Duties to Profession / Third Parties Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Duty of Candor to Tribunal in Stating Law and Facts

A

L must:
1. Corret prior false statements of material facts
2. Disclose all material facts in ex parte proceedings
3. Not make false statements of fact or law
4. Disclose controlling legal authority even if harmful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Duty of Candor to Tribunal Regarding False Evidence

A

Lawyer:
1. Must Refuse to offer evidence known to be false
2. May refuse to offer evidence L reasonably believes to be false
3. Must take remedial action if L later learns evidence provided is false by (i) urging client to withdraw; (ii) seeking to withdraw or strike evidence; (iii) tell judge (not CA if confidential)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Duty of Candor to Tribunal re Perjury

A

ABA: Take reasonable remedial measures approach
CA: Instead of telling Judge, have client testify in narrative form

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Duty to Expedite Litigation

A

Consistent with C’s interests, L must make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Advertising

A

Must be:
1. Truthful
2. Labeled as Advertising
3. Provide Name/Address of Firm and at least one L

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

CA Presumption of Advertising Violation

A
  1. Express Guaranty or Warranty
  2. Testimonial Without Disclaimer
  3. Fee w/o recovery label withotu disclosure of client costs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Duty to Unrepresented Party

A

Can’t ask disinterested and can’t give them legal advise

advise them to seek counsel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Duty to Represented Parties

A

Must communicate thorugh other L unless that L consents, or authorized by law or Courto rder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Duty to Employees of Corporation

A

May Speak to Them if:
1. Person who supervises, directs, or regualrly consults with org’s lawyer concerning matter
2. Person has authority to obligate org
3. Person’s act or omission may be imputed to org
4. NOT FORMER EMLOYEES

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Duty to Oppossing L re: Inadvertant Disclosures

A
  1. Promptly notify Sender
  2. Do not falsify, tamper, or alter
  3. Return the material
  4. NOTE: In CA, do not examine once determined it falls under work product doctrien
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Trial Publicity

A

No extrajudicial statement if there is a substanital likelihood of material prejudice

May resond to extrajudicial statements to protect client’s interests

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Duty to Profession

A

-No Friviolous Claims
No Harrassment/Threats (CA)
-No Trial Antics (“Chicanery) in ABA (CA slightly more relaxed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Reporting Ethical Violations

A

CA: Report of others permitted but *must report own violations *
ABA: Must report another L’s violation that raises substantial question as to fitness of L

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Duty of Supervising Attorney

A

Responsible for another’s violation if they ordered it, ratified it, or failed to mitigate it

Firm must trai members to fllohtics rules

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Duty of Subordinate Lawyers

A

Only responsible for clear violations of ethics by or ordered by supervisor

Not Responsible for following supervisor’s reasonable resolution of an arguable ethcs question

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Duty of Subordinate Lawyers

A

Only responsible for clear violations of ethics by or ordered by supervisor

Not Responsible for following supervisor’s reasonable resolution of an arguable ethcs question