JD Advising MPRE Exam #2

Page | 2
Question 1: Question 2:

A client retained a lawyer to represent her in a personal A lawyer decided to represent a plaintiff in a breach of
injury action. The lawyer orally told the client her flat contract case. The lawyer and the client agreed that if the
fee for the representation and the client agreed to it. The client was unable to pay the lawyer’s fees, the lawyer
client sought damages for physical injuries that she had would be entitled to place a lien on any judgment
suffered in a car accident. The case proceeded to trial recovered by the plaintiff in the contracts case.
and the jury found for the defendant. The client was
devastated by this outcome. One week after the jury had Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
reached its verdict, the client called the lawyer’s office
and left a voicemail asking whether she should appeal. (A) No, if the client agreed to the fee arrangement in a
The lawyer was out of town and did not receive the signed writing.
voicemail until two weeks later. Because the client had (B) No, if the laws of the jurisdiction allow liens under
not heard from the lawyer, she reasoned that she these circumstances.
probably would not be successful on appeal. The client (C) Yes, because the lawyer acquired a proprietary
did not contact the lawyer further. interest in the subject matter of litigation.
(D) Yes, because this fee agreement creates a risk that
Is the lawyer subject to discipline? the lawyer’s ability to represent the client will be
impaired by his own personal interests.
(A) No, because the lawyer was not required to notify
the client that she would be going out of town.
(B) No, because the lawyer did not agree to represent the
client on appeal.
(C) Yes, because the lawyer did not communicate her
fee in a signed writing.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer was obligated to consult
with the client about the possibility of an appeal.

Page | 3
Question 3: Question 4:

A solo practitioner agreed to represent a landlord who A lawyer rents out a suite for her law office in a large
was being sued by a tenant for retaliatory eviction. The commercial building. The lawyer has two legal assistants
lawyer asked the landlord to sign a contract stating that and one receptionist. The lawyer has trained all of her
the landlord agreed to waive prospective malpractice employees on the firm’s security procedures. First, the
claims. Before the landlord signed the contract, the firm’s policies require all employees to place client files
lawyer explained the advantages and disadvantages of in cabinets, which are locked at the end of each day.
such an agreement to ensure that the landlord understood Further, all of the firm’s computer accounts are
the scope of the agreement. Further, the lawyer advised password protected and the firm uses a secure wi-fi
the landlord to seek independent representation to review system to transmit information. Occasionally, the
the agreement prior to signing. The lawyer gave the building’s cleaning staff enters the office suite to empty
landlord two weeks to obtain independent counsel to the trash bins and vacuum the carpets. One week ago,
review the agreement. Because the landlord had heard the lawyer learned that her firm’s office file server,
that this lawyer had a stellar reputation, he decided to including electronic client files, were subject to a
forego the advice of independent counsel and he signed ransomware attack.
the contract.
What steps should the lawyer take to comply with the
Is the lawyer subject to discipline? Model Rules?

(A) No, because the lawyer made sure that the client (A) The lawyer must notify all of her clients of the
understood the scope of the agreement. ransomware attack, regardless of whether
(B) No, because the lawyer advised the client to obtain confidential client information was disclosed or
independent counsel prior to signing the contract. accessed by unauthorized persons.
(C) Yes, because the lawyer may only ask a client to (B) The lawyer must notify all of her clients of the
settle a malpractice claim or agree to arbitrate a ransomware attack only if material client
malpractice claim but may not ask a client to waive information was actually accessed, disclosed or lost
prospective malpractice claims. as a result of the breach.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer entered into the agreement (C) The lawyer must notify her clients of the
with the client even though the client was not ransomware attack if material client information was
independently represented in making the agreement. actually accessed or was reasonably suspected to
have been accessed, disclosed or lost as a result of
the breach.
(D) The lawyer may notify all of her clients of the
ransomware attack if material client information was
reasonably suspected to have been accessed,
disclosed or lost as a result of the breach.

