Professional Responsibility Quizzes

Jen and Tom, a husband and wife, wanted to hire Alex, an attorney to prepare their wills. Before the formalities of representation were final, Tom spoke with Alex privately by phone disclosed he had been having an affair, and that his mistress might be pregnant. Tom forbid Alex from telling Jen about this. Alex realizes there could be potential conflicts of interest between Tom & Jen about the wills, distribution of assets, potential challenges to the will by offspring from outside the marriage, and potential claims for child support against Tom's estate. Would it be proper for Alex to proceed with representing Tom and Jen in preparing their wills? A. Yes, as long as each provides written consent after being informed of the potential conflicts that generally emerge in dual representation. B. Yes, because this is a transactional matter, not litigation in which adverse claims could arise. C. No, because Alex cannot violate the duty of confidentiality to Tom, which would be necessary in order to obtain informed consent from Jen. D. No, because it would be improper to prepare a will for Tom under such circumstances

Answer: C Rationale: Rule 1.7 Comment 19 references when it may be impossible to make the disclosure necessary to obtain consent. As Tom prohibited Alex from disclosing to Jen, he could not obtain the necessary consent to represent both.

Asher has just graduated from law school and has been admitted to the bar. His grandmother comes to see him and asks him to draft her will. Asher proceeds to do so and, to his surprise, discovers that the grandmother is wealthy and wants to leave Asher a substantial inheritance. Asher drafts the will according to his grandmother's wishes. Is Asher subject to discipline? A. No, because Asher did not solicit the gift. B. No, because Asher was the client's grandchild. C. Yes, because Asher prepared an instrument under which he received a substantial testamentary gift. D. Yes, because Asher can prepare instruments under which he receives a substantial gift, but only in the client is his parent or spouse.

B Rationale: Rule 1.8(c). Lawyers generally cannot draft instruments for clients under which they receive a substantial gift, including a testamentary gift. However, there is an exception for instruments the lawyer drafts for close family members like a grandparent

Edward is the beneficiary of an estate, who was indigent, met with Adam, an attorney about the possibility of representing him in a dispute over his share of the estate. The Adam's secretary attended the meeting to take notes. After discussing the matter with the beneficiary, Adam stated that he could not take the case because his reasonable fee would exceed the amount of the potential recovery. Later, the Adam learned from another attorney that Betty, also an attorney had agreed to represent the Edward. Adam discussed the Edward's position with the Betty, advising her of what he believed were some weaknesses in the case. Did Adam behave properly? A. No, because Adam had an obligation to represent Edward on a pro bono basis. B. No, because Adam breached a duty of confidentiality he owed to Edward. C. Yes, because any duty of confidentiality was destroyed by the presence of his secretary. D. Yes, because he could refuse to represent Edward on the basis of lack of financial benefit to an attorney.

B. No, because Adam breached a duty of confidentiality he owed to Edward. Rationale: Rule 1.18 (B) states even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned information from a prospective client shall not sure or reveal that information except as Rule 1.9 would permit with the respect to information of a former client.

An attorney took a position for one client fighting to uphold a piece of legislation that would outlaw the hunting of wild game in a local state park. He later represented a different client, who was suing the city in order to overturn the very same piece of hunting legislation. The two cases were unrelated. Is the attorney subject to discipline? A. Yes, because an attorney may not take inconsistent positions on behalf of different clients. B. Yes, because the attorney did not have the second client sigh a waiver informing him of the case. C. No, because attorneys may take inconsistent positions on behalf of different clients. D. No, because the clients did not know each other.

C Rationale: Rule 1.7 Cmt. 24 explains that attorneys "may take inconsistent legal positions in different tribunals at different times on behalf of different clients. The mere fact that advocating a legal position on behalf of one client might create precedent adverse to the interests of a client represented by the lawyer in an unrelated matter does not create a conflict of interest.

Attorney practices law in Texas, and he runs advertisements in local newspapers and journals that say, "HIRE THE BEST LAWYER!" The advertisement does not explicitly claim that Attorney is the best lawyer in the state, but it does include Attorney's website address, which is www.bestlawyerintexas.com. Is such an advertisement improper? A. Yes, because the advertisement it misleading. B. Yes, because it includes a website address. C. No, because it merely exhorts readers to hire the best lawyer, without suggesting who is the best lawyer. D. No, unless Attorney is, by all measures, the best lawyer in Texas

A

After serving as a professional mediator for several years, an attorney decided to change careers and become a litigator. One of the parties from her final mediation sought to retain her as their attorney in a matter closely related to the subject of the mediation. The other party, which already had legal representation, provided written, informed consent to this arrangement. The potential client also provided informed consent in writing. Under such circumstances, would it be permissible for the former mediator to represent a party in the same matter in which the attorney served as mediator? A. Yes, because all parties to the proceeding mediation gave informed consent, confirmed in writing. B. Yes, because a mediator is a third party neutral and therefore has not conflicts of interest. C. No, a lawyer who served as a mediator cannot represent a client in a matter in which the lawyer personally participated. D. No, because the other party already had legal representation and therefore did not have the same opportunity to hire the mediator as their lawyer for trial.

A Rationale: Rule 1.12(a): Third party neutrals cannot represent anyone in connection with a matter they personally and substantially participated in unless they have informed consent confirmed in writing from all parties.

A mother pays a lawyer to represent her minor child in a drug possession case. The mother instructs the lawyer to have her child accept a plea bargain for probation, "because I don't want my son to spend any time in jail." Although the lawyer does not believe the plea bargain is in the child's best interest, he agrees to convince the child to accept it anyways. Is the lawyer's conduct proper under the model rules? A. Yes, because parents have the right to make legal decisions for their minor children. B. Yes, because the mother is the one paying for the lawyer's fees. C. No, because the lawyer must act in the client's best interest. D. No, because the lawyer must give the child informed consent and have him sign a waiver.

