Pro Res 1-8

Attorney Alford is admitted to practice before the highest court of State A, but not in State B. Client Clara lives in State A, but she runs a business in State B. She asks Alford to defend her in a lawsuit pending in a trial court of State B. The suit involves proper interpretation of a State B business tax statute. Would it be proper for Alford to represent Clara?

A. Yes, if the State B court admits him pro hac vice, that is, for the sole purpose of litigating this case.

B. Yes, because State B cannot constitutionally discriminate against non-resident attorneys.

C. No, because Clara's business is conducted in State B, and he is not admitted to practice in in State B.

D. No, because the suit involves the interpretation of a State B statute, and he is not admitted to practice in State B.

A. Yes, if the State B court admits him pro hac vice, that is, for the sole purpose of litigating this case.

Lawyer Linda is admitted to practice in State A, but not in State B. Her cousin asks her to write a letter recommending him for admission to practice law in sTate B. Linda knows that her cousin is educationally well-qualified to be a lawyer, but she regards him as thoroughly dishonest. May Linda write a letter stating that her cousin is fit to practice law?

A. No, because Linda is not a member of the bar in State B.

B. No, because Linda would be making a false statement of a material fact.

C. Yes, because her belief about her cousin's lack of honesty is merely her own opinion.

D. Yes, because the bar of State B will decide for itself whether her cousin is a person of good moral character.

B. No, because Linda would be making a false statement of a material fact.

Law graduate Samuel has passed State C's bar exam. For which of the following reasons could State C constitutionally refuse to admit Samuel to practice?

I. Samuel plans to live in neighboring State D and to commute to work at a law office in State C.

II. Samuel is an active member of the Founding Fathers Party, a small but vocal political organization that advocates radical realignment of the respective powers of the state and federal governments.

III. Samuel is not a citizen of the United States.

IV. Two years ago, Samuel was convicted of federal tax fraud.

A. None of the above.

B. All of the above.

C. II, II, and IV only

D. IV only

D. IV only

One of lawyer Leon's clients gave him a "Little Yellow Box," an electronic device that enables one to make free long distance telephone calls from a pay phone. Leon used it occasionally to call his mother in Des Moines. Use of such a device is a misdemeanor under the applicable state law. Leon was arrested for using the device. At his trial, he denied ever having it in his possession. The judge did not believe him, found him guilty, and fined him $1,000. That same week, Leon's law partner, Leona, went backpacking in the mountains. She was arrested by a Forest Ranger for violating a state statute that makes it a misdemeanor to pick mushrooms in a state forest during certain months. Leona did not know about the statute. Leona pleaded guilty to the charge, and the judge fined her $1,000.

A. Both Leon and Leona are subject to discipline.

B. Neither Leon nor Leona is subject to discipline.

C. Leon is subject to discipline, but Leona is not.

D. Leona is subject to discipline, but Leon is not.

C. Leon is subject to discipline, but Leona is not.

When law student Sabrina was 17 years old, a juvenile court in State A convicted her of shoplifting a $2,500 fur coat. She served eight months in a juvenile correction facility and thereafter was under the supervision of a parole officer for one year. After her parole, she completed high school, college, and law school, and she led a totally law-abiding life. When Sabrina applied for admission to practice law in State B, she was required to fill out a questionnaire. One question asked her to disclose "all convictions, including juvenile convictions." In answering that question she put "N/A," on the theory that her juvenile offense in State A was irrelevant to her present moral character. The bar of State B did not learn about her State A conviction until six months after she had been admitted to practice in State B. Is Sabrina subject to discipline?

A. Yes, because she withheld a material fact when she answered the questionnaire.

B. Yes, because a person who has committed a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is disqualified from practicing law.

C. No, because her prior juvenile conviction was not relevant to her moral character at the time of her application to the bar.

D. No, because State B's questionnaire is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

A. Yes, because she withheld a material fact when she answered the questionnaire.

Attorney Arner is a member of the bar of State C. While on vacation in State D, Arner was stopped by a police officer for driving a rental car 95 mph in a 65 mph speed zone. Arner offered the police officer five crisp $100 bills, saying: "Do you think we can make this little problem go away?" Then he was arrested for attempted bribery of a police officer, a felony. He was ultimately convicted of that offense in State D and was fined $10,000. Is Arner subject to discipline in State C?

A. No, because his conduct took place beyond the jurisdiction of State C.

B. Yes, because he conduct involves dishonesty and suggests that he is unfit to practice law.

C. No, because his conduct was not connected with the practice of law. D. Yes, because commission of any criminal act is grounds for professional discipline.

B. Yes, because his conduct involves dishonesty and suggests that he is unfit to practice law.

Client Cathcart hired lawyer Lindell to prepare an estate plan. In connection with that work, Cathcart told Lindell in strict confidence about a criminal fraud perpetrated by Cathcart's former lawyer, Foreman. Lindell urged Cathcart to report Foreman's conduct to the state bar. For unstated reasons, Cathcart refused to do so and refused to allow Lindell to do so. What is the proper course of conduct for Lindell in this situation:

A. To keep the information in confidence, as Cathcart instructed.

B. To speak with Foreman in confidence, to inform him what Cathcart said, and to use Foreman to rectify his fraud.

C. To report the information to the state bar, despite Cathcart's instruction not to do so.

D. To write an anonymous letter to the state bar, relating the facts disclosed by Cathcart.

A. To keep the information in confidence, as Cathcart instructed.

For many years, lawyer Snyder has represented a professional football team, the Raptors, in business law matters. On the team's behalf, Snyder has filed a breach of contract case against the City Board of Commissioners concerning the stadium that the city leases to the Raptors. Snyder 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 Snyder's co-counsel and to do the actual trial work. Although Snyder 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 Snyder 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 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 team owners.

C. Ask the team owners consent to his withdrawal, if he believes that is in their best interests.

Attorney Arbuck is admitted to practice in State A. The State A Rules of Court require court permission before an attorney can withdraw from a pending case. The courts of State A have statutory authority to impose litigation sanctions on lawyers who violate the Rules of Court. State A does not recognize attorney retaining liens on client's funds, property, or litigation files (that is, an atty cannot keep these items to secure payment of his or her fee). Arbuckle agreed to defend Clauzoff in a civil action for theft of the plaintiff's trade secrets. Clauzoff agreed to pay Arbuckle $100 per hour, and he gave Arbuckle a $10k advance for litigation expenses. Three times, the plaintiff scheduled the taking of Clauzoff's deposition, and all three times, Clauzoff failed to show up. Further, despite repeated promises, Clauzoff failed to send Arbuckle some documents that Arbuckle needed in order to draft responses to the plaintiff's interrogatories. After Arbuckle put in 40 hours on the case, he billed Clauzoff $4k, but Clauzoff refused to pay the fee bill. Finally, Arbuckle decided to have nothing further to do w/ the case; when plaintiff's counsel called, Arbuckle told her that he had resigned as the lawyer for Clauzoff. Clauzoff asked Arbuckle to hand over the litigation files and to refund the unspent part of the $10k expense advance, but Arbuckle refused both requests. Which of the following statements are correct?