Page | 4
Question 5: Question 6:

Two partners began their practice 40 years ago at a time On one of the coldest days of the year, a homeless man
when communications with clients took place in person was denied access to a shelter. Angered by this, the man
or over the phone. About 15 years ago, the partners hired visited a local non-profit organization that assisted the
three junior associate attorneys to help them handle the homeless. The non-profit organization recommended
firm’s caseload. The three junior associates were well- that the man seek the services of an attorney who often
versed in conducting legal research using online represented homeless clients on a pro bono basis. The
databases and different procedural safeguards used to homeless man consulted with the attorney and she
protect electronically stored client information. Around agreed to represent him. The man was successful in his
this time, the partners also hired nonlawyer assistants to lawsuit against the shelter and the court awarded the
make client files electronically accessible. attorney$10,000 in legal fees. The attorney shared a
small percentage of the court-awarded legal fees with the
Recently, the firm’s accounts were hacked into and the non-profit organization.
partners tasked the three junior associates with
conducting a post-breach investigation. The partners did Is the attorney subject to discipline?
not personally participate in the investigation. Two
months after the investigation, relying on the findings of (A) Yes, because a lawyer may only share court-awarded
the junior associates, the partners promptly notified their legal fees with a nonprofit organization that retained
clients that their electronically stored information had the lawyer’s services in a matter.
been compromised. (B) Yes, because the lawyer gave the non-profit
organization something of value for recommending
Are the partners subject to discipline? the lawyer’s services.
(C) No, because the lawyer gave nothing more than a
(A) No, because the partners’ duty to provide competent nominal gift to the non-profit organization that was
representation after a data breach only requires the neither intended nor reasonably expected to be a
partners to notify clients of the breach. form of compensation for recommending a lawyer’s
(B) No, because the partners may satisfy their post- services.
breach responsibilities by employing or retaining (D) No, because a lawyer may share court-awarded legal
qualified lawyers and nonlawyer assistants to fees with a nonprofit organization that recommended
conduct an investigation. the employment of the lawyer in the matter.
(C) Yes, because the partners’ duty to provide competent
representation requires them to be personally well-
versed in the benefits and risks associated with
relevant technology used by the firm.
(D) Yes, because the loss of the clients’ electronic
information was not immediately detected after the
hack.

Page | 5
Question 7: Question 8:

A judge presided over a case between two parties that A successful owner of a real estate company has used
were engaged in a landlord-tenant dispute. The judge the services of a lawyer for the past 30 years. One week
went grocery shopping every month for the past nine ago, the owner of the real estate company told the lawyer
years at a store owned by the plaintiff. The judge did not that in return for all of his superb advice over the past
disclose this to the parties or disqualify himself from the three decades, he would like to gift the lawyer one of his
case. most lucrative oceanfront properties. The lawyer was
touched by the generosity of his client. The lawyer
Has the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct? consulted an outside attorney and the outside attorney
drew up the papers to transfer the title of the oceanfront
(A) Yes, because the judge failed to disclose the nature property.
of his acquaintanceship with the plaintiff to the
lawyers and the other party. Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
(B) Yes, because the judge failed to disqualify himself
based upon his acquaintanceship with the plaintiff. (A) Yes, because a lawyer may not accept a substantial
(C) No, but only if the parties waive the judge’s gift from a client.
disqualification. (B) Yes, if the lawyer accepted a substantial gift from a
(D) No, because a judge is not required to disqualify client he was not related to.
himself if a lawyer or party is an acquaintance, nor (C) No, because the lawyer did not solicit a substantial
must the judge disclose acquaintanceships to the gift from his client.
other lawyers or parties. (D) No, because the lawyer did not solicit a substantial
gift from his client, nor did he personally draw up
the documents to transfer title.

Page | 6
Question 9: Question 10:

A lawyer drafted a contract for a former client in 2017. A technician walked into a corporation’s associate
After the representation had terminated, counsel’s office and explained that he had made some
the lawyer was asked by a new client to draft a similar mistakes at work and needed some advice. The associate
contract. In doing so, the lawyer referred to the contract counsel asked the technician to explain what had
he had drafted in 2017. At this time, the lawyer happened. The technician explained that he was going
discovered a material error in his former client’s through a difficult divorce and could not concentrate at
agreement. The lawyer did not want to upset his former work, and as a result, he did not do a thorough quality
client by revealing this error. Further, this former client control inspection of some of the computers that were
was well known in the community and the lawyer feared manufactured by the corporation, which may have led to
that revealing this error would result in negative one of the current products liability lawsuits against the
publicity for his law firm. Thus, the lawyer remained corporation. The associate counsel asked the technician a
silent about this error. few follow-up questions about the inspection
procedures. Shortly thereafter, the associate counsel
Is the lawyer subject to discipline for not revealing this spoke with another associate attorney of the corporation
information to his former client? at length about his conversation with the technician.