C Rationale: See Rule 1.8 (f): A lawyer cannot accept compensation for representing a client from someone other than the client unless the client gives informed consent, there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship, and information relating to the representation of a client is protected as required. Here, the parent cannot interfere with the lawyer's professional judgment that the plea bargain is not in the best interest of the child even though she is the one paying the fees

Liz, an attorney, represented her friend, Bill, in a civil case in which Bill is a defendant. Bill is alleged to have driven into the plaintiff's fence negligently. Bill and Liz met in her office to discuss the case. After some discussion about their children, who play together, Bill reveals to Liz that he was driving under the influence of PCP at the time of the incident. Several months later, Bill's wife files for divorce, and her attorney subpoenas Liz to testify, the wife's attorney wants Liz to testify that Bill told her that he drove under the influence of drugs. May Liz be required to testify about Bill's use of PCP? A. Yes, because a subpoena has been issued. B. Yes, because the litigation in which Bill made the statement was unrelated to the present litigation in which Liz will testify. C. No because the information is privileged. D. No, unless Bill will not testify himself.

C Rationale: The statement was made by Bill to Liz for the purpose of seeking legal advice or services, and no exception to the rule against revealing privileged information applies

Paul, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, owns a substantial amount of stock in a publicly traded corporation called Exrix, LLC. The Court grants certiorari to decide a class action suite brought by shareholders of Exrix. Must Paul recuse himself pursuant to a code of judicial conduct? A. Yes, because of his stock ownership B. Yes, unless he sells his Exrix stock before briefs are submitted in the case. C. No, but he might decide to do so. D. No, unless one of the parties makes a motion for recusal.

C Rationale: the US Supreme Court has not bound itself to any formal ethics code

Which of the following statements would NOT be protected by attorney-client privilege? I. At a firm holiday party, a client tells his lawyer's partner (who is not working on his product's liability case) that he plans to divorce his wife. II. An attorney represents a doctor in a medical malpractice suit. The plaintiff is still in the hospital. The lawyer interviews a patient in the bed adjacent to the plaintiff's bed. The plaintiff then seeks to compel the lawyer's testimony about the witness interview. III. A paralegal interviews a client about his case in the firm's offices, she then gives her notes to her supervising attorney. A. Neither I, II nor III B. II only C. III only D. I and II, but not III

D. I and II, but not III Rationale: Statements in I are not protected because the client was not seeking legal advice when he made the statements. The statements in II are not protected because they were made by someone other than the client

Which of the following would be protected by the attorney-client privilege? I. A prospective client tells an attorney the facts of her case, by the attorney decides not to take the case. II. An attorney and client meet in a crowded restaurant. The client makes statements related to her case. They do not know anyone sitting around them, but it is clear that others could hear their conversation. In fact, no one hears the conversation. III. A lawyer represents a client in a dispute about a civil real estate contract. The client gives the attorney a copy of the contract at issue. The contract includes statements about the obligations of both parties and statements about their motivations for entering into the contract. A. Neither I, II, nor III. B. II and III, but not I C. I, II, and III D. I only

D. I only Rationale: The statement in I are protected by the attorney-client privilege, because statements by prospective clients are privileged. The statements in II are not covered because in order for a communication to be privileged the client must reasonably believe that the communication is confidential Being in an open restaurant, the client believe there was confidential communication. In III, the contract is a piece of evidence (the written instrument at the center of the controversy), not an attorney client privilege.

Zack is an immigrant who was recently denied asylum by an immigration judge. He hires Alina to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Zack knows that there is a $400 filing fee. The appeal and fee are due tomorrow. Alina has not been able to reach Zack for the past week, but she knows from prior conversations that Zack wants to appeal the decision. If he misses the filing deadline, Zach will be barred from appealing the decision. May Alina advance the filing fee? A. Yes. B. Yes, not only if Zach is indigent. C. No, because lawyers are not permitted to provide financial assistance to clients. D. No, because Zack did not exercise reasonable diligence in communicating with Alina

A Rationale: Under Rule 1.8(e), "A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, except that...a lawyer may advance courts costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter.

Jennifer, an attorney, was sued by a client for malpractice. The client alleged that Jennifer failed to reveal a conflict of interest that arose from her prior representation of another client. The former client refused to consent to Jennifer's disclosure of information about that representation. Nevertheless, at a deposition, Jennifer testified about the nature of that representation, revealing information to the extent that it was relevant to the conflict-of-interest issue. Jennifer reasonably believed that the disclosure was necessary to her defense of malpractice charge. Does such testimony subject the attorney to discipline for breach of the duty of confidentiality? A. No, because Jennifer reasonably believed that disclosure of the information was necessary to her defense. B. No, because the information revealed did not relate to a current client. C. Yes, because the litigation was note between the Jennifer and the client whose confidential information her testimony revealed. D. Yes, because the former client refused to consent to disclosure

A Answer Rationale: Rule 1.6(b)(5): A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonability believes necessary... (5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based up conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client... Additionally, Comment 10 includes," Where a legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges complicity of the lawyer in a client's conduct or other misconduct of the lawyer involving representation of the client, the lawyer may respond to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a defense. The same is true with respect to a claim involving the conduct or representation of a former client. Such a charge can arise in a civil, criminal, disciplinary or other proceeding and can be based on a wrong allegedly committed by the lawyer against the client or on a wrong alleged by a third person, for example, a person claiming to have been defrauded by the lawyer and client acting together. The lawyer's right to respond arises when an assertion of such complicity has been made. Paragraph (b)(5) does not require the lawyer to await the commencement of an action or proceeding that charges such complicity, so that the defense may be established by responding directly to a third party who has made such an assertion. The right to defend also applies, of course, where a proceeding has been commenced

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

A Rationale: Rule 1.11 Cmt. 5: "When a lawyer has been employed by one government agency and then moves to a second government agency, it may be appropriate to treat that second agency as another client for purposes of this Rule, as when a lawyer is employed by a city and subsequently is employed by a federal agency. However, because the conflict of interest is governed by paragraph (d), the latter agency is not required to screen the lawyer as paragraph (b) requires a law firm to do. The question of whether two government agencies should be regarded as the same or different clients for conflict of interest purposes is beyond the scope of these Rules."