I. Arbuckle is subject to litigation sanctions for stepping out of the case w/o the court's consent.

II. Arbuckle is subject to discipline for withdrawing from the case w/o adequate grounds.

III. Arbuckle is subject for discipline for refusing to hand over the litigation files to Clauzoff.

IV. Arbuckle is subject to discipline for refusing to refund the unspent part of the expense advance.

A. All of the above.

B. I and IV only.

C. II, III, and IV only.

D. I, III, and IV only.

D. I, III, and IV only.

Jason P. Worthington III is among the wealthiest men in New York society. When his son was arrested for selling illegal drugs to his prep school classmates, Worthington sought the legal services of the prestigious old firm of Bradbury & Crosswell. The Bradbury firm practices almost nothing but securities and banking law. For which of the following reasons may the Bradbury firm decline employment in the case?

I. That Worthington is not among the firm's regular clients.

II. That the firm is not experienced in criminal litigation.

III. That Worthington can obtain better service at lower fees from lawyers with more experience in criminal litigation.

IV. That the firm does not want to take time away from its regular work for a matter such as this one. \\n A. All of the above.

B. None of the above.

C. III only.

D. II only.

A. All of the above.

When attorney Hodges graduated from law school three years ago, she opened a solo practice in a small rural community close to the state's major prison. Her primary interest are family law and real estate law. Her practice is growing very slowly, despite her long work hours. She is barely able to make financial ends meet. The presiding judge of the local sTate District Court has asked her to serve as court-appointed counsel in a civil action that was originally filed in propria persona by an indigent inmate of the prison. From the roughly drawn complaint, the presiding judge believes there may be some merit in the inmate's allegations of brutality by some of the guards and gross neglect on the part of the warden. State law allows atty fees to be award to a plaintiff in a civil action of this type, but only if the plaintiff is victorious. Atty Hodges realizes that she will not be paid for her work if she loses the case and she is very concerned about the financial loss she may suffer if she takes time away from her regular practice. Further, she is worried about harming her reputation b/c the warden and many employees form the nucleus of her community. Which of the following statements are correct?

I. She may decline to serve on the ground that her practice is primarily in the fields of real estate and family law.

II. She may decline to serve if she believes in good faith that she cannot reasonably take the financial risk involved.

III. She may decline to serve if she believes in good faith that to serve would seriously injure her reputation in the community.

IV. She may decline to serve if she believes in good faith that some of her present clients will be offended if she takes the case.

A. All of the above.

B. None of the above.

C. II only.

D. I, II, and IV only.

C. II only.

Lawyer Yeager has been retained by the officers of Amalgamated Finishers and Patternworkers Union, Local 453, to draft a new set of bylaws for the local. Yeager strongly disagrees w/ one of the provisions the officers want included in the new bylaws. The provision would deny members of the local the right to vote on some issues that involve the expenditure of union funds. Although Yeager believes that the provision is lawful and consistent w/ the national union charter, she believes it would be unwise and inconsistent w/ the best interests of the members of the local. If the union can obtain other counsel w/o serious loss, may Yeager withdraw from the matter?

A. Yes, but only if she obtains the consent of her client.

B. Yes, because her client is asking her to do something that is against her best judgment.

C. No, because she is obliged to carry out the lawful objectives of her client.

D. No, unless her client has breached the agreement under which she agreed to perform the work.

B. Yes, because her client is asking her to do something that is against her best judgment.

For a century or more, the commercial fishing industry in Northport has been dominated by two feuding clans, the VonRutz family and the McCabe family. The McCabes hired lawyer Lang to sue the VonRutzes in federal court for predatory pricing in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The complaint alleges that the VonRutzes have been selling their fish below cost with the intent of driving the McCabes out of business, which would give the VonRutzes monopoly power in the Northport area. The info that was available to Lang when he drafted the complaint supported the "below cost" allegation. During pretrial discovery, however, it became obvious that the VonRutzes never sold their fish below their "average total cost." Under the applicable law, that means that they could not possibly have been engaged in predatory pricing, and no good faith argument can be made for changing that law. Nevertheless, the McCabes instructed Lang to move for summary judgment, explaining: the VonRutzes caused misery for our fathers and our grandfathers. Winning isn't important -- we just want to remind those rotten VonRutzes that it's expensive to mess w/ the McCabes." If Lang follows his client's instruction to move for summary judgment:

A. Lang will not be subject to discipline because he is obliged to follow his client's instructions on matters that affect the client's substantial legal rights.

B. Lang potentially will be subject to litigation sanctions because discovery has revealed that his client's claim is frivolous.

C. Lang will be subject to civil liability for malicious prosecution, no matter what the ultimate outcome of the predatory pricing case.

D. Lang will not be subject to discipline because he did not know until pretrial discovery that his client's claim was frivolous.

B. Lang will potentially be subject to litigation sanctions because discovery has revealed that his client's claim is frivolous.

Mark Norris is a newscaster for the local television station. Every weeknight, following the evening news, he presented a ten-minute segment entitled "This Funny Town." It is patterned on an old-fashioned newspaper gossip column. Most of it concerns the private lives and peccadilloes of the community's prominent and would-be prominent citizens of the community. Judges and lawyers are among Mr. Norris's favorite subjects. He and attorney Philos have arrived at a tacit arrangement. Whenever Philos hears a piece of juicy gossip about a local judge or lawyer, he passes it along to Norris. In return, Norris frequently recommends Philos legal services in his broadcast. For example, Norris calls Philos a fearless courtroom ace or he states opinions like if you want o win a case, hire Philos. Is he subject to discipline?

A. Yes because Philos is providing something of value to Norris for recommending his services

B. Yes, because a lawyer can be disciplined for demeaning other members of the legal profession

C. No, unless he gives false or privilege information to Norris.

D. No, because Philos conduct is a protected form of speech under the first and Fourteenth Amendment

A. Yes, because Philos is providing something of value to Norris for recommending his services.

Three years ago, attorneys Hooten and Snod formed a law partnership. A year later Hooter died and Snod continued practicing under the former firm name. Then Snod hired a salaried associate, attorney Tremble, and the firm name was changed to Hooten, Snod, and Tremble. The following year, Snod left law practice to become a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commision. Tremble took over the practice and continued to use the same name. Later, because he had more space in the office than he needed, he entered into a space-sharing agreement with attorney Gangler. The sign on the door now reads Tremble and Gangler Attorney at law. Which of the following are correct

I. After Hotten died, it was proper for Snod to continue using the firm name Hotten and Snod

II. When Snod hired tremble it was proper to change the firm name to Hooten, Snod, and Tremble

III. After Snod joined the FTC, it was proper for Tremble to continue using Snod as part of the firm name

IV. The present sign on the door is proper

A. All of the above

B. I, II, III only

C. I and II only

D. I only

D. I only

Attorney Anton advertised on the local television station. His advertisement stated in relevant part "The most I will charge for any type of legal work is 100 per hour and if your problem is not complicated, the hourly fee will be even lower. Which of the following proposition are correct?

