Conflicts of Interest

Question 1

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

Answer 1

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 2

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to the clients, and he must continue to protect the confidences of the client from whose representation the lawyer has withdrawn.

Answer 2

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 3

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

Answer 3

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 4

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

Answer 4

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 5

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

Answer 5

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 6

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

Answer 6

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 7

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

Answer 7

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 8

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

Answer 8

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 9

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

Answer 9

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 10

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

Answer 10

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 11

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

Answer 11

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 12

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

Answer 12

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 13

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

Answer 13

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 14

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

Answer 14

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 15

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

Answer 15

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 15

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

Answer 15

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 16

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

Answer 16

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 17

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

Answer 17

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 18

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

Answer 18

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 19

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

Answer 19

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 20

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

Answer 20

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 21

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

Answer 21

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 22

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

Answer 22

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 23

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

Answer 23

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 24

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

Answer 24

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 25

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

Answer 25

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 26

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

Answer 26

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 27

No, the attorney may purchase litigation cost protection insurance so long as she does not allow the terms of the coverage to adversely affect her independent professional judgement, the client-lawyer relationship, or the client’s continuing best interests.

Answer 27

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 28

Yes, if the amount charged to the client is fair and reasonable, and the lawyer fully explains to the client when litigation cost protection insurance is, why the lawyer believes a litigation cost protection policy will serve the client’s best interests, that the client should get the advice of independent legal counsel regarding the arrangement, that other lawyers may advance the client’s costs without charging the client the cost of a litigation cost protection policy; and the client gives informed consent in writing, while the lawyer maintains independent professional judgment.

Answer 28

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 29

Neither the attorney’s earlier advice nor the lawsuit itself creates a conflict of interest that would prevent the attorney from defending against the suit

Answer 29

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

Question 30

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

Answer 30

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 31

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

Answer 31

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 32

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

Answer 32

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 33

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

Answer 33

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 34

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

Answer 34

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 35

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

Answer 35

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 36

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

Answer 36

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 37

No, because the transaction was objectively unfair.

Answer 37

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 38

The attorney has a common-law fiduciary duty to profit from using client information even if the use complies with the lawyer’s ethical obligations, without accounting to the client for any profits made.

Answer 38

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 39

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

Answer 39

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 40

Yes, without specific authorization from the employee-client, the attorney may not disclose to Conglomerate how to employee intends to testify.

Answer 40

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 41

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

Answer 41

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 42

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

Answer 42

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 43

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

Answer 43

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 44

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

Answer 44

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 45

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

Answer 45

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 46

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

Answer 46

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 47

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

Answer 47

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 48

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

Answer 48

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 49

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

Answer 49

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 50

No, a lawyer may acquire an act upon a lien authorized by law to secure the lawyer’s fee or expenses.

Answer 50

Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules

Question 51

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

Answer 51

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 52

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

Answer 52

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 53

The court should deny it because the government has not met its burden of showing that the attorney would be a necessary witness in the case, or that the possessed confidential information about the other doctor who will serve as a hostile witness in the case.

Answer 53

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 54

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

Answer 54

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 55

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

Answer 55

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 56

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

Answer 56

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 57

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

Answer 57

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 58

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

Answer 58

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 59

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

Answer 59

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 60

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

Answer 60

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 61

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

Answer 61

Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

Question 62

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

Answer 62

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 63

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

Answer 63

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 64

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

Answer 64

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 65

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

Answer 65

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 66

No, because a conflict arising from a lawyer’s marriage to another lawyer at an opposing law firm is not necessarily imputed to all other lawyers in the firm.

Answer 66

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 67

No, because the fact that Xavier Firm and Yankee firm represent opposing clients in a different, unrelated matter would not prevent their affiliation in the patent matter.

Answer 67

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 68

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

Answer 68

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 69

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

Answer 69

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 70

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

Answer 70

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 71

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

Answer 71

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 72

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

Answer 72

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 73

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

Answer 73

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 74

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

Answer 74

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 75

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

Answer 75

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 76

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

Answer 76

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 77

No, due to imputation of the chairperson’s conflict of interest to her law firm partner.

Answer 77

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 78

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

Answer 78

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 79

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

Answer 79

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 80

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

Answer 80

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 81

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.