An attorney regularly volunteered as an intake consultant for an established program run by a legal services organization. The program provided indigent individuals with limited short-term legal assistance. If it became apparent that an individual needed long-term representation, the intake consultant would recommend that the individual consult an attorney and would provide a list of legal services organizations in the area. On one occasion, a woman who had received an eviction notice sought help from the program. The attorney gave her some general advice about how to avoid eviction and then recommended that she contact a private attorney or a legal services organization if she needed further assistance. The attorney later learned that the woman's landlord was a corporation represented in an unrelated matter by partners in the attorney's law firm. Did the attorney's actions in providing legal advice to the woman subject him to discipline? A. No, because the attorney did not know that his law firm represented the woman's landlord at the time he provided legal advice. B. No, because the Model Rules of Professional Conduct regarding conflicts of interest do not apply to programs such as that in which the attorney participated. C. Yes, because the attorney had a conflict of interest due to his law firm's representation of the woman's landlord. D. Yes, because the attorney did not check to see if he had a conflict of interest before providing the woman with legal advice.

A Rationale: Rule 1.9 Comment 5 states paragraph (b) of the rule operates when the only when the lawyer involved has actual knowledge of information protected by Rule 1.6 & 1.9(c)

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

A Rationale: Rule 7.2 - Comment 8

As a substantial part of his practice, Josh files collection suits for banks. Josh has a sister who is a vice president of a local bank, and Josh has asked many times for his sister to hire him to represent the bank in its collection matters. The sister responded to a recent request by saying, "The answer is no, and you need to stop bothering me about it." As a result of a recent economic downturn, the bank now has many more collection suits that need to be filed. Josh is exchanging a series of instant messages with his sister and takes the opportunity to send a message in which he asks his sister for the opportunity to represent the bank in the new collection suits. Is Josh subject to discipline? A. Yes, because the sister has made it known to Josh that she does not wish to be solicited. B. Yes, because the lawyer is soliciting professional employment from a prospective client for pecuniary gain. C. No, because the solicitation made was to a close family member. D. No, because the instant message is not solicitation.

A Rationale: Rule7.3 permits lawyers generally to solicit family members, but that permission doesn't apply to solicitation of a family member who has made it known to the lawyer that they do not desire to be solicited. Here, the sister made it clear she no longer wanted to be solicited

The state of X requires Child adoptions to be approved by the court. Further is prohibits cohabitating couples from adopting a child unless they are validly married. Jack, an attorney, represents clients Alex and Annette in an adoption proceeding. They are assured her that they were validly married. Among the papers she presented to the court in connection with the adoption proceeding was a copy of Alex & Annette's Certificate of Marriage, duly certified by the custodian of public records. In due course, the court approved the adoption. A year later, Alex & Annette returned to Jack's office. Annette explained to her as follows: "When we came to you about the adoption, there's something we didn't tell you, because we didn't want to get into lots of complications. Alex was married once before. His wife moved out, and he hasn't heard from her since. When he and I began dating, we fell in love so fast that there wasn't time for him to go through a divorce before we got married. We don't want to do anything that might risk losing our child, but this has been bothering us, and we thought we should come to you for advice." What is the proper course of action for Jack to take? A. Advise Alex & Annette about the legal effect of the prior marriage on their current status and on the adoption. B. Decline to advise Alex & Annette, thus avoiding the assistance of a continuing fraud. C. Advise Alex & Annette to reveal their fraud to the court that approved the adoption, and warn them that he (Jack) will do if they do not. D. Bring the matter to the attention of the court that approved the adoption, and let the court decide what remedial action is appropriate in the circumstances.

A. Advise Alex & Annette about the legal effect of the prior marriage on their current status and on the adoption. Rationale: Model Rule 3.3(a)(3) does not require disclosure for at least one, maybe two, reasons. First, since the adoption proceeding has come to a conclusion, the duty to disclose no longer applies (3.3 (c)) Second, it is not clear from the facts stated in the question that Jack "offered false evidence" in the adoption proceeding. He did offer the marriage certificate, but that document was not false, and Jack had no reason at the time to believe that Annette & Alex were not validly married. Answers C & D are incorrect fro the same reasons. Answer B is incorrect as well. "Continuing fraud" is a foggy at best, but even assuming Annette & Alex are committing fraud by keeping their adopted child and living together, there is no reason to assume that Jake's advice would "assist" them in continuing the fraud.

Louie represents a company that produces chemical products. Some of the waste products of the company's manufacturing processes are highly toxic and are reasonably certain to cause substantial bodily harm if disposed of improperly. The president of the company recently informed Louie that a new employee mistakenly disposed of the waste products in the ground behind the company plant, an area that is part of the source of the city's water supply. The attorney advised the president, that although the conduct was not criminal, the company could be civilly liable for negligence in lawsuits brought by any persons harmed by the waste products. The attorney advised the president to immediately report the problem to city authorities. Fearful of adverse publicity, the president declined to do so. The attorney further advised the president that she believed the president's decision was immoral. The president continued to decline to report the matter. The attorney then informed the president that she was withdrawing from the representation and would inform the authorities herself. The attorney immediately withdrew, but never reported the company's conduct to the authorities. Is the attorney subject to discipline for not reporting? A. No because even though the attorney reasonably believed that bodily harm would occur, he is not required to report the conduct. B. Yes, because the attorney reasonably believed that the company's disposal of the waste products was reasonably certain to cause bodily harm. C. No, because the information was given to the attorney in confidence and may not be revealed without the client's consent. D. Yes, because that was the basis of his withdrawal.

A. No because even though the attorney reasonably believed that bodily harm would occur, he is not required to report the conduct. Rationale: According to 1.6 (b) (1) a lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary; To prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm... Additionally, Comment 6 specifically includes, "Although the public interest is usually best served by a strict rule requiring lawyers to preserve the confidentiality of information relating to the representation of their clients, the confidentiality rule is subject to limited exceptions. Paragraph (b)(1) recognizes the overriding value of life and physical integrity and permits disclosure reasonably necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. Such harm is reasonably certain to occur if it will be suffered imminently or if there is a present and substantial threat that a person will suffer such harm at a later date if the lawyer fails to take action necessary to eliminate the threat. Thus, a lawyer who knows that a client has accidentally discharged toxic waste into a town's water supply may reveal this information to the authorities if there is a present and substantial risk that a person who drinks the water will contract a life-threatening or debilitating disease and the lawyer's disclosure is necessary to eliminate the threat or reduce the number of victims. Although the rules are permissive of reporting such conduct, the rule does not require the conduct be reported

Alice walked into George's law office for a consultation. She told him that she was concerned about being indicted soon and explained her predicament in great detail. At the end of the conversation, George explained that he was transitioning away from criminal matters and was only accepting new civil cases, but he recommended a criminal attorney who Alice subsequently retained. A few days after the consultation, George read about Alice's indictment in a newspaper article that quoted the district attorney at length. George was convinced that something Alice had told him would probably exonerate her, or at least lead to a reduction of charges, if the district attorney were informed. May George reveal the information to the district attorney? A. No, not unless Alice consents to the disclosure. B. Yes, because Alice is not his client. C. No, because it is privileged and confidential information relating to a current client. D. Yes, because revealing the information will help Alice.