I. Anton may advertise on the local television station so long as his advertisement is not false or misleading

II. If Anton charges 125 per hour for complicated legal work, He will be subject to discipline for using a misleading advertisement

III. If Anton's advertisement fails to state that some other lawyers in the community charge a substantially lower fee, he will be subject to discipline

A. only II is correct

B. only I and III are correct

C. only I and II are correct

D. Only II and III are correct

C. only I and II are correct

Lawyer Del Campos practices in a town in which 25% of the people are Mexican American and another 20% have recently immigrated to the United States from Mexico. The bar of his state does not certify specialists in any field of law nor does it approve private organizations that certify legal specialists. However, Del Campos has been certified as a specialist in immigration law by the American Association of Immigration Attorneys, a private organization accredited by the ABa. Del Campos wants to put an advertisement in the classified section of the local telephone book. Which of the following items of information may be included in his advertisement

I. That he serves clients who are members of the continental prepaid legal service plan

II. That he speaks Spanish

III. That he has been certified as an immigration specialist by the American Association of Immigration Attorney

IV. That he could arrange credit for fee payments

A. All of the above

B. None of the above

C. I, II, and IV only

D. I and III only

A. All of the above.

Attorney Salmon published a brochure entitled "What to do when you are injured." It contains accurate helpful information on obtaining medical treatment, recording details of the event, notifying insurance companies, not making harmful statements, and the like. The cover of the brochure identifies Salmon as a Personal Injury attorney and gives his office address and telephone number. One afternoon, Salmon was standing in a crowd of people that saw a pregnant woman knocked down in a pedestrian crosswalk by a speeding car. A few days later, Salmon mailed the woman a copy of his brochure together with a letter stating that had witnessed the accident and was willing to represent her for a reasonable fee should she wish to sue the car driver. The outside envelope stated that the envelope contained Advertising Materials. The bar in Salmons state does not have a 30-hour waiting period of the kind involved in Went for It inc

A. Salmon is subject to discipline for both sending the woman the brochure and sending her the letter

B. Salmon is subject to discipline for sending the woman the letter but not for sending her the brochure

C. Salmon is subject to discipline for offering his legal services for a fee to a person who was not a relative, client, or former client

D. Salmons's conduct was proper

D. Salmon's conduct was proper

Attorney Gresler offered a free half-day seminar for nurses, hospital attendants, and emergency medical personnel on personal injury law as it relates to accident victims. During the seminar, he told the group about the importance of preserving items of physical evidence, keeping accurate records of medical treatment, and accurately recording statements made by the victim and others about the accident and the like. At the close of the seminar, he passed out packets of his professional cards and invited the members of the group to give them to accident victims. Was Gresler's conduct proper?

A. Yes, because a lawyer has an ethical obligation to help nonlawyers recognize legal problems and handle those problems correctly

B. Yes, because his conduct is protected by the free speech class of the first and fourteenth Amendments

C. No, because he invited members of the group to hand out his professional cards to accident victims

D. No, because he dispensed legal advice to people with whom he had no proper professional relationship

C. No, because he invited members of the group to hand out his professional cards to accident victims.

After graduating from law school, three young women formed their own new firm dedicated to the law of women's rights in the workplace. They established an attractive site on the Internet. Their website included very specific biographical information about each of them, including information about their families, their hobbies, and all the academic and athletic honors they received. The site also includes detailed thoroughly researched position papers they have written on current legal issues in their field of law practice. The position papers are written so they can be issues in their field of law practice. The position papers are written so they can be understood by a lay audience. the website includes an email link that allows site visitors to ask the legal questions of the three lawyers. The question form requires the questionnaire to supply enough information about him or herself to permit the lawyer to do a conflict of interest check before responding to the question. The questioner supplies a credit card number, the lawyers charge a small fee for e-mailing an answer to the question. The lawyer does not answer questions from site visitors who live outside the state in which the lawyer has their office. If a question is too difficult to answer competently by e-mail, the lawyer invites the questioner to come to their office for a free initial consultation. Is the conduct proper?

A. No, because their website includes personal information about the three lawyers that is not relevant to the potential client's selection of the lawyer

B. No, because the e-mail feature permits the three lawyers to dispense legal advice to people they have never met and with whom they have never established a lawyer-client relationship

C. Yes, but only if the fee for emailing an answer to a question is not unreasonably high

D. Yes, but only if the position papers are non-controversial legal issues that do not require specialized knowledge of a women's employment law

C. Yes, but only if the fee for emailing an answer to a question is not unreasonably high.

The firm Wilkens and Crosses has existed for many years in Chicago. Now it wishes to open an office in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles office will be established as a separate partnership. Some of the proposed Los Angeles partners are admitted to practice only in California and they will not become partners in the Chicago firm. Some of the Chicago partners are admitted to practice in both Illinois and California; they will retain their partnership in the Chicago firm, and they will also become partners in the Los Angeles firm. The letterheads of both firms will accurately identify which lawyers are admitted to practice in which jurisdiction. The two firms will regularly refer work back and forth and each firm will be available to the other firm and its clients for consultation and advice. Further, on some occasions, partners and associates will be transferred from one firm to the other. each firm will advertise itself as an affiliate of the other firm. Is the arrangement proper?

A. Yes, provided that the nature of the affiliate relationship is explained

B. Yes, because the affiliate is a broad term that can cover many kinds of relationships

C. No, because a partner of a firm in one state is not permitted to be a partner of a firm in a different state

D. No, because the arrangement contemplates the referral of work from one firm to the other in violation of the solicitation rule

A. Yes, provided the nature of the affiliate relationship is explained.

Criminal defense lawyer Lenox agreed to represent defendant Denmon at Denmon’s trial for arson. Lenox and Denmon orally agreed on the following attorney fee arrangement. If Denmon were acquitted, the fee would be $25k. If Denmon were convicted of arson, the fee would be $5k. If Denmon were convicted of arson, the fee would be $500. Lenox further agreed to advance all litigation expenses, subject to Denmon’s promise to repay Lenox whatever the outcome of the case. Which of the following statements are correct?