Answer 81

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 82

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

Answer 82

Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts

Question 83

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

Answer 83

Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral

Question 84

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

Answer 84

Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral

Question 85

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

Answer 85

Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral

Question 86

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

Answer 86

Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral

Question 87

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

Answer 87

Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral

Question 88

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

Answer 88

Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral

Question 89

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

Answer 89

Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral

Question 90

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

Answer 90

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 91

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

Answer 91

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 92

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

Answer 92

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 93

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

Answer 93

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 94

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

Answer 94

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 95

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

Answer 95

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 96

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

Answer 96

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 97

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

Answer 97

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 98

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

Answer 98

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 99

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

Answer 99

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 100

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

Answer 100

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 101

Yes, because a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

Answer 101

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 102

No, because an attorney does not have to decline or withdraw from cases unless the client demands that the attorney engage in illegal conduct.

Answer 102

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer

Question 103

No, a defense lawyer who receives a profferred plea bargain in a criminal case must promptly inform the client of its substance, unless the client has previously told the lawyer to accept or to reject the offer.

Answer 103

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client

Question 104

No, because even when an immediate decision is necessary during trial, and the exigency of the situation may require the lawyer to act without prior consultation, the lawyer must tell the client about it as soon as possible.

Answer 104

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client

Question 105

Yes, when there is time to explain a proposal made in a negotiation, the lawyer should review all important provisions with the client before proceeding to an agreement, and the facts suggest that the attorney did not necessarily explain all the concessions that the client would have to make.

Answer 105

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client

Question 106

Yes, because during a trial, when an immediate decision becomes necessary, the exigency of the situation may require the lawyer to act without prior consultation, assuming the lawyer promptly informs the client of actions the lawyer has taken on the client’s behalf.

Answer 106

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client

Question 107

Yes, a lawyer may delay transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication, including a psychiatric diagnosis of a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client.

Answer 107

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client

Question 108

Yes, because Rule 1.4 requires that lawyers disclose material errors made during the representation to current clients, whenever the error would predictably cause a client to consider terminating the representation even in the absence of harm or prejudice.

Answer 108

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Cli

Question 109

Yes, because Rule 1.4 requires that lawyers disclose material errors made during the representation to current clients, whenever the error would predictably cause a client to consider terminating the representation even in the absence of harm or prejudice.

Answer 109

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client

Question 110

No, when a data breach occurs involving, or having a substantial likelihood of involving, material client confidential information a lawyer has a duty to notify the client of the breach.

Answer 110

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client

Question 111

No, because the Model Rules do not require disclosure of material errors to former clients after the representation has ended.

Answer 111

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client

Question 112

Yes, because Rule 1.4 requires that lawyers disclose material errors made during the representation to current clients, and the attorney’s ongoing representation on other matters means a client-lawyer relationship still exists.

Answer 112

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client

Question 113

Yes, because Rule 1.4 requires that lawyers disclose material errors made during the representation to current clients, even though the error does not furnish the basis for a valid malpractice claim

Answer 113

Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client

Question 114

Yes, because the client did not sign the fee agreement.

Answer 114

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 115

No, a lawyer may seek reimbursement form the cost of services performed in-house, such as copying, or for other expenses incurred in-house, such as telephone charges, either by charging a reasonable amount to which the client has agreed in advance or by charging an amount that reasonably reflects the cost incurred by the lawyer.

Answer 115

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 116

No, the attorney may not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect any fee in a domestic relations matters, the payment or amount of which is contingent upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of alimony or support, or property settlement in lieu thereof

Answer 116

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 117

The attorney is subject to discipline for charging a contingent fee in a criminal matter.

Answer 117

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 118

Yes, periodic, incremental increases in a lawyer’s regular hourly billing rates are permissible if understands and accepts such practice at the commencement of the client-lawyer relationship, and he periodic increases are reasonable under the circumstances.

Answer 118

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 119

Yes, because state rules about legal fees are subject to limitations by applicable law, such as government regulations regarding fees in certain tax matters.

Answer 119

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 120

No, the attorney must inform the client of the basis or rate of the fee and expenses before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.

Answer 120

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 121

It is proper to charge a plaintiff in a personal injury case a flat fee regardless of he case outcome, and it is permissible to charge the seller a contingent fee in a real estate transaction.