(A) No, because the lawyer has no obligation to inform a Is the associate counsel subject to discipline?
former client of a material error made in the former
client’s representation after the attorney-client (A) No, because the technician did not request that the
relationship has ended. associate counsel keep their conversation
(B) No, because the lawyer did not knowingly make a confidential.
false statement of material fact or law. (B) No, because the associate counsel owed a duty of
(C) Yes, because a lawyer is required to inform his client loyalty to the corporation.
if he believes that he may have materially erred in (C) Yes, because the associate counsel did not tell the
the client’s representation. technician that she was representing the corporation
(D) Yes, because upon the termination of a rather than the technician.
representation, a lawyer must take steps to the extent (D) Yes, because the associate counsel disclosed
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests. confidential information to the attorney and because
she did not tell the technician that she was not
representing him.

Page | 7
Question 11: Question 12:

A lawyer was good friends with the chief financial A client retained a lawyer for a tort matter and entered
officer of a company that manufactured coffee makers. into a written fee agreement in which the lawyer was
They grew up in the same neighborhood and attended entitled to one-fourth of any recovery. The client then
the same high school. The lawyer and one of her terminated the lawyer, without cause, and hired new
associates (in the same firm) agreed to serve as outside counsel. The new counsel met with the client and
counsel for the company. The chief financial officer provided him with her fee agreement. The new counsel
checked in with the lawyer each week about potential took on the matter on the same terms as the original
legal issues pertaining to the company. The chief lawyer (one-fourth of any recovery) but the new
financial officer then relayed this information to the counsel’s written fee agreement was silent on whether
company’s chief legal officer and chief executive officer that one-fourth is in addition to or in lieu of the one-
to decide what actions the company should take. After fourth specified in the original lawyer’s fee agreement.
serving as outside counsel for two months, the lawyer Two weeks after reviewing the fee agreement with the
began dating the chief financial officer and the chief client, the new counsel handed the client a written
financial officer asked the lawyer if she wanted to enter document which stated that a portion of any contingent
into a consensual sexual relationship with him. After fee earned may be paid to the original lawyer. The new
much deliberation, the lawyer agreed to do so and they counsel has handled such tort matters for more than 10
entered into a more intimate relationship. years and the contingent fee falls within the range of fees
charged by similarly situated lawyers in her jurisdiction.
Has the lawyer or the associate violated the Model Rules
of Professional Conduct? Is the new counsel subject to discipline?

(A) Yes, both the lawyer and the associate violated the (A) Yes, because the new counsel did not disclose that a
Rules, because the consequences of the lawyer’s portion of any contingent fee earned may be paid to
sexual relationship was imputed to the associate, the the original lawyer in the original written fee
associate and the lawyer should be disqualified from agreement.
serving as outside counsel to the company. (B) Yes, because the new counsel’s written fee
(B) Yes, the lawyer has violated the Rules, but the agreement did not address how the contingent fee
associate has not, because the lawyer entered into a would be shared with original lawyer, nor was the
sexual relationship with a constituent of a client after subsequent written disclosure timely.
the commencement of the lawyer-client relationship. (C) No, because the new counsel’s fee was reasonable,
(C) No, neither the lawyer nor the associate has violated and she promptly notified the client in a written
the Rules, because the prohibition on sexual document that a portion of any contingent fee earned
relationships with clients only applies to may be paid to the original lawyer.
relationships between a lawyer and a constituent of (D) No, because the new counsel’s fee was reasonable
an organization that supervises the organization’s given her experience and the fee customarily
legal matters. charged in the locality for similar legal services.
(D) No, neither the lawyer nor the associate has violated
the Rules, because the prohibition on sexual
relationships with clients only applies to inside
counsel.