I. Lenox is subject to discipline for not putting the fee agreement in writing.

II. It was proper for Lenox to agree to advance litigation expenses.

III. Lenox is subject to discipline for charging a contingent fee in a criminal case.

IV. It was proper for Lenox to require Denmon to repay the advanced litigation expenses whatever the outcome of the case.

A. Only I, II, and IV are correct.

B. Only I and III are correct.

C. Only II and IV are correct.

D. All of the statements are correct

D. All of the statements are correct.

Attorney Kimberly represented client Marsha in a divorce proceeding in a non-community property jurisdiction that has a no-fault divorce law. Marsha was married for 25 years, and during the marriage her husband became a very wealthy business executive. The two children of the marriage grew up and left home. Marsha had a savings account of her own, but she was not wealthy, and had no marketable job skills. Kimberly convinced Marsha to sign a contingent fee agreement, in which Kimberly’s fee would be 25% of whatever property settlement Marsha would get in the divorce decree. The divorce court awarded Marsha a $10 mil dollar property settlement. Marsha refused to pay Kimberly the $2.5 mil fee due under the fee agreement, saying that it was unreasonably high. After trying w/o success to settle the fee dispute amicably, Kimberly sued Marsha to collect the fee. May the court award Kimberly less that $2.5 mil?

A. No, bc Kimberly took the risk of not being paid anything when she took the case on contingency, and she is entitled to be compensated for that risk.

B. Yes, because Kimberly acted improperly in using a contingent fee agreement in a divorce case, where the amount of the fee was controlled by the amount of the property settlement.

C. No, because a contingent fee agreement is permissible in a domestic relations case, except where the contingency is the granting of a divorce.

D. Yes, because it is unethical for a lawyer to sue her own client to collect a fee.

B. Yes, because Kimberly acted improperly in using a contingent fee agreement in a divorce case, where the amount of the fee was controlled by the amount of the property settlement.

Lawyer Leland is admitted to practice only in Kentucky. He regularly represents Holiday Hotels, Inc., a Kentucky corporation w/ its principal offices in Lexington. Holiday was sued for trademark infringement in Oregon, and Holiday asked Leland to oversee the case and to select appropriate Oregon counsel to do the trial work. With Holiday’s approval, Leland selected attorney Alvarez, and Alvarez paid Leland $1,000 for the referral. Leland oversaw all of the work in the case, and he conducted all of the discovery that took place in Kentucky. Alvarez conducted all of the discovery that took place in Oregon, and he prepared the case for trial and served as trial counsel. At the conclusion of the case, Leland and Alvarez submitted separate bills to Holiday for their respective services. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. It was proper for Leland and Alvarez to bill Holiday separately, assuming that each bill was reasonable in amount.

B. It was proper for Alvarez to pay Leland $1,000 for the referral, since the tow lawyers shared the work and responsibility for the case.

C. Leland and Alvarez are subject to discipline for failing to submit a single bill to Holiday, because the two lawyers shared the work and responsibility for the case.

D. The arrangement was proper, unless the total fee Holiday paid was higher that it would have been absent the $1,000 referral fee.

A. It was proper for Leland and Alvarez to bill Holiday separately, assuming that each bill was reasonable in amount.

After Carlson was injured in a car wreck, he was treated the hospital for twelve days by physician Patino; she billed him $7,500 for her medical services. The wreck put Carlson out of work, and he had no way to pay Patino’s bill. He hired attorney Aragon to sue the person who caused the wreck; in a written fee agreement, Aragon promised to do the work for a contingent fee. Aragon decided that Patino would make a good expert witness in the case. Aragon and Carlson agreed that Aragon would lend Carlson $7,500 to pay PAtino’s medical bill and that Aragon would advance the money needed to pay Patino at $100 per hour for the time she spent preparing to testify and testifying as an expert witness. Carlson agreed to pay back Aragon at the conclusion of the case. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. Aragon is subject to discipline for taking the case on a contingent fee.

B. Aragon is subject to discipline for agreeing to lend Carlson the $7500.

C. Aragon is subject to discipline for participating in an agreement to pay a witness for giving testimony.

D. Aragon is subject to discipline for agreeing to advance the money needed to pay Patino’s expert witness fee.

B. Aragon is subject to discipline for agreeing to lend Carlson the $7500.

Attorney Arnstein agreed to represent client Clemens in a products liability suit against Draxco, Inc. Clemens refused to discuss Arnstein’s fee at the outset of the case; rather, Clemens insisted on a provision in the retainer agreement that Arnstein would do the work “for a reasonable fee, to be deducted from the proceeds” of the case. After a long period of discovery, Arnstein arranged a very favorable settlement b/w Clemens and Draxco. Draxco paid the $175k settlement by a check made payable to Arnstein. Arnstein immediately deposited the check in his client trust account and invited Clemens to come by the office to settle their affairs. When Clemens arrived, Arnstein gave him a bill for $25k. He computed that amount by multiplying the number of hours he spent on the case (350) times his normal hourly rate ($65), and adding an extra $2250 because of the generousness of the settlement he had achieved for Clemens. When Clemens looked at the bill, he began to shout that the fee was outrageously high. Arnstein explained the basis of his charge, and he offered to arbitrate the matter through the local bar association, but Clemens refused. When Clemens demanded immediate payment of the entire $175k, Arnstein gave him a check, drawn on his client trust account, in the amount of $150k. Arnstein kept the other $25k in his client trust account, pending the ultimate resolution of the fee dispute. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. Arnstein’s handling of the matter was proper.

B. Arnstein is subject to discipline for charging Clemens more than his normal hourly rate.

C. Arnstein is subject to discipline for depositing the entire proceeds of Draxco’s check in his client trust account.

D. Arnstein is subject to discipline for keeping the $25k in his client trust account pending resolution of the fee dispute.

A. Arnstein’s handling of the matter was proper.

Client Fujitomi entrusted lawyer Lee w/ $10k, to be used six weeks later to close a business transaction. Lee immediately deposited it in her client trust account; at the time, it was the only money in that account. Later that same day, the local bar association called Lee and asked her to rush out to the Municipal Court to take over the defense of an indigent drunkard, Watkins, who was being tried for violating an obscure municipal statute. Because of the chaos in the Public Defender’s Office, Watkins was being tried w/o the benefit of counsel. By the time Lee arrived, the judge had already found Watkins guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of $350 or spend 30 days in jail. Under a peculiar rule of court, the only way to keep Watkins from going to jail was to pay the fine immediately and to request a trial de novo in the Superior Court. Therefore, Lee paid the fine w/ a check drawn on her client trust account, and Watkins promised to repay her w/in one week. Which of the statements is correct?