A. No, not unless Alice consents to the disclosure. Rule 1.6 states a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent.

A public defender is represented a defendant in a murder case. In investigating the case, the public defender gathers indisputable evidence from a relative of the client that the client committed a murder for which another individual has been sentenced to life in prison without parole. Which of the following statements best describes the lawyer's options under the Model Rule of Professional Conduct? A. The Lawyer may disclose her client's guilt if she reasonably believes that doing so is necessary to prevent substantial bodily harm to the innocent party. B. The lawyer may disclose her client's guilt because the information is not covered by the attorney-client privilege. C. The Lawyer may not disclose his client's guilt without her client's permission because that is information relating to the representation of her client. D. The Lawyer must disclose her client's guilt if she reasonably believes that doing so is necessary to remedy the wrongful conviction of another individual.

A. The Lawyer may disclose her client's guilt if she reasonably believes that doing so is necessary to prevent substantial bodily harm to the innocent party. Answer Rationale: Rule 1.6 the lawyer has the obligation, subject to certain exceptions, to keep confidential information relating to the representation. Scope of confidentiality is much broader than the scope of the attorney-client privilege, and it would include the information learned from the relative. Rule 1.6(b)(1) provides that a lawyer may reveal confidential information fi the lawyer reasonably believes doing so is necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantially harm.

Clint hired Brandon to represent him in a personal injury lawsuit in which Clint is the plaintiff. After an initial consultation and two meetings to review the main evidence in the case and to discuss the nature of the claims, Brandon drafted the initial pleadings, served the opposing party, and filed the pleadings in the appropriate court. Brandon did not allow Clint to review the pleadings before filling and afterward, Clint expressed disappointment that he did not have the opportunity to review the pleadings beforehand and make suggested edits, given that it is his case and that Brandon is working for him. Was it proper for Brandon to draft the pleadings based on conversations with Clint and file the documents without first having Clint review them? A. Yes, because a lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. B. Yes, unless Clint is an English teacher or a professional editor and might therefore have special expertise in proofreading texts for grammatical errors and stylistic problems. C. No, because a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. D. No, because Brandon may have to spend time later revising the pleadings, which could affect the legal fees in the case, and such revisions may have been unnecessary if someone else had proofread Brandon's draft before filing it.

A. Yes, because a lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. Rationale: Rule 1.2(a) states "a lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.

A client hires a lawyer to defend him against embezzlement charges. The lawyer gathers information about the case, much of which relates to the client's gambling addiction and dire financial situation at the time of the alleged embezzlement. The lawyer discusses these embarrassing facts with her partners and her staff in order to try to formulate the best defense for her client. Is the lawyer subject to discipline for revealing confidential client information to her partners and staff? A. Yes, if the client instructed the lawyer to keep the information to herself. B. Yes, because the attorney broke attorney client privilege. C. No, because lawyers are authorized to disclose to detect conflicts of interest. D. No, if the lawyer reasonably believed that disclosure was necessary to prevent the client from committing any further crimes or frauds.

Answer A Rationale: Comment 5 to Rule 1.6 states that lawyers are impliedly authorized to reveal confidential information to other members of the firm. However, this authorization does not exist if the "client has instructed that particular information be confined to specific lawyers."

Annette handles claims against banks for many clients for issues regarding the failure of banks to investigate in a timely manner claims of fraud or unauthorized use of bankcards. Most of Annette's work consists of sending demand letters, and most cases never actually results in the filling of a suit. First Savings Bank, a small local bank, retained Annette to handle a particular claim against a customer for non-payment of a loan. Annette has not represented any clients against First Savings. Annette includes in her contract for services a clause in which First Savings waives any conflicts that may arise in the future - conflicts that involve Annette representing clients against First Savings for issues regarding failure to investigate claims of fraud or unauthorized use of bankcards. Is Annette's conduct proper? A. Yes, attorneys may include waivers of future conflicts as long as clients are aware of the waiver. B. Yes, attorneys can include waiver clauses for future conflicts in their contracts if the clients are aware of the waiver and the types of future representation that may arise are limited and detailed in the contract. C. No, attorneys cannot ever include waivers of future conflicts in contracts. D. No, attorneys cannot include waivers of the future conflicts in contracts if the types of claims expected to be waived are financial in nature.

Answer B Rationale: See Comment 22 of Rule 1.7

Three individuals hire Amy, an attorney, to represent them as co-defendants in a tort action. Amy tells them that there could be a potential conflict of interest if she represents all three of them, and that they will need to sign consent forms, which they do. The three individuals have common goals and interests in the litigation, so they do not hesitate to sign the forms or inquire further about the implications of the potential conflicts. No further discussion occurs about the issue, and Amy proceeds with the representation. Could Amy be obligated to withdraw from representation later in the litigation, if the clients gave written consent to the shared representation at the outset? A. Yes, when representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the information must include the implications of the common representation, including possible effects on loyalty, confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege and the advantages and risks involved. B. Yes, if the liability insurers for the three co-defendants disagree on the terms of the settlement, and were not included in the original written consent. C. No, because Amy dutifully obtained written consent from each client, as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. D. No, as long as no situation arise where Amy obtains confidential information from one client that she could use to harm the interests of another client, and one of the clients files a cross-claim against another co-defendant.

Answer: A Rationale: See comments 29, 30 and 31 of Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest of Current Clients.