Answer 121

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 122

No, if the attorney flies for six hours for one client, while working for five hours on behalf of another, she has not earned eleven billable hours.

Answer 122

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 123

No, the attorneys who reuse old work product have not re-earned the hours previously billed and compensated when they first generated that work product.

Answer 123

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 124

No, it would be reasonable for the attorney to charge twenty thousand dollars for doing so little.

Answer 124

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 125

The attorney should receive $300,000 when Conglomerate’s million-dollar lump sum payment arrives, and $300 of each subsequent disbursement from the annuity, when the disbursements occur, until the client’s death.

Answer 125

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 126

No, because under the fee agreement, the client had to repay the attorney only if they won the case.

Answer 126

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 127

Yes, because a lawyer may not charge a client for overhead expenses normally associated with properly maintaining, staffing, and equipping an office.

Answer 127

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 128

No, a lawyer may charge the client no more than the actual cost of making a copy on the photocopy machine plus a reasonable allocation of overhead expenses directly associated with the provision of the service, such as the salary of a full-time photocopy machine operator.

Answer 128

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 129

No, it is not reasonable for the attorney to charge over three hundred thousand dollars in fees for making one phone call at the end of the first consultation with the client.

Answer 129

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 130

It is impermissible for the attorney to represent the seller in a commercial real estate transaction on a contingent fee basis without a written fee agreement, signed by the client, stating the method of determining the fee.

Answer 130

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 131

Yes, lawyers should not exploit fee arrangements based primarily on hourly charges by using wasteful procedures.

Answer 131

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 132

Yes, given that the attorney advertised for that amount and the client had seen the ad, the parties have an implicit contract under which the attorney must write the will in exchange for $500.

Answer 132

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 133

Yes, the fee change was reasonable under these circumstances, and the attorney followed the notice requirements of the Model Rules.

Answer 133

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 134

No, the representation of one client is not directly adverse to another client, and there is not a significant risk that the referral of Susan will be materially limited by attorney’ s responsibility to the cupcake shop.

Answer 134

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 135

Yes, if the attorney obtains the informed consent, confirmed in writing, of both the cupcake shop and Susan as potential co-defendant, and otherwise meets the requirements of Model Rule 1.7(b).

Answer 135

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 136

Yes, if the attorney obtains the informed consent, confirmed in writing, of both the cupcake shop and Susan as potential co-defendants, and otherwise meets the requirements of Model Rule 1.7)b).

Answer 136

Rule 1.5 Fees

Question 137

No, because a physical or mental condition currently materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.

Answer 137

Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

Question 138

A general assessment of the municipality or the municipality’s matter.

Answer 138

Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

Question 139

Yes, if representation has begun, the attorney must withdraw from the case and take reasonable steps to mitigate consequences to client if discharged by client.

Answer 139

Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

Question 140

Yes, because withdrawal is permissible if the client misused the attorney’s services in the past, even if the withdrawal would materially prejudice the client.

Answer 140

Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

Question 141

No, because the attorney must withdraw from the representation of the judge under these circumstances.

Answer 141

Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

Question 142

The attorney must withdraw from representing the clients mentioned.

Answer 142

Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

Question 143

No, the attorney may ask for permission to withdraw as counsel, or to serve merely as standby counsel in this scenario.

Answer 143

Rule 6.2 Accepting/Declining Court Appointments

Question 144

Yes, an attorney can seek withdrawal for good cause, suck as lack of competence to handle certain specialized legal matters.

Answer 144

Rule 6.2 Accepting/Declining Court Appointments

Question 145

No, because lack of malpractice insurance is not good cause for withdrawal.

Answer 145

Rule 6.2 Accepting/Declining Court Appointments

Question 146

No, giving money to the attorney did not create any attorney-client relationship.

Answer 146

Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients

Question 147

Yes, because the individual who sent the original email was not a prospective client for purposes of the Model Rules, and the attorney had no duty to keep the information confidential.

Answer 147

Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients

Question 148

Yes, because this is dishonest, interferes with the administration of justice, and has no purposes other than to interference with the opposing party’s ability to form a client-lawyer relationship.

Answer 148

Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients

Question 149

Yes, the person was not genuinely seeking legal representation, so the lawyer would have no duty to protect the confidentiality of the information disclosed and no conflict of interest.