A. Lee’s handling of the Watkins matter was proper.

B. Lee would have been subject to litigation sanction if she had allowed Watkins to go to jail.

C. If Lee had paid Watkins’ fine out of her personal bank account, that would have been proper.

D. Lee would have been subject to discipline for handling the matter in any other manner than she did.

C. If Lee had paid Watkins’ fine out of her personal bank account, that would have been proper.

Attorney Ayers represents client Canfield as plaintiff in a suit to compel specific performance of a contract. Canfield contracted to purchase Thunderbolt, a thoroughbred race horse, from defendant Dennis in exchange for $1.5 mil worth of corporate bonds owned by Canfield. Canfield transferred the bonds to Dennis, but Dennis refused to deliver Thunderbolt. Two months before het scheduled trial date, Canfield gave Ayers the following instructions: “I am leaving tomorrow on a six week sailing trip through the South Pacific, and you will not be able to reach me by any means. IF Dennis makes any reasonable settlement offer before I return, please accept it, but try to get the horse if you can.” A week later, Dennis’s lawyer called Ayers and said: “Dennis wants to capitulate. He will either return the bonds, or he will turn over Thunderbolt. He insists on an immediate response, so call me back this afternoon.” Ayers believes in good faith that Thunderbolt is a tired nag, worth far less that $1.5 mil. Further, Ayers discovers that it will cost nearly $1,000 to keep Thunderbolt in a safe, bonded stable until Canfield’s return. What is the proper course of action?

A. Get the bonds and put them in a safe deposit box until Canfield returns.

B. Tell Dennis’s lawyer that he cannot respond until Canfield returns.

C. Get Thunderbolt and house him in the safe, bonded stable at Canfield’s expense until Canfield returns.

D. Get Thunderbolt and turn him out to pasture on ayers’ farm until Canfield returns.

C. Get Thunderbolt and house him in the safe, bonded stable at Canfield’s expense until Canfield returns.

On June 1st, client Catlin hired attorney Acevedo to sue defendant Degan for securities fraud. Catlin and Acevedo realized that the complaint would have to be filed by Sept. 15th to be w/in the statute of limitations. Acevedo was very busy with other matters. Starting in mid-August, Catlin telephoned Acevedo every few days to see what progress Acevedo was making. Acevedo repeatedly assured Catlin that he was assembling the facts and preparing preliminary drafts of the complaint, but in truth Acevedo was doing nothing on the case. On Sept. 10th, Catlin learned from Acevedo’s secretary that Acevedo had still not started to work on the case. At that point, Catlin fired Acevedo and hired a different lawyer who was able to get the complaint filed by Sept. 15th. Although Acevedo did not charge Catlin any fee, Catlin reported the matter to the state bar. Which of the following is most nearly correct?

A. If Acevedo would have been able to complete the necessary work by Sept. 15th, his conduct was proper.

B. Since Catlin suffered no damage due to Acevedo’s delay, Acevedo’s conduct was proper.

C. Even though Catlin suffered no damage due to Acevedo’s delay, Acevedo is subject to civil liability for malpractice

D. Acevedo is subject to discipline for neglecting Catlin’s case and for lying to Catlin about the status of the matter.

D. Acevedo is subject to discipline for neglecting Catlin’s case and for lying to Catlin about the status of the matter.

Lawyer Lloyd was an associate attorney employed by the law firm of Ames & Baker. The firm is an ordinary partnership, not a limited liability entity. Client Cress hires Ames to sue one of his competitors for false advertising. Ames assigned Lloyd to do the necessary research and draft the complaint. Lloyd confined her research to state law. Any reasonably competent general practitioner would have discovered a more favorable body of federal law under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Ames eventually brought the case to trial on state law theories only, and Cress lost. Had the case been tried under the Lanham Act, Cress would have won a large judgment. Which of the following propositions are correct?

I. Lloyd is subject to civil liability for malpractice.

II. If Lloyd is subject to liability for malpractice, then so is Ames.

III. If Lloyd and Ames are subject to civil liability for malpractice, then so is Baker.

IV. None of the three lawyers is subject to civil liability for malpractice.

A. Only IV is correct.

B. Only I is correct.

C. Only I, II, and III are correct.

D. Only I and II are correct.

C. Only I, II, and III are correct

The Community Association for the Homeless (CAH) is a non-profit charitable corporation that provides food and temporary shelter for homeless persons. CAH subsists on charitable donations and volunteer labor provided by members of the community. CAH owns a large home in a the downtown area, but it has virtually no other assets. Seeking to assist CAH in a time of financial need, Corliss Cheng decided to lend CAH $500k, interest-free, for 2 years. Lawyer Landsman offered his services w/o a fee to represent CAH in the transaction and to prepare the necessary loan papers. Cheng was not represented by a lawyer in the transaction. Landsman prepared a suitable promissory note. The officers of CAH duly executed the note and presented it to Cheng in return for the $500k. A year later, CAH was overcome by financial disaster; the corporation was dissolved, and its creditors took over its few remaining assets. Cheng received only $2,000. Any reasonably competent general practitioner would have advised Cheng to secure the interest-free loan by obtaining a deed of trust on CAH’s large old home. Cheng sued Landsman for legal malpractice. Which of the following is most nearly correct?

A. Landsman is subject to civil liability for malpractice in the suit brought by Cheng.

B. Landsman is not subject to civil liability for malpractice because he did the legal work as a volunteer, not for a fee.

C. Landsman is not subject to civil liability for malpractice because he did not purport to represent Cheng in the transaction.

D. Landsman is not subject to civil liability for malpractice because the injury to Cheng was not foreseeable.

C. Landsman is not subject to civil liability for malpractice because he did not purport to represent Cheng in the transaction.

Attorney Applegate represented client Cortez as plaintiff in an employment discrimination action against Delta Corporation. After considerable pretrial discovery, Applegate and Cortez concluded that Delta had indeed unlawfully discriminated against Cortez but they probably would not be able to convince a jury of that fact. They decided not to pour any more money into pretrial discovery and to trust to good luck when the case came to trial. Before the case was set for trial, Delta moved for summary judgment. Delta’s motion was granted, and the case was dismissed. Then Delta sued Applegate for legal malpractice ,alleging that he was negligent in advising Cortez to maintain the suit against Delta and that Delta had been injured to the extent of its litigation costs and attorneys fees. In Delta’s action against Applegate, which of the following is most nearly correct?

A. Applegate is not subject to civil liability for malpractice, even if he lacked a good faith belief that Cortez would win at trial.

B. Applegate is subject to civil liability for malpractice if he lacked a good faith belief that Cortez would win at trial.

C. Applegate is not subject to civil liability for malpractice because his conduct was not the actual cause of Delta’s injury.

D. Applegate is subject to civil liability for malpractice if he was negligent in advising Cortez to oppose Delta’s motion for summary judgment.

A. Applegate is not subject to civil liability for malpractice, even if he lacked a good faith belief that Cortez would win at trial.