Page | 8
Question 13: Question 14:

A lawyer has been practicing guardianship law for 15 The partners at a boutique intellectual property law firm
years, with a particular focus on cases involving the decided that they should implement initiatives at the firm
elderly. The lawyer has been certified as a specialist in aimed at recruiting associates from diverse backgrounds.
guardianship law by the Organization for Elder Law, Further, the partners thought that it would be a good idea
which is located at one of the most prominent law to sponsor different law student organizations at some of
schools in the country. The institute is in the process of the local universities. Many organizations sought the
seeking certification from the American Bar Association. firm’s sponsorship, including the Catholic Law Students
The lawyer is one of two partners at the firm. The Association and the International Law Students
advertisement for the firm reads: “Law Offices of Larry Association. Ultimately, the partners sponsored the
Smith concentrates in guardianship law, does not Women’s Law Association, the South Asian Law
practice real estate law, Association, and the Jewish Law Association. The
[Link]”. partners did not provide any direct pro bono services but
spent at least 50 hours serving on the local bar
Is the lawyer subject to discipline? association’s committees for gender equality and took
part in Law Day activities.
(A) No, because the lawyer may state that he
concentrates in guardianship law and that he does Are the partners subject to discipline?
not specialize in real estate law.
(B) No, but only if the lawyer includes the name of the (A) No, because the partners’ activities satisfy the
other partner in the advertisement. voluntary pro bono publico rules of the Model Rules
(C) Yes, because the lawyer did not include all of the of Professional Conduct.
necessary contact information for the firm. (B) No, because law firms may implement initiatives
(D) Yes, because the lawyer implied that he is a certified aimed at recruiting diverse employees and
specialist in guardianship law. sponsoring diverse law student organizations.
(C) Yes, because the partners engaged in conduct that
they reasonably should know constitutes
discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, and
gender.
(D) Yes, because the partners’ activities do not satisfy
the voluntary pro bono publico rules of the Model
Rules of Professional Conduct.

Page | 9
Question 15: Question 16:

A lawyer runs his own solo criminal defense firm and A client retained a lawyer to help defend him against
also provides investigative services. One day, a client several counts of embezzlement and racketeering. For
who was facing a murder charge retained the services of the first three months, the lawyer and the client agreed
the lawyer in his capacity as a private investigator. The on the course of action to take in the case. Thereafter, the
lawyer was a well-respected private investigator, who client persisted on a course of action involving the
had retired after working for 20 years in law lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believed to
enforcement. The lawyer took a few minutes to explain be criminal or fraudulent. The lawyer suspected that if
to the client that his investigative services were distinct he continued to represent the client, it would result in a
from the legal services that he provided. The client, who violation of the rules of professional conduct or other
only attended school until the eleventh grade and had law. The lawyer was unable to reason with the client and
never been a defendant in a criminal case before, one week before the case was scheduled for trial, the
understood that the lawyer advertised these services lawyer withdrew from representing the client.
separately, but figured that anything he told the lawyer
was protected by the attorney-client privilege. Was it proper for the lawyer to permissively withdraw
from the case?
Is the lawyer’s conduct proper?
(A) Yes, because if a client persists in a course of action
(A) Yes, because the lawyer did not agree to render both involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer
legal services and investigative services in the same reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, the
matter. lawyer may withdraw.
(B) Yes, because investigative services are not law- (B) Yes, because the lawyer knew that continuing to
related services. represent the client would result in a violation of the
(C) No, if the lawyer did not show that he had taken rules of professional conduct or other law.
reasonable measures under the circumstances to (C) No, because while a lawyer may withdraw when a
communicate the desired understanding that his legal client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a
services were distinct from his investigative crime or fraud, a lawyer may not withdraw when a
services. client persists in a course of action involving the
(D) No, because the client did not understand that the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes
attorney-client privilege did not apply in the case. is criminal or fraudulent.
(D) No, because even though the lawyer had a valid
reason to permissively withdraw, the withdrawal
likely could not be accomplished without a
materially adverse effect on the interests of the
client.