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

Answer: A Rationale: Rule 1.2 Cmt. 7 "Although this Rule affords the lawyer and client substantial latitude to limit the representation, the limitation must be reasonable under the circumstances." The example given in the comment refers to a limitation may be reasonable if the objective is limited to securing general information about the law slaw in order to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem. However, as included in the facts - the subject is complex and uncertain, with courts providing limited or no guidance

Gary represents Ray in a civil suit. Gary and Ray often discuss their hunting trips and gone hunting together on several occasions. Ray tells Gary he is purchasing a piece of property for hunting with five other people and asks Gary if he would like to go in on the purchase. Gary tells Ray he would like to join in the purchase and he provides Ray with a check for his portion of the purchase price. Is Gary subject to discipline? A. Yes, attorneys shall not enter into transactions with clients that result in join ownership of property. B. Yes, attorneys shall engage in social activities with current clients or enter into transactions that result in joint ownership of property. C. No, attorneys are not restricted from entering into transactions with clients as long as the transactions are not related to the current representation of the client and the client gives informed consent. D. No, attorneys are allowed to enter into fair and reasonable business transactions with clients as long as the client is informed in writing of the benefit of seeking advice from independent counsel and gives informed consent, in writing and signed by the client, of the transaction details

Answer: D Rationale: Rule 1.8(a)(1) specifically states that an attorney can enter into a transaction "on which the lawyer acquires the interest are faire reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client..."

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

Answer: D Rationale: See Comment 35 of Rule 1.7

According to the official Comment to Rule 1.13 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, when it is reasonably necessary to enable the organization to address the matter in a timely and appropriate manner, a lawyer must refer the matter to higher authority. This includes, if warranted by the circumstances, the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization under applicable law. Ordinarily (unless applicable law specifies otherwise), which of the following would be an organization's highest authority to whom a lawyer might refer the matter? A. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) B. The board of directors or similar governing body C. The annual meeting of the shareholders or the majority shareholder D. The general counsel of the corporation Rationale: Rule 1.13 Cmt. 5: "The organization's highest authority to whom a matter may be referred ordinarily will be the board of directors or similar governing body."

B Rationale: Rule 1.13 Cmt. 5: "The organization's highest authority to whom a matter may be referred ordinarily will be the board of directors or similar governing body."

Five years ago, Barry, an attorney, worked at Jones and Smith, a large law firm with offices across the country. One of the firm's partners defended Pancake, Inc, an appliance manufacturer, against allegations that its toasters had a defect that would cause many of them to catch fire. Barry was not involved in that litigation and did not learn anything about it during his time at the firm. Barry has since opened up a private practice of his own. Kate comes to Barry's new office seeking legal help. Kate tells Barry that her Pancake toaster recently overheated and caused a house fire. She would like to sue Pancake for damages. May Barry represent her without Pancake's informed consent? A. Yes, so long there is not a substantial risk that confidential factual information as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation of Pancake would materially advance Kate's position in the subsequent matter. B. Yes, so long as Barry did not actually acquire confidential information that is material to Kate's lawsuit while he was working at his old law firm. C. No, Barry may not represent Kate without Pancake's informed consent, regardless of his involvement in the case at his old firm, because the matters are the same or substantially related. D. No, because Ted's interests are materially adverse to those of Pancakes

B Rationale: Rule 1.9(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formally was associated had previously represented a client (1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and (2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter. Barry did not have any information protected by any of the above included rules.

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

B Rationale: Rule 7.2 (d) "any communication made under this Rule must include the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for it's content."

Which of the following most accurately describes the Model Rules' treatment of in-person solicitations of prospective clients by lawyers and live telephone solicitations by lawyers? A. The Rules treat in-person solicitations as much more serious and likely to result in abuse than telephone solicitations. B. The Rules treat live telephone solicitations the same as in-person solicitations. C. The Rules treat live telephone solicitations the same as email solicitations. D. The Rules treat live telephone solicitations the same as a billboard, an Internet banner advertisement, a website, or a television commercial.

B Rationale: Rule 7.3, Comment 2 - specific definition of live person to person contact

Louie, a lawyer, represents a judge who fears a disciplinary proceeding concerning the judge's financial affairs. No official proceedings are underway yet. Louie would also like to represent Ellie, whose case is assigned to the judge's court. The judge, however, refuses to allow Louie to reveal to Ellie that he represents the judge. Louie reasonably believes he can provide competent and diligent representation to Ellie despite the fact that he is simultaneously representing the judge. Is it proper for Louie to represent Ellie in the judge's court? A. Yes, if the judge gives informed consent to Louie's representation of Ellie. B. No, because Louie cannot obtain informed consent from Ellie without revealing that he is representing the judge. C. No, because Louie is subject to a contempt order by the Judge D. Yes, the cases are not related

B Rationale: See Rule 1.7 - conflict of interest: Current clients.

After she graduated from law school, Marie worked for the Securities and Exchange Commission for three years. During that time, she worked on securing an indictment in a large securities case involving seven defendants who collaborated on an insider trading scheme. At the end of three years, she moved on to a position at one office of a large private law firm whose practice includes defense of securities fraud cases. A month after she started work at the firm, Marie learned that a partner in the firm was representing one of the defendants in the securities case that Marie had worked on while she was at the SEC. This did not emerge in the preliminary conflicts screening before she was hired because Marie's work focused on three of the other defendants in the suit. The basic facts were the same. Is it proper for the firm to continue to represent the defendant in the securities fraud case? A. Yes, if Marie agrees not to reveal to anyone in the law firm anything she learned about the case while she was at the SEC. B. Yes, but only if Marie is timely screened from any participation in the matter, Marie receives no extra pay related to the matter, and written notice of the potential conflict is given to the SEC. C. No, so long as Marie remains an employee of the firm. D. No, unless Marie is transferred, while the litigation is pending to a different office of the firm.

B Rationale: Under 1.11(a), Marie's personal and substantial participation in the matter disqualifies her from working on the matter. Other lawyers in the firm may work on this matter if the firm obtains the consent of the SEC and erects a timely screen. Comment 10 after 1.11 says, "In determining whether two particular matters are the same, the lawyer should consider the extent to which the matters involve the same basic facts, the same or related parties and the time elapsed."