For many years attorney Abrams has done all of the routine business law work for Carmondy Corporation. Now Carmondy has asked him to represent it in negotiating a contract to supply electronic components to the US Navy. Abrams knows nothing about government contract law except that it is a highly specialized field governed by a mass of technical regulations. Which of the following would be proper for Abrams to do?

I. To decline to represent Carmonday, and to charge Carmondy a nominal fee for finding Carmondy a lawyer who specializes in government contract law.

II. To agree to represent Carmondy, provided that Carmondy will consent to the association of a lawyer who specializes in government contract law.

III. To agree to represent Carmondy, and the not subcontract the substantive legal work to a lawyer who specializes in government contract law.

IV. To agree to represent Carmondy, intending to master the field of government contract law w/ reasonable speed and efficiency.

A. All of the above.

B. None of the above.

C. II or III only.

D. I, II, or IV only.

D. I, II, or IV only.

Attorney Aoki and client Cramer entered into a written agreement in which Aoki agreed to represent Cramer in a real estate venture in return for a specified hourly fee. The agreement provided that any malpractice or fee dispute would be arbitrated by a neutral arbitrator selected by mutual agreement. Eventually Aoki and Cramer did get into a dispute. Came refused to pay Aoki’s quarterly bill, and Aoki refused to do any more work until Came paid. Came also threatened to sue Aoki for malpractice, claiming that he had lost money because of her negligent advice. Which of the following propositions are correct?

I. Aoki is subject to discipline for trying to avoid a lawsuit for malpractice by including the arbitration provision in her contract w/ Cramer.

II. Aoki is subject to discipline for refusing to do further work until Cramer paid her bill.

III. It would be proper for Aoki to insist that Cramer abide by the arbitration provision in their contract.

IV. If Aoki wants to settle her dispute with Cramer outside of the arbitration agreement, she must advise Cramer to obtain independent representation for that purpose.

A. I, II, and IV only.

B. II and IV only.

C. II and III only.

D. I and IV only.

B. III and IV only.

Solo practitioner Pearce hired non-lawyer Nelson to serve as her secretary and all-purpose assistant. Pearce put Nelson in charge of her client trust account and her office account and instructed her about how the accounts were to be handled. Several months later, Pearce learned that Nelson had a criminal record, including two prior convictions for embezzlement from a former employer. Since Nelson appeared to be handling the accounts properly, Pearce decided to leave well enough alone. After several more months, Pearce noticed that $1500 was missing from the office account. Nelson explained that she had borrowed the money to pay her mother’s funeral expenses and that she had would repay it out of her next paycheck. Nelson did repay the money, and Pearce decided to let Nelson continue to manage the accounts. Then, a year later, Nelson disappeared along w/ $30k taken from Pearce’s client trust account. The clients whose money was taken sued Pearce for negligence and breach of fiduciary duties. Which of the following propositions are correct?

I. Pearce is subject to discipline for allowing a non-lawyer to hander her client trust account.

II. IF Pearce did not adequately supervise Nelson’s handling of the client trust account, then Pearce is subject to discipline.

III. Pearce is subject to civil liability for malpractice to they injured clients if she was negligent in allowing Nelson to handle the client trust account.

IV. If Pearce had a subjective, good faith belief that Nelson was trustworthy, then Pearce is not subject to civil liability for malpractice to the injured clients.

A. II and III only.

B. I, II, and III only.

C. IV only.

D. II and IV only.

A. II and III only.

Supervising lawyer Liggett assigned paralegal Prentice to search through the massive business files of Liggett’s client to find documents responsive to a federal court order for production of documents. After several months’ work, Prentice ended up w/ 170 large cartons full of documents that were responsive to the court order. Most of the documents were harmless, but a few were quite damaging to the legal position taken by Liggett’s client. Instead of arranging the documents in the same logical order in which she found them in the client files, Prentice intentionally jumbled the order of the documents. Her purpose was to make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for the adversary to find the damaging documents and to understand their significance. Before the documents were produced for the adversary, Prentice told Liggett what she had done. Liggett responded: “Good -- that ought to slow the bastards down. In the future, however, don’t do anything like that w/o checking w/ me first; we might get in trouble otherwise.” Which of the following statements are correct?

I. Since document production requires the skill and judgment of a lawyer, Liggett is subject to discipline for delegating the task to Prentice, even if he had adequately supervised her work.

II. Liggett’s conduct was proper since he admonished Prentice and instructed her not to engage in similar conduct in the future.

III. Assuming that all responsive documents were produced, Liggett’s conduct was proper, since the adversary has no right to insist that the documents be arranged in any particular order.

IV. Even if all responsive documents were produced, Liggett is subject to discipline because he failed to take steps to mitigate the consequences of Prentice’s misconduct.

A. II only.

B. I and IV only.

C. IV only.

D. II and III only.

C. IV only.

In which of the following situations would the info received by the atty be covered by both the atty-client privilege and the ethical duty to preserve the client’s confidential info?

I. L is defending C in a tax fraud case. With C’s consent, L hires a tax accountant to examine C’s records, to talk with C, and to prepare some worksheets for L to use in defending the case. The accountant turns the worksheets over to L.

II. L is representing C in a boundary land dispute w/ C’s neighbor. When combing through the county land records, L discovers the C’s grantor apparently had no legal title to the land he purported to grant to C.

III. L is defending C in a first degree murder case. In the course of her investigation, L talks to a taxi driver who tells L that he remembers on the night C rode in his taxi to an address near the scene of the murder.

IV. L represents C in an action for breach of an oral contract. When preparing the case for trial, L stumbles across an old newspaper clipping, reporting C’s conviction of a felony in a distant state 15 years ago.

A. All of the above.

B. I, III, and IV only.

C. I only.

D. III only.

C. I only.

Client Christenson asked atty Alder to prepare some legal papers in connection w/ Christenson’s dissolution of marriage proceeding. In the course of conversation, Alder learned that Christenson intended to develop some beachfront property into condominiums. State law requires the filling of certain environmental impact statements w/ the State Commissioner of Real Estate and Development as a prerequisite to any development efforts, including advertising and zoning variances. Later Alder learned that Christenson was proceeding w/ the project and had not yet filed the required statements. Which of the following items are correct?