Answer 149

Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients

Question 150

No, because the information learned from the first consultation with the other party would be so helpful to the new client, and so harmful to the individual the attorney declined to represent.

Answer 150

Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients

Question 151

The attorney may not disclose to the client that the opposing part consulted with another lawyer in the firm but may continue to represent the client if the attorney does not use any information gleaned from the other party’s consultation against the other party.

Answer 151

Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients

Question 152

Yes, because the client’s defense has some basis in fact and law, even if it seems improbably in both regards.

Answer 152

Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims & Contentions

Question 153

Yes, it was impermissible for the attorney to bring the action for executing the judgement, and to appeal the dismissal, as there was basis in law or fact for doing so.

Answer 153

Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims & Contentions

Question 154

No, because a lawyer must prepare a brief referring to anything in the record that might potentially support the appeal and leave it to the appellate court to decide whether the appeal is truly frivolous.

Answer 154

Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims & Contentions

Question 155

Yes, a federal statute authorizes federal courts to require a laywer to pay all the excess costs, expenses, and legal fees incurred because of the lawyer “unreasonably and vexatiously” multiplying the proceedings.

Answer 155

Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims & Contentions

Question 156

No, because a lawyer has a duty to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

Answer 156

Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Question 157

Yes, because even if the statements were not materials facts, lawyers mist make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

Answer 157

Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Question 158

Yes, even with the consent of the attorney’s clients, this is an impermissible dilatory litigation tactic with no substantial purpose other than to delay or prolong the proceeding.

Answer 158

Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Question 159

No, given that the issue was not pending before any appellate courts at the time, it was improper for the attorney to request these extensions.

Answer 159

Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Question 160

No, the attorney’s failure to file the papers was not a legitimate litigation strategy to prevent or delay the deportation.

Answer 160

Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Question 161

Yes, filing petitions and appeals on behalf of someone no longer legally one’s client imposes unnecessary delays in court proceedings.

Answer 161

Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Question 162

Yes, the attorney did not make reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

Answer 162

Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Question 163

No, because a lawyer need not have personal knowledge of matters asserted in pleadings, for litigation documents ordinarily present assertions by the client, and not assertions by the lawyer.

Answer 163

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 164

No, because the prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false, and a lawyer’s belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact.

Answer 164

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 165

Yes, because in a criminal case, a lawyer cannon refuse to offer the testimony of a client where the lawyer believes, but does not know, that the testimony will be false; unless the lawyer knows that the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the client’s decision to testify.

Answer 165

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 166

Yes, because the attorney does not know with certainty that they are lying, he must allow the client to testify, and it is permissible to call the girlfriend a witness as well.

Answer 166

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 167

No, the attorney must either disclose the contemplated perjury to the tribunal, or refuse to call the witness, or withdraw from the representation.

Answer 167

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 168

Yes, because a lawyer’s duty to tale remedial measures after perjury occurs continue only to the conclusion of the proceeding.

Answer 168

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 169

No, the case is not controlling authority in that jurisdiction.

Answer 169

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 170

Yes, the Model Rules require a lawyer to take remedial measures when a client offers false statements even during a deposition.

Answer 170

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 171

No, because a lawyer must correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.

Answer 171

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 172

Yes, because this is a circumstance where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation.

Answer 172

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 173

No, the duty of candor in Mode; Rule 3.3 is inapplicable to mediation; nevertheless, other rules such as Rule 4.1 may apply to the lawyer’s untruthfulness here.

Answer 173

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

Question 174

No, because lawyers may not pay a witness to attend and testify at a hearing or trial.

Answer 174

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 175

Yes, because the attorney concealed or obstructed the police’s access to potential evidence by discarding the gun, and he counseled the client to destroy the evidence on his clothes.

Answer 175

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 176

No, because a lawyer may disobey an order from a tribunal when the lawyer has made an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.

Answer 176

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 177

Yes, it is impermissible for a lawyer to pay an eyewitness to attend and testify at a hearing or trial.

Answer 177

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 178

No, the Mode Rules do not forbid a lawyer from asking a family member to refrain from giving information to the other party.