Page | 10
Question 17: Question 18:

A defendant was on trial for manslaughter. The A full-time family court judge was approached by his
defendant’s lawyer argued that his client should be sister, asking him to draft a will for her for free, which
found not guilty by reason of insanity. As such, the court he did the following week. One month later, the judge
ordered the defendant to submit to a mental examination. was sued by his neighbor for trespassing on her property.
The prosecuting attorney, who has been working at the The judge represented himself in the matter. Two
district attorney’s office for the last 15 years, received months later, the judge’s brother, who received a ticket
the tests of the defendant’s mental exam. Based on her for speeding, asked the judge whether he could serve as
years of experience, she reasonably believed that the his lawyer in traffic court. The judge reasonably
results indicated that the defendant would not be able to determined that aiding his brother would not interfere
successfully establish an insanity defense. In a press with his judicial duties, so he represented him and was
conference that took place a few weeks before trial, the able to get the traffic ticket dismissed.
prosecuting attorney said, “The defendant’s mental
examination revealed that he will most likely have Has the judge violated the Model Code of Judicial
difficulty proving that he is insane.” Conduct?

Is the prosecuting attorney subject to discipline? (A) No, because the judge is allowed to draft documents
for family members without receiving compensation.
(A) Yes, because the prosecuting attorney did not first (B) No, because the judge is permitted to act pro se in a
seek the permission of the defendant’s counsel matter.
before commenting upon the results of the (C) Yes, because the judge impermissibly drafted a will
defendant’s mental exam. for his sister.
(B) Yes, because the prosecuting attorney is (D) Yes, because the judge impermissibly served as his
participating in the proceeding and made an brother’s lawyer in traffic court.
extrajudicial statement that she knows or reasonably
should know will be disseminated by means of
public communication and will have a substantial
likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative
proceeding in the matter.
(C) No, because the prosecuting attorney reasonably
believed that the results of the defendant’s mental
examination revealed that he would not be able to
successfully establish an insanity defense.
(D) No, because the prosecuting attorney spoke about
the result of a step-in litigation.

Page | 11
Question 19: Question 20:

A judge who presided over criminal cases was quite A lawyer who owned a solo practice received a letter
passionate about issues affecting his town’s homeless from his state bar association to enroll in the state’s
population. In his spare time, he volunteered for a non- lawyers’ fund for client protection. This fund provided a
profit organization that built homes for low-income means through the collective efforts of the bar to
families. The judge participated actively in the non- reimburse persons who have lost money or property as a
profit’s fundraising activities. First, the judge suggested result of dishonest conduct of a lawyer. The lawyer had
that the non-profit should have a silent auction and a just recently started his practice and did not have the
50/50 raffle at the organization’s annual gala. The judge money to pay the fees to enroll in the fund, but he
volunteered to serve on a committee to determine how intended to do so when his practice became more
the non-profit organization’s funds should be invested. profitable. The lawyer primarily practiced family law
Second, the judge solicited contributions for the non- and a client asked him to represent him in his divorce.
profit from his children, parents, and siblings. In The lawyer had two client fund accounts, one located at
addition, the judge solicited his family and colleagues to a bank branch in the state where he practiced, and the
become members of the non-profit organization. other located at a different bank’s branch out-of-state.
The lawyer wanted to deposit the client funds in the out-
Have any of the judge’s actions violated the Model Code of-state account and obtained his client’s oral consent to
of Judicial Conduct? this arrangement.

(A) No, because the judge is permitted to assist the non- Has the lawyer violated the Model Rules of Professional
profit organization in planning related to fund- Conduct?
raising.
(B) No, because the judge is permitted to solicit (A) No, because the lawyer was excused from
contributions for the non-profit organization from participating in the state’s lawyers’ fund for client
his family members. protection because he had just started his solo
(C) Yes, because the judge impermissibly solicited practice.
membership for the non-profit organization. (B) No, if the lawyer’s participation in the lawyers' fund
(D) Yes, because the judge is not permitted to participate for client protection was not mandatory.
in the management and investment of the non-profit (C) Yes, because even if the lawyer’s participation in the
organization’s funds. lawyers' fund for client protection was discretionary,
the Model Rules of Professional Conduct require
lawyers to participate.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer did not receive written
consent from the client to deposit the funds out-of-
state.

