in that investigation. Nor in any other matter involving Dallergen during his entire SEC tenure. Dallergen approached Adam about the prospect of representing it in connection with the investigation being conducted by the SEC. Adam was satisfied that there was no significant risk that his representation of Dallergen would be materially limited by his responsibilities to the SEC (or anyone else). Moreover, he reasonably believed that he would be able to provide competent and diligent representation to Dallergen. He thus agreed to represent Dallergen upon receiving its informed consent (confirmed in writing). However, he did not receive such consent from the SEC. Is Adam subject to discipline for his representation of Dallergen in connection with the SEC investigation? a) Yes, because an attorney is prohibited from representing any client who was subject to an investigation by a government agency at the time that the attorney was employed by that agency. b) Yes, because the SEC did not give Adam its informed consent (confirmed in writing) c) No, because Adam did not participate personally and substantially in the SEC's investigation of Dallergen. d) No, because Dallergen gave Adam its informed consent (confirmed in writing).

Correct answer: (C) Rule 1.11--- Has to be involved personally and substantially involved in the same manner. Even if he was involved personally and substantially in the same manner, the attorney can still represent, if informed consent in writing from Government. SO --- 1.11 is not applicable here though because he was not involved at all in this manner. BUT, we have to still consider 1.7(a)(2). But there's no issue under 1.7 here.

An attorney represents a criminal defendant charged with racketeering. The attorney called a witness, who testified that the defendant was not a member of an organized crime family of which the witness was a member. During the break, the witness openly admitted to the attorney that he lied under oath and that, in fact, the defendant was a member of the organized crime family, but the witness insisted that the attorney not disclose this information to anyone. The attorney tried to persuade the witness to disclose his lie to the court, but the witness refused. Must the attorney disclose the perjury to the tribunal? (A) No, because the perjury related to a statement of a witness and not a statement of the client. (B) No, because the witness did not consent to the attorney's disclosure of the perjury. (C) Yes, because the information is not protected by the attorney's duty of confidentiality. (D) Yes, because the attorney has learned that the witness has perpetrated a fraud on a tribunal.

Correct answer: (D) Any battle between confidentiality and duty of candor to the tribunal - The tribunal wins

An attorney represents a client charged with murder. When interviewing the client about what happened, the client says, "I hope they don't find out about that other murder I did in Virginia. If they do, they'll put me on death row if they find me guilty now." At the attorney's request, the client then gives the details about the other murder. The attorney does some surfing on the internet and finds out that another person has been convicted of that murder in Virginia, and is awaiting execution for the crime. The attorney discloses the information to the authorities. Eventually the person convicted of that murder is released, and the client is convicted and sentenced to death. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because the attorney caused the death of the client. (B) Yes, because the death of the other person convicted was not reasonably certain. (C) No, because the attorney was required to disclose to prevent the death of another. (D) No, because the attorney was permitted to disclose to prevent a death of another.

Correct answer: (D) Here 1.6(b) could apply. He would be preventing reasonably certain death -- Even though this would result in the death of your client.

An attorney represents a toy manufacturer, who is being sued in a products liability case in the state trial court. The plaintiff's lawyer filed a motion to transfer the case to federal court but failed to cite a 25-year-old state supreme court decision that supported the plaintiff's position. Although the manufacturer's attorney was aware of that prior state supreme court decision and knew that it was directly adverse to the client's position, the attorney did not cite that decision in her opposition papers, because the attorney had a good faith basis for arguing that the state supreme court decision should be reversed in light of subsequent legal developments and because the client wished not to cite it. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because it was the responsibility of the plaintiff's lawyer to cite the state supreme court decision that supported the plaintiff's position. (B) No, because the manufacturer's attorney had a good faith argument that the state supreme court decision should be reversed. (C) Yes, because the client does not have the right to decide whether to cite the state supreme court decision. (D) Yes, because the manufacturer's attorney knowingly failed to disclose the directly adverse state supreme court decision after the opposing counsel failed to disclose it.

Correct answer: (D) Should have disclosed. And at THAT point, should have explained why there have been subsequent legal developments. Can't just refuse to respond.

The board of directors of a client corporation votes to do a public offering of stock. The client hires an outside law firm to prepare the necessary documentation. An attorney from the outside law firm communicates with the client's corporate personnel and obtains factual information relevant to the public offering that would put the client in a negative light. Upon review of this information, the attorney recommends that the client terminate its plan to do a public offering. The client's board of directors agrees. If the information was subpoenaed, would the negative information obtained by the attorney be protected by attorney-client privilege ? (A) Yes, because corporate personnel were communicating with the attorney on behalf of the client. (B) Yes, because corporate personnel were communicating with the attorney to assist the attorney with the attorney's legal representation of the client. (C) No, because the attorney communicated with multiple corporate personnel. (D) No, because the information was provided to the attorney for the purpose of making it public.