Answer 178

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 179

Yes, the Model Rules do not permit lawyers to offer witnesses money to refrain from testifying or providing information about the matter, with exceptions that do not apply here.

Answer 179

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 180

Yes, it was not reasonable for the general counsel to believe that refraining from giving such information would not impinge on the employee’s interests.

Answer 180

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 181

Yes, because a lawyer may take measures to eliminate metadata from documents that could later fall into the hands of an opposing party.

Answer 181

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 182

No, because the main reason for scrubbing metadata is to conceal information that might be useful to an opposing party or tribunal in the present litigation.

Answer 182

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 183

Yes, the lawyer was attempting to communicate with the judges and potential jurors through public commentary.

Answer 183

Rule 3.5 Impartiality And Decorum of the Tribunal

Question 184

Yes, regardless of the attorney’s intentions, the conversation violated the prohibition on ex parte communication with jurors.

Answer 184

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 185

Yes, because a lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, or even a prospective juror.

Answer 185

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 186

Yes, because a lawyer may stand firm against abuse by a judge but should avoid reciprocation; the judge’s default is no justification for similar dereliction by an advocate.

Answer 186

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 187

No, because he communicated with a juror about a pending case.

Answer 187

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 188

No, a lawyer may not send an access request to a juror to review of the juror’s electronic social media.

Answer 188

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 189

No, a lawyer may not send an access request to a juror to review of the juror’s electronic social media, even vicariously through an intern.

Answer 189

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 190

It is permissible for a lawyer to review a juror’s Internet presence, which may include postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of and during a trial.

Answer 190

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 191

Yes, the attorney had an impermissible ex-parte communication with the judge presiding over the attorney’s case.

Answer 191

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 192

The fact that a juror or a potential juror may become aware that the lawyer is reviewing his Internet presence when a social media network setting notifies the juror of such review does not constitute a communication from the lawyer in violation of Rule 3.5 (b).

Answer 192

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 193

No, even though a colleague of the prosecutor was handling the trial in which the cousin was a juror, the prosecutor’s conversation violated the ethical prohibitions on ex parte communication with jurors.

Answer 193

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel

Question 194

No, because there is a presumption of prejudicial effect on the proceedings when a lawyer comments publicly about the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal of failure of a person to submit to an examination or test.

Answer 194

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

Question 195

No, because there is a presumption of prejudicial effect on the proceedings when a lawyer comments publicly about the possibility of a guilty plea, or a party’s refusal to confess to a crime.

Answer 195

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

Question 196

No, because the official Comment to the Model Rules says that expressing an opinion about a party’s guilt or innocence, or about the criminal record of a party or witness, is more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceedings when a lawyer comments publicly about the possibility of a guilty plea, or a party’s refusal to confess to a crime.

Answer 196

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

Question 197

No, because the official Comment to the Model Rules says that expressing an opinion about a party’s guilt or innocence, or about the criminal record of a party or witness, is more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding.

Answer 197

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

Question 198

Yes, because a lawyer should not make extrajudicial comments about the criminal record of a party during a criminal matter.

Answer 198

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

Question 199

No, because in a criminal matter, there is a presumption of prejudice when a lawyer makes extrajudicial statements about the expected testimony of a party or witness.

Answer 199

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

Question 200

Yes, because a lawyer in a criminal case may state the fact, time, and place of arrest.

Answer 200

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

Question 201

No, because in a criminal case, there is a presumption of prejudice when a prosecutor states publicly that a defendant is the subject of criminal charges, unless he includes a s statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant still has a presumption of innocence.

Answer 201

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

Question 202

No, because a lawyer in a criminal case may state the identity, residence, occupation, and family status of the accused.

Answer 202

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

Question 203

No, because a lawyer should not publicly express any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration.

Answer 203

Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity

Question 204

No, the attorney is a material witness for the seller in the upcommg trial.

Answer 204

Rule 3.7 Lawyer As Witness

Question 205

No, a lawyer serving in a capacity other than that of a courtroom advocate may serve as a witness for the lawyer’s client.

Answer 205

Rule 3.7 Lawyer As Witness

Question 206

Yes, a lawyer who testifies before a judicial officer concerning only a preliminary motion may still serve serving as advocate at a subsequent trial before a jury.

Answer 206

Rule 3.7 Lawyer As Witness