Page | 12
Question 21: Question 22:

A lawyer was hired by a clothing retailer to serve as A lawyer served as general counsel for a software
associate counsel for the corporation. The president of company. One of the company’s employees was
the corporation, who also sat on board of directors for suspected of engaging in bribery and embezzlement. The
the corporation, was accused of sexual harassment by lawyer was asked by the board of directors of the
one of the other officers. The president went to speak to software company to investigate these allegations. Upon
the associate counsel about the allegations against him. completing his investigation, the lawyer found the
The associate counsel told him that the corporation was employee had engaged in conduct that constituted a clear
her client, that she should not represent him, and that he violation of the law and was likely to result in substantial
should find independent counsel. The president told her injury to the company. He reported his findings to the
that he wanted her to represent him in the suit against board of directors and the board did not take any action.
him by the other officer because he thought she was Concerned about the effect that the employee’s conduct
experienced in litigating such claims. The associate would have upon the software company, the lawyer
counsel reasonably believed that she could provide reported his findings to the prosecutor’s office.
competent and diligent representation to both clients.
The president gave her his informed written consent. Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
The associate counsel then obtained the corporation’s
written consent from a member of the board of directors. (A) Yes, because before revealing his findings to the
prosecutor’s office, the lawyer was required to get
Is it proper for the associate counsel to represent the the software company’s informed written consent.
president of the corporation? (B) Yes, because the lawyer is not permitted to report
outside of the corporation concerning information
(A) No, because even though the lawyer received relating to a lawyer's representation of an
informed written consent from the president and the organization to investigate an alleged violation of
corporation, this is an unconsentable conflict. law.
(B) No, because the lawyer did not advise the president (C) No, unless the lawyer agreed to defend the employee
in writing to seek independent representation. associated with the organization against claims
(C) Yes, because the lawyer received informed written arising out of an alleged violation of law.
consent from the president and the corporation. (D) No, because the lawyer may reveal information
(D) Yes, unless the corporation’s informed written relating to the representation, whether or not the
consent was provided by the president. rules of confidentiality permit such disclosure, but
only if and to the extent the lawyer reasonably
believes necessary to prevent substantial injury to
the organization.

Page | 13
Question 23: Question 24:

A lawyer spent 15 years working for the Division of A lawyer specializes in representing pharmaceutical
Parks and Forestry drafting regulations about how the companies. One of the lawyer’s new clients asked for
state and private citizens were permitted to use the assistance with regulatory disclosures for a new product
state’s public parks. In particular, the lawyer drafted it has developed to cure morning sickness during
regulations about when private citizens could use public pregnancy. The client wants to avoid disclosing some of
parks to hold bonfires. After leaving his job with the the harmful side effects that the company learned about
Division of Parks and Forestry, the lawyer started a firm during its clinical trials. One of the side effects was that
with another attorney that focused primarily on the drug could cause cancer if it was taken more than
municipal law and land use. A client was facing a $1,000 three times a week. The lawyer knows that omitting the
fine for improperly holding a bonfire in a public park information about the side effects would be criminal and
and asked the lawyer to represent her in this matter. fraudulent in his jurisdiction. The lawyer carefully
explains the legal consequences that may arise if the
May the lawyer or the attorney represent the client? client does not comply with the regulatory disclosure
laws.
(A) No, because the lawyer participated personally and
substantially in the same matter while working for Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
the Division of Parks and Forestry.
(B) No, unless the lawyer obtains the government (A) No, because the lawyer did not assist in the
agency’s informed consent, confirmed in writing, to perpetration of a crime or fraud.
the representation. (B) No, unless the pharmaceutical company uses the
(C) Yes, because the lawyer did not participate lawyer’s advice to commit a crime or fraud.
personally and substantially in the same matter while (C) Yes, because the lawyer was required to withdraw
working for the Division of Parks and Forestry. from representation once the client made it known to
(D) Yes, but only if the lawyer is timely screened from the lawyer that it wanted to avoid making the
any participation in the matter, apportioned no part necessary regulatory disclosures.
of the fee, and written notice is promptly given to (D) Yes, because the lawyer was required to reveal his
the Division of Parks and Forestry. client’s plan to omit the side effects from the
necessary regulatory disclosures in order to prevent
substantial bodily harm.