Correct answer: (D) The documentation would concern a public offering. In other words, it was meant to go public. The communication was about a matter that was never meant to be confidential. Therefore you're lacking the in confidence part.

A mother and her daughter are partners in a business venture to develop a software program. Their business is not incorporated, but is a general partnership, with a partnership agreement. The daughter is the primary creative contributor and the mother is the primary business contributor. The mother wants to retire, but their partnership agreement is unclear about certain issues related to the financial settlement upon dissolution of the partnership. State law is also ambiguous on these issues. The mother and her daughter both want an amicable dissolution, and they agree on what is a fair split of the partnerships assets. They paid $90 for a dissolution agreement from a legal website. They each reviewed the document and signed it, and they want an attorney to review it for legal enforceability. A good friend has been the attorney for the partnership since its inception. The attorney also has represented the mother in her estate planning and the daughter in the purchase of her first home and in a personal injury suit. The mother and her daughter visit their attorney together and ask if the attorney will review the document for enforceability. During this meeting, the attorney advised the mother and daughter that the attorney would be representing each of them equally in reviewing the agreement and that their communications would not be confidential from one another. The attorney also told them that if the two began to disagree on how to split the assets, or if any other conflict arose, the attorney would withdraw and would not represent either from that point forward. The attorney provided an engagement letter detailing these terms, and both the mother and her daughter signed the agreement. The attorney proceeded with the representation. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because attorneys should, when possible, review legal documents that originate from paid websites. (B) No, because the attorney reasonably believed the attorney could provide competent and diligent representation. (C) Yes, because the attorney previously represented the mother and her daughter in other matters. (D) Yes, because the attorney did not advise the mother and her daughter to seek the advice of independent counsel before signing the agreement.

No. Correct answer: (B) If this were litigation, attorney couldn't do this. But since this is negotiation, he can as long as he goes over the proper steps. So the attorney advises them that there will be no confidentiality. And that if there were any disagreements, he said he would have to withdraw and could not represent either client going forward.

An attorney represented a client in connection with the client's divorce. The attorney and the client had several disagreements about the tactics to use and the client stopped paying the attorney. After a few weeks, the client decided he would be better off with another lawyer and told the attorney he was fired. After giving the client sufficient notice to obtain replacement counsel, the attorney requested the court's permission to withdraw from the divorce litigation, but the court denied the request. The attorney continued representing the client. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) Yes, because the attorney had a mandatory duty to cease the representation because he was discharged by the client. (B) Yes, because the attorney's representation of the client will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the attorney. (C) No, because the attorney was required to remain in the case after the court denied the attorney permission to withdraw. (D) No, because the attorney's withdrawal would have caused material prejudice to the client.

No. The correct answer is (c). The Court has the prerogative to say that he needs to continue representing. The courts determination trumps rule (a) and (b).

An attorney represents a client who is charged with murder. The client insists that he wants to take the stand, claiming to have an alibi. The client claims he was with his sister at the movies when the crime took place. The attorney interviewed the client's sister. At first, the sister did not recall where she was that evening, but later developed a vivid recollection confirming the details of the client's story. The attorney reasonably believes, but is uncertain, that the client and the sister are both lying. The attorney attempts to persuade the client not to take the stand, but the client ignores the attorney's pleas. Must the attorney allow the client to testify about his alibi? (A) No, because the attorney is prohibited from offering false evidence in a proceeding. (B) No, because the attorney retains the discretion to disallow his client from testifying if the attorney reasonably believes the client intends to provide false testimony. (C) Yes, because, in a criminal trial, if the attorney is not certain that the client intends to provide false testimony, then the question of whether to testify in one's own defense is one reserved to the client. (D) Yes, because the duty not to offer false evidence does not apply to the testimony of criminal defendants.

Reasonably believes, but here -- this is a criminal defendant. Answer?? Confusing

An attorney represented a company on transactional matters. After the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) advised the company that it was the subject of an investigation, the company asked the attorney if the attorney would represent it in the SEC investigation. The attorney declined to do so and the company retained other counsel. Nonetheless, from time to time, the company's representatives asked the attorney legal questions about the SEC investigation and the attorney provided off-the- cuff answers. Does the attorney have a lawyer-client relationship with the company for purposes of the SEC investigation? (A) Yes, because the attorney answered the company's legal questions when the attorney knew or reasonably should have known that the company would reasonably rely on the attorney's answers. (B) Yes, because the attorney previously represented company in its trans actional work. (C) No, because the attorney declined to represent company in the SEC investigation. (D) No, because the company did not pay the attorney to represent it in the SEC matter.

Yes. Correct answer: A Based on the Morris case and § 14, at the time when the company goes back to the attorney after the attorney declines them as a client, once they answer legal questions, attorney client relationship formed.