Brandon is a solo practitioner who represents Jessica in a civil case. He is scheduled to argue an important motion at a hearing three days from now. He learns that his father has passed away, and his funeral will take place on the same day as the hearing. The judge has denied his motion for a continuance, because he has previously been granted four postponements of the argument of this motion. Brandon's good friend Elizabeth is a seasoned litigator who had just joined Brandon's firm. He reasonably believes that she can competently represent Jessica at the hearing, so he asks her if she can handle the hearing for him, and she agrees. She agrees to treat the file as confidential and to return it to Brandon promptly after the hearing. Brandon leaves a phone message for Jessica, but she doesn't return his call. Brandon gives Elizabeth Jessica's file so that she can familiarize herself with the case. Assume that Elizabeth can competently represent the client at the hearing. Was it proper for Brandon to give Elizabeth the file? A. Yes, because Elizabeth agreed to treat the file as confidential and to return it to Brandon promptly after the hearing. B. Yes, because Brandon and Elizabeth are lawyers within the same law firm. C. No, because Brandon has not filed a motion to withdraw from representation of Jessica. D. No, because Brandon did not obtain Jessica's consent.

B. Yes, because Brandon and Elizabeth are lawyers within the same law firm. Rationale: : Rule 1.6(a) prohibits a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a client without client consent. However, Comment 5 explains that a lawyer practicing in a law firm is impliedly authorized to disclose client confidences to other lawyers within the law firm. ALSO D. No, because Brandon did not obtain Jessica's consent. Rationale: As discussed in class on 9/27, although the correct answer is because B & E are both lawyers in the same firm, due to how the question is phrased, credit is given to all students that chose either yes, as they are attorneys in the same firm OR No, because B did not get consent from J.

Which of the following is NOT one of the reasons that a conflict of interest might be "nonconsentable" under the Rules of Professional Conduct? A. The lawyer does not reasonably believe that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client: B. The representation is prohibited by law, as where state substantive law provides that the same lawyer may not represent more than one defendant in a capital case. C. One or more clients pay the lawyer lower fees than the other(s). D. The representation involves the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal

C Rationale: A is covered by Comment 15; B is covered by Comment 16; and D 17. C is not included in Rule 1.7

Will retained a lawyer, Chase, to appeal his criminal conviction and to seek bail pending appeal. They agreed on a fee of $200 an hour for the appearance on the bail hearing. Will paid Chase $2,000, $500 of which was for bail costs if Chase was able to obtain bail. Chase maintained two office bank accounts: a "Fee Account," in which all fees were deposited, and a "Client's Funds Account." Chase deposited the $2,000 in the Client's Funds Account the week before the bail hearing. He spent six hours on the bail hearing but was unable to obtain bail for Will. Angry, Will immediately demanded Chase return the $2,000. Chase left the entire $2,000 in the Client's Funds Account due to the dispute. Is Chase's conduct proper? A. Yes, because he cannot do anything with the money until the dispute is resolved. B. Yes, because he cannot comingle funds. C. No, because he should write Will an $800 check and keep $1200 in the Client's Funds Account until the dispute is resolved. D. No, because he should write Will a $1200 check and keep $800 in the Client's Funds Account until the dispute is resolved.

C Rationale: Rule 1.15 - A lawyer must deliver a client any funds the client is entitled to receive. During a dispute, the lawyer must keep the disputed funds separate from his funds until the dispute is resolved. The lawyer must distribute any portion of the funds that is not in dispute. Here, Will is clearly entitled to $500 since bail was not obtained. Will is also entitled to an addition $300 because the lawyer has not earned that part of the retainer since he only did six hours of work. Thus, Chase should only keep $1200 since that represents what he is owed under the agreement ($200 per hour)

Lizzie, a sole practioner, has a busy personal injury practice. Although for the past six months very little has been happening with his case, a client has been calling Lizzie every day for updates on the status of his litigation. At first, Lizzie acknowledged each call and responded promptly. Lately, however, Lizzie had not responded to the client's numerous calls, letters, and emails daily. Instead, Lizzie explained to the client that she would be updating him once every two-weeks unless something arose that required attention. The client is unhappy. Has Lizzie violated the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? A. Yes, unless her failure to respond to the client's inquiries is due to illness, injury, or other disability. B. Yes, because an attorney must promptly acknowledge all contacts by a client. C. No, because she kept the client reasonably informed. D. No, if the client possesses significant legal knowledge.

C Rationale: Rule 1.4. An attorney has to keep a client reasonably informed about their legal matters and promptly respond to reasonable requests for information. Here, Lizzie has come up with a reasonable schedule for informing the client about developments in the case. The client's daily phone calls for a litigation that is moving relatively slowly are not reasonable requests for information.

Karla, a well-respected criminal defense attorney, has been asked to represent four young men who were arrested for possession of a substantial amount of drugs found in their car after police stopped them for a broken tail light. There are several potential grounds to challenge the arrests, including illegal search and seizure and denial of the possessions. None of the young men could afford Karla's services by themselves, but they can afford it if they pool their funds. After interviewing all four young men, Karla is convinced that three of the defendants have criminal exposure, but the fourth is completely innocent. She decides to accept the case for the three defendants pro bono because of the massive publicity the case is receiving. However, Karla advises the fourth defendant to meet with the prosecutor and cooperate with their case. Is it proper for Karla to represent the defendants? A. Yes, because Karla may represent the three remaining defendants if she reasonably believes she can do so competently. B. Yes, because she properly advised the "innocent" defendant to cooperate and did not violate any ethical rules. C. No, because the potential conflicts become actual conflicts that would impair her ability to zealously represent the remaining three defendants at trial. D. No, because a criminal defense attorney can never represent more than one defendant in the same case

C Rationale: Rule 1.7 Cmt. 23 - "A conflict may exist by reason of substantial discrepancy in the parties' testimony, incompatibility in positions in relation to an opposing party or the fact that there are substantially different possibilities of settlement of the claims or liabilities in question." The comment also notes that the potential for conflict when representing multiple defendants in a criminal case is so grave that a lawyer should decline to represent more than one co-defendant. Here, Karla would be unable to cross-examine the fourth defendant while at trial based on her interview with him while they had an attorney-client relationship. The inability to use the information she gained from the fourth defendant would impair her ability to represent the other three defendants

For many years, JC, a lawyer, has represented a professional football team, the Raptors, in business law matters. On the team's behalf, JC has filed a breach of contract case against the City Board of Commissioners concerning the stadium that the city leases to the Raptors. JC is counsel of record in the suit, and he has conducted all of the discovery for the Raptors. The trial date is fast approaching, and the Raptors owners have retained a famous trial lawyer, Marvin Slick, to serve as JC's co-counsel and to do the actual trial work. Although JC envies Slick's win-loss record, he regards Slick as little more than a highly educated con artist with whom he cannot possibly work. Which of the following may JC do? A. Immediately seek the court's permission to withdraw from the case. B. Promptly instruct the team owners to terminate their arrangement with Slick. C. Ask the team owners to consent to his withdrawal, if he believes that is in their best interests. D. Advise Slick to withdraw, if Snyder believes that is in the best interests of the owners.