Page | 14
Question 25: Question 26:

A solo practitioner focused on two areas of law in her A lawyer established a professional corporation with two
practice, immigration removal defense and personal other attorneys, the purpose of which was to practice law
injury law. As the personal injury law practice brought for a profit. Each of them owned one-third of the
in substantially greater business, the lawyer decided to professional corporation’s shares. Five years into the
sell the immigration law portion of her practice. One practice, one of the attorneys passed away suddenly after
year after selling this area of her practice, a business being struck by a car. The deceased attorney’s sister, a
immigration attorney contacted the lawyer about a nurse, was appointed to be the executrix of his estate.
deportation defense case and asked her whether she She retained the deceased attorney’s shares for two
would be able to assist her, given that it was the first months while she was administering the estate. After
time she was dealing with such a case. The lawyer two months, the shares were transferred to the deceased
explained that she could not serve as counsel or co- attorney’s estranged daughter, who had years of
counsel but agreed to assume joint responsibility for this experience in business administration. The lawyer and
case. The lawyer and the business immigration attorney the attorney unanimously agreed to allow the daughter to
met with the detained client and explained to the client retain the shares and gave her a position on the board of
that each of them would be sharing the legal fees, which directors. The daughter was enthusiastic about the
were reasonable given the complexity of the case, and opportunity and accepted the position. She took great
that they would be assuming joint responsibility for the care to never interfere with the professional judgment of
representation. The client agreed to the arrangement, the lawyer and the attorney.
which was confirmed in writing.
Are the lawyer and attorney subject to discipline?
Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
(A) Yes, because a nonlawyer owned an interest in the
(A) No, because the lawyer obtained the client’s consent corporation after the administration of the estate had
to the division of reasonable legal fees, which was concluded.
confirmed in writing. (B) Yes, because the lawyer and the attorney permitted a
(B) No, because even though the lawyer sold her fiduciary representative to retain the deceased
immigration removal defense practice, she was attorney’s shares during the administration of the
permitted to work on the deportation defense matter estate.
as long as she did not act as co-counsel. (C) No, because the daughter did not interfere with the
(C) Yes, because the lawyer sold her immigration professional judgment of the lawyer or the attorney.
removal defense practice and was not permitted to (D) No, because the lawyer and the attorney permitted a
assume joint responsibility in the deportation fiduciary representative to retain the deceased
defense matter. attorney’s shares for a reasonable time during the
(D) Yes, because the lawyer agreed to work with an administration of the estate.
attorney who did not have the required competence
to handle a deportation defense case.

Page | 15
Question 27: Question 28:

A lawyer served as the director of the immigration law A cosmetics company makes a lipstick that it sells across
clinic at a law school. Several times a year, the the country. The company advertises that it does not test
immigration law clinic hosted naturalization workshops. the lipstick on animals and further, that it is safe because
During these workshops, the lawyer, along with law it is made with naturally derived substances. A woman
students participating in the clinic, spent half an hour who purchased the lipstick has sued the cosmetics
speaking with each applicant seeking to obtain company, stating that the lipstick contained lead, and the
citizenship and reviewed each application for prolonged use thereof made her incredibly ill. A law
naturalization to make sure there were no errors. Prior to firm represented the cosmetics company in this matter.
reviewing the applications, the lawyer orally explained One lawyer and another attorney from that firm were the
to each naturalization applicant that the lawyer’s services only ones who handled this case. While representing the
would be limited to reviewing the naturalization cosmetics company, the lawyer and the attorney
application and each applicant orally agreed to these discovered that the president of the company wrote a
terms. The lawyer did not systematically screen each confidential letter to the board of directors saying that
applicant to determine whether there was a conflict of even though the lipstick contained lead, it made sense to
interest. Rather, the lawyer noted that he did not know of continue selling it because of the popularity of the
any current client or former client conflicts concerning product. The lawyer transferred to another firm and took
any of the naturalization workshop clients. the cosmetics company with her as a client. The other
attorney had received some lucrative job offers at other
Is the lawyer subject to discipline? firms but decided to remain with his employer.
Thereafter, the lawyer’s previous firm decided to
(A) No, because the lawyer obtained informed consent to represent a plaintiff saying that she had become ill from
the limited legal representation and noted that he using the lipstick. When the cosmetics company found
was not aware of any current client or former client out about this, it asked the lawyer to file a motion to
conflicts. disqualify her previous firm from representing the
(B) No, because the lawyer may provide short-term plaintiff. The lawyer went ahead and filed the motion.
limited legal services without detecting for conflicts
of interest. Is the lawyer’s previous firm subject to discipline for
(C) Yes, because the lawyer did not comprehensively representing a plaintiff against the cosmetics company?
screen for current or former conflicts of interest.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer did not obtain informed (A) No, because the previous firm is not subject to
written consent from each client as to the limited disqualification given that the lawyer took the
legal representation. cosmetics company with her as a client when she
transferred to the new firm.
(B) No, because the previous firm is not subject to
disqualification as long as the attorney who worked
on the cosmetics case is not assigned to the
plaintiff’s case.
(C) Yes, because a firm may not represent a plaintiff in a
matter that is substantially related to one in which it
represented the defendant if any lawyer who
previously used to work for the firm learned
confidential information about the defendant.
(D) Yes, because a firm may not represent a plaintiff in a
matter that is substantially related to one in which it
represented the defendant if any lawyer presently at
the firm learned confidential information about the
defendant.