An attorney represented an employee in an employment negotiation with a company for whom the employee works. The company asked the attorney to represent it in real estate negotiations with a property owner in another state. With informed consent from both the employee and the company, the attorney agreed to represent the company in the real estate negotiations. Neither the employee nor the company consulted with independent counsel before giving consent, and the attorney did not recommend that they do so. In the course of the real estate negotiation, the attorney learns in confidence that the company plans to relocate the employee to the state. The attorney knew that this would be important information for the employee to know in connection with her employment negotiations, but the attorney concluded the employment negotiations without disclosing this information to her. Six months later, the company relocated the employee, who was upset that the employment contract negotiated by the attorney did not protect her from the adverse impact of the relocation. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the clients gave informed consent to the representation. (B) No. because the attorney did not represent one client adversely to the other. (C) Yes, because the attorney did not withdraw from representing the employee after he learned confidential information from the company that was important to the employee. D) Yes, because the attorney did not advise the clients to consult independent counsel before giving informed consent.

Yes. Correct Answer: (C) Directly adverse conflicts can arise in negotiations as well as litigation. (See Comment #7 to MRPC Rule 1.7). The fact pattern mentioning that they did not consent with independent attorneys is kind of a red herring -- This is not required here, at least by Rule 1.7. There was a conflict here by representing clients that were directly adverse. But she got consent, so it was okay. But the attorney later learns of the company's plans. The attorney could no longer abide by Rule 1.7(b)(1). So, even though she kept her mouth shut, she was required to withdraw. So once she learned of the company's plans, there's a new conflict, and there's no way the attorney can competently and diligently represent the parties. She would have to withdraw from representing both parties.

A construction company's equipment and crew were involved in an accident in which a bystander was injured. The construction company notified its insurer, which retained an attorney to defend the company when the bystander sued it. Unknown to the construction company, based on information disclosed by the company to the attorney, the attorney correctly advised the insurer that it had no obligation to provide coverage because the construction company made a misrepresentation in its insurance application. The Insurer subsequently sought a declaratory judgment relieving it of responsibility to the construction company. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No. because the attorney was permitted to disclose the construction company's misrepresentation to the insurer to protect it from prejudice. (B) No, because the attorney was permitted to share the company's confidential information with the insurer, which paid for the attorneys services. (C) Yes, because an attorney may not represent two clients at the same time. (D) Yes, because the attorney acted adversely to the construction company.

Yes. Correct Answer: (D). One thing to keep in mind, when an insurer selects an attorney to represent a client, the attorney has a "duty of loyalty" to the client This attorney, once appointed to represent the construction company had a duty of loyalty and a duty of confidentiality. So what does the attorney do?: The attorney is going to have to withdraw-- the insurance and construction company's interests are now directly adverse. But the attorney can't even tell the insurance carrier about the matter.

A father and his two adult children, a son and a daughter, retained an attorney for business purposes. Later, the father had the attorney draft the father's will, which the father signed in the presence of his children. A month later, at the father's request, the attorney drafted a new will that was less favorable to the daughter, and the father directed the attorney not to tell his daughter about it. The father subsequently executed the new will, and neither the son nor the daughter were present. Several weeks later, the daughter consulted the attorney regarding her estate plan. The daughter assumed that her father's earlier will was in effect, and she made estate plan decisions based on that assumption. The attorney provided the daughter legally correct advice in light of the information provided by the daughter. The attorney did not disclose that the father had executed a will that was less favorable to her. Is the attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the attorney followed the father's instructions not to tell the daughter about the second will. (B) No, because the attorney provided legally correct advice to the daughter. (C) Yes, because the attorney did not tell the daughter about the father's new will. (D) Yes, because the attorney did not withdraw from representing the daughter regarding her estate planning

Yes. Correct answer: (d) You're not going to have a problem with the father asking the attorney to draft the will. But several weeks later, daughter consults attorney about estate plan. So the question is getting at whether the attorney could represent the daughter. The attorney could not disclose that the father altered the will. But now the daughter is making estate plan decisions based on the old will. So, when the daughter comes to ask the attorney to represent her on the estate plan issue, he had to turn her down. So even though they are not directly adverse here, we can drop down to (2) -- **** Significant risk ... materially limited.

Professional Responsibility Multiple Choice

Related study sets

NOS 120 - Chapter 1 Review

MyLab Microeconomics Chapter 2

The Feather Pillow

HF & PE Cases

Topic 3 World History Test

Economics Ch. 29

Patho Exam 2

A&P II - Unit 5: Reproductive System

Practical Applications

Module 5 HESI Management of Care

Chapter 13: Reading Tasks/ Homework

Infection Control, Sterilization, & CDC

Chapter 6

React

Quality: Acceptance Sampling

CCNA 2 Chapter 2 Exam (12/12)

Exam 3 Review

Social Studies 2024

AHIMA data quality characteristics

Chapter 30: Sensation, Perception & Response NCLEX Questions