I. Alder must contact the State Commissioner of Real Estate and Development and reveal Christenson’s intentions

II. Alder may contact the State Commissioner of Real Estate and Development and reveal Christenson’s intentions.

III. Alder may contact Christenson and urge him to take appropriate steps to rectify his wrong.

IV. It would be proper for Alder not to tell any outsider about his communications w/ Christenson.

A. I, III, and IV only.

B. II, III, and IV only.

C. III and IV only.

D. IV only.

C. III and IV only.

Lawyer Lorenz represents client Cramer in a complex business case. The D has demanded production of a mass of Cramer’s records that contain vital, confidential business info. The D has agreed to a protective order that prohibits it from misusing the info, and it has agreed to accept copies instead of the original records. Lorenz’s office does not have a copying machine big enough to do the job efficiently. In these circumstances:

A. Lorenz must do the copying job herself on her small, slow office machine.

B. Lorenz must tell Cramer to make the copies himself, using his own facilities

C. Lorenz may select a trustworthy copying firm to do the work, provided that she makes sure the firm’s employees preserve the confidentiality of the records.

D. Lorenz may select a trustworthy copying firm to do the work, provided that she is personally present to supervise the work.

C. Lorenz may select a trustworthy copying firm to do the work, provided that she makes sure the firm’s employees preserve the confidentiality of the records.

Attorney Aquino defended Dempsey in a criminal assault case. Before trial, Dempsey told Aquino in confidence that he beat up the victim without provocation. Due to Aquino’s hard work and a stroke of luck, the jury found Dempsey not guilty. Then Dempsey refused to pay Aquino’s fee. Aquino wrote to Dempsey, “The jury found you not guilty, but your victim can still sue you for civil damages. IF you do not pay my fee, and if I have to sue you to collect it, I will have to reveal the whole truth in open court, to explain why the amount of my fee is reasonably. Think this over carefully. I hope to receive your check by return mail.” Which of the following is most nearly correct?

A. Even though heavy-handed, Aquino’s letter was proper because he was simply explaining the consequences of refusing to pay the fee.

B. If Aquino sues Dempsey to collect the fee, Aquino will be subject to discipline because a lawyer is prohibited from using a civil suit to collect a fee.

C. Aquino’s letter was proper bc a lawyer is required to settle fee disputes amicably if possible.

D. If Aquino sues Dempsey to collect the fee, Aquino may reveal Dempsey’s confidential communications, but only to the extent necessary to establish his claim against Dempsey.

D. If Aquino sues Dempsey to collect the fee, Aquino may reveal Dempsey’s confidential communications, but only to the extent necessary to establish his claim against Dempsey.

Client Colbert has retained lawyer Lamb to represent her in divorce proceedings instituted by Colbert’s husband. Colbert has moved out of the family home and is living in a distant town; she no longer sees her husband or their children. Colbert tells Lamb in confidence that, before the separation, she had been physically abusing the children. A state statute requires physicians and psychotherapists to report all suspected cases of child abuse. The statute makes no mention of attorneys. Which of the following is most nearly correct?

A. If Lamb reports the child abuse to police, she will be subject to discipline.

B. Lamb may report the child abuse to the police if he believes that the interests of justice will be served by doing so.

C. Lamb must report the child abuse to the police, because the state policy favors the protection of children

D. Lamb must report the child abuse to the police, because child abuse is a crime that may result in death or serious bodily injury.

A. If Lamb reports the child abuse to the police, he will be subject to discipline.

Eight years ago, attorney Arnott represented client Coleman in connection w/ a murder investigation. Coleman repeatedly assured Arnott that he was innocent. The investigation proved futile, and Coleman was never formally charged w/ any crime. At present Arnott is representing client Curtis in a child custody dispute b/w Curtis and her ex-husband. In that connection, Curtis tell Arnott in confidence about a murder committed eight years ago by one Coleman, a friend of her ex-husband. The details revealed by Curtis make it clear that Arnott’s former client, Coleman, did commit the murder. Curtis insists that Arnott not tell anyone about the murder for fear that Coleman or some of her ex-husband’s other friends may retaliate against her or her children. This jurisdiction has no SoL on murder. Which of the following is most nearly correct?

A. Arnott may reveal the info to the prosecutor w/o Curtis’s consent, because this jurisdiction has no SoL on murder.

B. Arnott must reveal the information to the prosecutor because Coleman’s evasion of the law is a continuing crime.

C. Arnott must keep the information in confidence unless Curtis changes her mind and consents to have it revealed.

D. Arnott may reveal the info to the prosecutor w/o the consent of either Curtis or Coleman, provided that he asks the prosecutor not to disclose the source of the info.

C. Arnott must keep the info in confidence unless Curtis changes her mind and consents to have it revealed.

Lawyer Ling represented clients Clark and Croddock who were the sole partners in a business joint venture. In that connection, Clark and Craddock met frequently w/ Ling to discuss confidential matters relating to the business. One day Clark came alone to Ling’s office. Before Ling could stop him, Clark disclosed that he had usurped a business opportunity that properly belonged to the joint venture. Ling informed Clark that she could not advise him on that topic. Further, Ling promptly withdrew as counsel to Clark and Craddock. Ultimately Craddock sued Clark for the usurpation. Craddock’s lawyer subpoenaed Ling to testify at a depostion about the statements Clark made to Ling. At the deposition, Clark’s lawyer asserted the A-C privilege on Clark’s behalf. Ultimately the court ordered Ling to disclose what Clark said. Which of the following is most nearly correct?

A. It was proper for Ling to withdraw as counsel to Clark and Craddock. Further, Ling must disclose what Clark said.

B. It was proper for Ling to withdraw as counsel to Clark and Craddock. However, Ling will be subject to discipline if she discloses what Clark said.

C. Ling is subject to discipline for withdrawing as counsel to Clark and Craddock. Further, Ling will be subject to discipline if she discloses what Clark said.

D. Even if Ling believes that the court order is correct, she must refuse to disclose what Clark said.

A. It was proper for Ling to withdraw as counsel to Clark and Craddock. Further, Ling must disclose what Clark said.

State X and State Y each have state trademark registration statutes that are substantially similar in purpose and wording to the Lanham Act (the fed trademark registration statute). For many years, Daisy Dairy has used the mark “Daisy” on dairy products it sells in State X, and it has registered the mark under the State X statute. Recently Noxatox Chemical began using the “Daisy” mark on cockroach poison it sells in State X. Daisy Dairy sued Noxatox under State X law in a STate X court for intentional infringement of the “Daisy” mark. The complaint asks for an injunction, for an award of the profits made by Noxatox, and for money damages. Noxatox moved for SJ on the grounds that dairy products and cockroach poison do not compete w/ each other, that no sensible consumer could be deceived by the use of the same mark on such widely different goods, and that Daisy Dairy could not have possibly suffered monetary injury. The trial judge who will hear the motion is not well versed in trademark law, and the lawyer for Daisy Dairy failed to discover several pertinent court decisions. Which of the following decisions must the lawyer for Noxatox call to the judge’s attention?

I. A US Supreme Court decision which holds that the Lanham Act authorizes an injunction to stop intentional infringement, even where the D’s goods do not compete w/ the P’s goods.