C. Ask the team owners to consent to his withdrawal, if he believes that is in their best interest Rationale: The inability to work effectively with the client's chosen co-counsel - coupled with harm to the client's interests - is a sufficient reason for permissive withdrawal (See Model Rule 1.16 (b)(6)). Answer A is not as good as C because it does not take into account JC's duty to give advance notice and to take other steps to avoid prejudice to the client (Model Rule 1.16 (d)).

Alice, an attorney, represents James in a securities fraud prosecution. One day, Alice is interviewing James about the allegations that he engaged in insider trading. James, who is married, brings his current girlfriend Brittney to the interview, and he reveals to Alice that he is having an affair with her. He further reveals that Brittney provided him with some inside information. Brittney is not a defendant in the case, is not represented by Alice and does not participate in the interview. James's statements about Brittney are: A. Confidential and privileged. B. Not confidential, but privileged. C. Confidential, but not privileged. D. Neither Confidential nor privileged

C. Confidential, but not privileged. Answer Rationale. Rule 1.6 prohibits lawyers from revealing information related to the representation. The information is thus confidential. Privilege, on the other hand, only covers communications between the client and lawyer for the purposes of seeking legal advice that the client reasonably believes were made in private. As James made these statements in the presence of Brittney, she could not reasonably believe they were made in private. They are accordingly not privileged

A law firm has offices in three major U.S. cities. Once a year, lawyers from all three offices convene for a firm retreat. One of the partners in the firm, Johann, represents Liz, a celebrity chef, in several lawsuits (filed both by and against Liz). Johann prepares a complex counseling exercise for the retreat, based on his relationship with Liz, called "Dealing with a Difficult Client." Johann does not change Liz's name or any of the facts in any of the training materials. The materials provide detailed descriptions of cases in which Liz was a party, and included stories about difficult interactions between the chef and her lawyers. The materials are distributed in loose leaf notebooks clearly marked "confidential training materials." Liz learns about the training program from Tammy, one of the firm's junior lawyers, whom Liz is dating casually (unbeknownst to Johann). Liz is furious. Is Johann subject to discipline for violation of Rule 1.6? A. Yes, because Johann disclosed confidences to lawyers who work in offices of the law firm that are located in other cities. B. Yes, because Johann did not obtain Liz's consent to the use of this information in the training. C. No D. Yes, because that information was obtained in the course of representation, and the disclosure was not impliedly authorized to carry out the representation

C. No Answer Rationale: Under Rule 1.6, Comment 5, "[l]awyers in a firm may, in the course of the firm's practice, disclose to each other information relating to a client of the firm, unless the client has instructed that particular information be confined to specified lawyers." Johann's preparation of materials using client information without changing the client's name, for wide dissemination within the firm, may have been unwise. However, because the rules allow sharing of confidences within a firm, irrespective of the size of the firm, this conduct would not be a basis for discipline. Johann's notation on the cover of the materials, stating that they were confidential, took account of Rule 1.6(c), which requires reasonable efforts to prevent improper disclosure of confidences

Laura contacted Tom, a newly licensed attorney about pursuing an appeal with respect to the denial of a worker's compensation claim. Tom explained to the employee his lack of experience in handling such a matter, promised nevertheless to provide Laura with competent representation, and offered to represent her for a lower fee than other lawyers that she had approached about handling the matter. Tom discussed both the scope and effect of all aspects of the engagement letter, including a clause that provided for arbitration for any future malpractice claims. Tom diligently prepared for the appeal and competently represented Laura at the hearing on the worker's compensation claim. However, the denial of the claim was upheld. Is Tom subject to discipline for his handling of this matter? A. Yes, because Tom lacked the requisite competence to handle the matter when he agreed to undertake it. B. Yes, because the letter contained an agreement to arbitrate any malpractice claims. C. No, because Tom achieved the necessary level of competence prior to the appeal. D. No, because as a licensed lawyer, Tom was not subject to any restrictions on cases he could take.

C. No, because Tom achieved the necessary level of competence prior to the appeal. Rationale: Tom may acquire the knowledge he needs to represent a client in an unfamiliar area through necessary study. See Rule 1.1, Comment 2.

Andy, an attorney, represents Clive in a civil litigation matter. As they prepare for trial, at which Clive will testify as a witness on his own behalf, Andy realizes that Clive is probably not going to tell the truth, even though Client insists he will be completely truthful. Attorney believes there is some chance that Client is indeed telling the truth, but he is about 70% certain that Clive is being untruthful, despite Clive's protestations. Does Andy have an ethical duty (under the model rules) to try to prevent Clive from presenting testimony that Andy believes is probably false? A. Yes, a lawyer cannot suborn perjury, or even risk that the testimony he is eliciting via direct examination is perjury. B. Yes, a lawyer must disclose to the court that he does not believe Client's testimony and have the court give the client an opportunity to testify in a narrative mode. C. No, because the prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false, and a lawyer's reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. D. No, because the opposing party will have an opportunity to impeach the witness and the testimony during cross-examination.

C. No, because the prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false, and a lawyer's reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. Rationale: Rule 3.3, Comment 8 - the prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer's reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact.

Albert, an attorney, worked for a corporation as in-house counsel. Albert discovered that the Chief Financial Officer falsified the corporation's quarterly earnings report in order to prop up the firm's share price, as the CFO's compensation is partly in stock options. Albert knows that these misrepresented earnings appeared in the filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will eventually result in severe regulatory fines or civil liability for the corporation. Albert thus reasonably believes that the violation is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the organization. The Chief Financial Officer hired Albert, and he directly supervises Albert in the organizational chain of command. Albert confronted the Chief Financial Officer, but this proved unfruitful, and then the Chief Financial Officer discharged Albert. What should Albert do in this situation? A. The attorney should immediately report the matter to the relevant government regulatory authority. B. The attorney should keep the information confidential, because the person who hired him has not authorized him to disclose the information. C. The attorney should proceed as the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to assure that the organization's highest authority is informed of the lawyer's discharge. D. The attorney should notify the manager directly above the Chief Financial Officer in the corporation and then drop the matter.