II. A decision of the US Court of Appeals for the circuit that includes State X and State Y, holding that an injunction can be issued under the Lanham Act where the nature of the D’s goods could case a distasteful or odious image on the P’s goods.

III. A decision of the Supreme Court of State Y which holds that the State Y registration statute authorizes an accounting of the D’s profits in a case of intentional infringement, even where the P cannot prove monetary injury.

IV. A decision of the Supreme Court of State X which holds that in actions for intentional trespass to real property, State X trial judges have the power of courts of equity to fashionable equitable remedies, even where the P cannot prove monetary injury.

A. All of the above.

B. None of the above.

C. I. II, and IV only.

D. I and IV only.

B. None of the above.

Lawyer Penny represents client Paul in a family law matter. When Paul and Donna were divorced, the court gave Paul custody of their infant son and gave Donna “reasonable” visiting rights. Paul is a busy accountant and often stays late at his office. While Paul is working, the baby stays at a babysitter’s house. Donna has started making unannounced visits to the babysitter’s house on the evenings when Paul works late. Paul believes Donna may try to kidnap the baby and disappear. Paul asks Penny to apply immediately for a temporary restraining order that forbids Donna from going near the sitter’s house. The court rules of this jurisdiction provide that a temporary restraining order can be granted in an ex parte proceeding, w/o giving the adversary any notice or chance to be heard. Penny plans to use this ex parte rule. Penny has an affidavit from the sitter stating that when Donna makes her surprise visits, the baby cries and refuses to eat or sleep for hours after. Just as Penny is leaving her office to go to the judge’s chambers, her investigator arrives w/ three additional pieces of information. First, when Paul works late, the sitter sometimes leaves a 10 year old neighbor girl in charge of the baby while the sitter grocery shops and runs errands. Second, Donna’s unannounced visits are motivated by her concerns for the baby’s safety. Third, when Paul works late, Donna could conveniently keep the baby at her house until Paul is through at the office. Which of the following is most nearly correct?

A. Penny must present the judge with only those facts that favor Paul’s position.

B. Penny must present the judge with only those facts that favor Paul’s positions, but she must respond candidly if the judge specifically asks for information that is adverse to Paul’s position.

C. Penny must present the judge w/ all the relevant facts, even those that are adverse to Paul’s position.

D. Penny must call Paul and tell him that she is withdrawing the application for a temporary restraining order.

C. Penny must present the judge w/ all the relevant facts, even those that are adverse to Paul’s position.

The law of STate X requires child adoptions to be approved by the court. Further, it prohibits cohabiting couples from adopting a child unless they are validly married. Atty Anderson represented clients Carla and Carl in an adoption proceeding. They assured her that they were validly married. Among the papers she presented to the court in connection w/ the adoption proceeding was a copy of Carla’s and Carl’s Certificate of Marriage, duly certified by the custodian of public records. In due course, the court approved the adoption. A year later, Carla and Carl returned to Anderson’s office. Carla explained to her: “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. Carl 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 Anderson to take?

A. Advise Carla and Carl about the legal effect of the prior marriage on their current status and on the adoption.

B. Decline to advise Carla and Carl, thus avoiding the assistance of a continuing fraud.

C. Advise Carla and Carl to reveal their fraud to the court that approved the adoption, and warn them that she will do so 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 Carla and Carl about the legal effect of the prior marriage on their current status and on the adoption.

Client Curtis hired lawyer Lomax to defend him in a civil antitrust action brought by Pucci, a former retail distributor of products that Curtis sold to Pucci. Pucci alleges that Curtis terminated him as a distributor because Pucci sold the products below a minimum retail price set by Curtis. Pucci further alleges that the termination resulted from a secret agreement b/w Curtis and other distributors that Curtis would terminate any distributor who sold below the minimum retail price. Assume that such an agreement, even if coerced, would violate the antitrust law. when Lomax was preparing Curtis for his deposition, Lomax asked Curtis why he terminated Pucci. Curtis answered, “Because Pucci was a price cutter. My other distributors pressured me to do it.” At that point, Lomax said, “If you say that at your deposition, you will lose this case. Before you say more, let me tell you about the law that applies here. If you, using your own business judgment, terminated Pucci because he was not doing a good job, or because he was not displaying or advertising your products effectively, then the termination would be lawful. If you let your other distributors talk you into terminating him because his prices were too low, the termination would probably be unlawful. Now go back to your office, refresh your memory of this event, and we will talk again tomorrow morning about your reasons for terminating Pucci?.” Was Lomax’s conduct proper?

A. Yes, because a lawyer has a duty to represent a client w/ zeal, using all lawful means to achieve the client’s objectives.

B. No, because it is improper for a lawyer to discuss the substance of a client’s testimony w/ the client before a client testifies.

C. Yes, because a lawyer has a duty to advise a client fully about the law that applies to a matter.

D. No, because it is improper for a lawyer to invite a client to give false testimony.

D. No, because it is improper for a lawyer to invite a client to give false testimony.

Attorney Arossio was defending Doyle in a drunk driving case. The state’s drunk driving statute specifies a fine up to $1,000 for a first offense. For a second offense, it specifies a fine up to $10k, plus a mandatory jail sentence of 60 days up to one year. Doyle told Arossio in confidence that he had one prior conviction for drunk driving. Arossio consulted the public records and found that Doyle’s prior conviction had never been properly recorded. Doyle decided to plead guilty. The hearing transcript shows the judge asked Arossio if a fine of $750 would be acceptable since Doyle was a “first-timer.” For which of the following responses would Arossio be subject to discipline?

I. Yes, thank you, your Honor.

II. My client will accept the court’s judgment your Honor.

III. Since my client’s blood-alcohol level wasn’t much above the mark, and since his record is clean, I would ask you Honor for a fine of not more than $500.

IV. There’s been a mistake, your Honor. My client has a prior conviction that does not appear on the record.

A. None of the above.

B. III and IV only.

C. I, II, and III only.

D. IV only.

B. III and IV only.

Over the past several months, you and lawyer Lauder have been representing your respective clients in a complicated contract negotiation. Te proposed contract has been drafted, redrafted, and revised dozens of time during the negotiation. Finally, your respective clients have struck a bargain; their bargain includes a key provision that your client long resisted and ultimately accepted with great reluctance. The final version of the contract has been prepared by Lauder’s secretary and has been signed by Lauder’s client. You have read it carefully, and you have discovered that the secretary left out the provision mentioned above. Which of the following may you do?

A. W/o consulting your client, call Lauder and direct her attention to the missing provision.

B. Call your client, explain the situation, and do whatever your client directs.

C. Call your client, explain the situation, and advise him to sign the contract.

D. Call Lauder’s client and ask whether he ultimately decided not to insist on the provision.

A. Without consulting your client, call Lauder and direct her attention to the missing provision.