C. The attorney should proceed as the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to assure that the organization's highest authority is informed of the lawyer's discharge Rationale: Rule 1.13 (e) - a lawyer who reasonably believes that he or she has been discharged because of the lawyer's action taken pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c), or who withdraws under circumstances that require or permit the lawyer to take action under either of those paragraphs, shall proceed as the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to assure that the organization's highest authority is informed of the lawyer's discharge or withdrawal.

Attorney represents Client in patent infringement litigation. Client is a longtime business rival of the opposing party, and has successfully sued the opposing party before over an unrelated matter. The opposing party still loses his temper whenever someone brings up the previous lawsuit he lost, because he felt it was completely unfair and he nearly went bankrupt over it, and his marriage even failed due to the stress from the case and the burdensome verdict. On the eve of trial, Attorney mentions to Client that the opposing party will actually take the stand to testify in the case. Client instructs Attorney to bring up the time that Client won another lawsuit against the opposing party during cross-examination, merely to make the opposing party get upset. He assures Attorney that the opposing party will lose his temper on the stand, and will at least lose credibility before the jury, and may even slip and say something that would undermine his position in the case. Attorney simply refuses to bring up a matter merely to provoke an outburst from the opposing party during trial. Client believes Attorney has a duty to provide zealous advocacy and to pursue every advantage for Client's interests. Would it be proper for Attorney to refuse to bring up the prior unrelated lawsuit during his cross- examination, despite Client's instructions to do so? A. No, because a lawyer has a duty to provide zealous advocacy and to pursue every advantage for Client's interests. B. No, because provoking a hostile witness into an angry outburst on the stand violates the lawyer's strict duty to preserve the decorum of the proceedings. C.Yes, because a lawyer's duty to act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect. D.Yes, as long as Attorney expects that opposing counsel would object to the line of questioning, and that the court would probably sustain the objection

C. Yes, because a lawyer's duty to act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect. Rationale: See Rule 1.3, Comment 1

Jacob, an architect, and Spencer, a lawyer, went to high school together. One afternoon, Jacob comes to Spencer's office. He sits down and pulls knife out of his pocket. Jacob tells Spencer that he stabbed his wife that morning. Spencer quickly tells Jacob to put the knife back in his pocket and say nothing more. He then tells Jacob that his practice is limited to real estate matters, that he is not qualified to represent or give competent advice to Jacob, and that Jacob should seek representation from a criminal attorney. Spencer hands Jacob a list of competent criminal defense attorneys and then asks him to leave. Later, Jacob is arrested and charged with the murder of his wife. While in custody, Jacob tells police that Spencer told him to hide the knife and Spencer is subsequently arrested for evidence tampering. Can Spencer reveal that he only told Jacob to put the gun back in his pocket? A. No, because Spencer's duty of confidentiality prohibits him from disclosing any portion of the conversation. B. No, because disclosure would be detrimental to Jacob's interests. C. Yes, if the disclosure is necessary to defend against the evidence tampering charge. D. Yes, because Spencer decided not to represent Jacob, so attorney-client privilege does not apply.

C. Yes, if the disclosure is necessary to defend against the evidence tampering charge. Answer Rationale: Model Rule 1.6(b)(5) permits a lawyer to reveal confidential client communications to establish a defense to a criminal charge against the lawyer based on conduct that involved the client. The lawyer should only reveal portions of the communications that are necessary to establish the defense.

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

C. Yes, the terms upon which representation is undertaken may exclude specific means that might otherwise be used to accomplish the client's objectives, such as actions that the lawyer regards as repugnant or imprudent. Rationale: Rule 1.2, Comment 6 allows "such limitations may exclude actions that the client thinks are too costly or that the lawyer regards as repugnant or imprudent".

At the trial of a routine civil case in a US District Court, Wes, a defense lawyer, presented the testimony of an insurance company investigator. On cross examination, the plaintiff's lawyer established that the day before the trial began, the investigator spent three hours in Wes's office going over his testimony. On that occasion, Was showed the investigator some handwritten notes from the insurance company files, in an effort to refresh the investigator's recollection of some important dates. Plaintiff's counsel asked to have the notes brought to court the next morning; after hearing oral arguments on the point, the judge ordered Wes to bring them the next morning. Wes responded: I'll bring them, judge, on the next cold day in Hell." The judge looked startled but chose to overlook the remark. Wes intentionally failed to bring the notes to court the following day. Which of the following are correct? I. Wes is subject to litigation sanctions for discussing the investigator's testimony with him before the trial. II. Wes is subject to litigation sanctions for using the notes to refresh the investigator's memory of dates. III. Wes is subject to litigation sanctions for his rude remark to the judge. IV. Wes is subject to litigation sanctions for intentionally violating the Federal Rules of Evidence. V. Wes is subject to litigation sanctions for intentionally violating the judge's order. A. All of the above. B. II and V C. I, II, III, and IV only. D. III, IV, and V only.

D. III, IV, and V only. Rationale: It is proper, indeed routine, for a lawyer to talk with a witness about his testimony before the witness testifies. It is also proper for a lawyer to use documents or other items to try to refresh a witness's memory of a once-known, but now, forgotten fact. Item III is correct - this kind of sarcastic, rebellious remark in the judge's presence in open court constitutes direct contempt of court, making the lawyer subject to litigation sanctions. It could also result in professional discipline under Rule 3.5 (d). IV is correct - Professional discipline would be appropriate under Model Rule 3.4(c). And item V is correct - the judge ordered Wes to bring the notes "the next morning" and he intentionally failed to do so. He conduct constitutes another direct contempt of court.

Alex represents John, a mechanic, in a negligence suit. With the help of his best friend, Billy, who happens to be staying at his house for a couple of weeks, John writes a summary of the case for Alex. Which of the following individuals can be compelled to testify about the summary provided? I. John II. Billy III. Alex A. III only B. II only C. I, and II, but not III D. either I,II, or III

D. either I,II, or III Rationale: Communication is only protected by attorney-client privilege if the client reasonably believed the communication was confidential. Here John asked Billy to help him draft the statement; accordingly, he could not have believed the statement was confidential