Page | 16
Question 29: Question 30:

A judge had one brother who had a fourteen-year-old A lawyer filed a medical malpractice claim on behalf of
child, his nephew, who was diagnosed with his client against a physician who had left part of a
schizophrenia. The child’s mother had passed away last sponge in his client’s abdomen during surgery. The
year, leaving the judge’s brother to care for their child. client had been suffering from abdominal pain after the
The judge’s brother was killed in a car crash last week. surgery but only learned about the sponge one year after
After the judge’s brother passed away, the judge became the surgery when he got a medical exam for an unrelated
his nephew’s guardian. The judge reasonably estimated problem. Because he was too busy with work and family
that acting as his nephew’s guardian would take obligations at the time, he decided not to immediately
approximately ten hours a week. Because the judge pursue the claim but did eventually file a lawsuit three
typically presided over criminal cases the judge believed years from the time he learned of the error. The statute
that it was highly unlikely that acting as his nephew’s of limitations for medical malpractice in this jurisdiction
guardian would lead to frequent disqualification. Two is three years from the date the alleged malpractice
weeks after assuming guardianship of his nephew, the occurred. The lawyer did extensive research to see
judge received a phone call from the institution where whether courts in this jurisdiction had carved out
his nephew was receiving treatment. The judge learned exceptions for extending the statute of limitations period.
that his nephew had been badly injured and decided to Unfortunately, all arguments to extend the statute of
go at once to the treatment center. While exiting the limitations had been rejected. Even though the lawyer
courthouse, the judge ran into a defense attorney who had significant doubts about whether his client would
was supposed to appear in his courtroom that same day. succeed and did fully substantiate all of the facts
The judge spoke with the attorney for a minute to tell surrounding his client’s claim, the lawyer filed the claim
him that he had a family emergency and would have to because he wanted to act as a zealous advocate.
reschedule the hearing. Thereafter, the judge called his
legal secretary and asked her to inform the prosecution Has the lawyer violated the Model Rules of Professional
that the hearing would be rescheduled. Conduct?

Did the judge’s actions violate the Code of Judicial (A) Yes, because the lawyer filed the claim even though
Conduct? he had significant doubts about whether his client
would prevail.
(A) No, because the judge did not initiate an ex parte (B) Yes, because the lawyer did not have a good faith
communication with the defense attorney. argument for modifying the law.
(B) No, because serving as a guardian is unlikely to lead (C) No, because the lawyer acted with commitment and
to frequent disqualification of the judge. dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal
(C) Yes, if acting in a fiduciary capacity will interfere in advocacy upon the client's behalf.
with the judge’s performance of his judicial duties. (D) No, because the lawyer was not required to fully
(D) Yes, because a judge is not permitted to serve in a substantiate all of the facts before filing the claim.
fiduciary capacity, other than acting as an executor
or trustee for a member of the judge’s family.

Page | 17
Question 31: Question 32:

A lawyer represented a woman, the sole survivor of a A lawyer represented a client in the sale of his business.
plane crash, in a lawsuit against the airline. The lawyer Based upon all of the accounting documents provided by
had been involved in litigating this case for two years the client and independent real estate appraisals, the
and it was scheduled to go to trial in two weeks. Four lawyer worked with the client to determine the fair
days before trial, the lawyer’s husband suddenly died of market value of his business. Once the client’s property
a heart attack. The lawyer asked the court if it would be had been sold to a purchaser in good faith, the lawyer
possible to postpone the trial by two weeks so that she discovered that the client had doctored some of the
could arrange the funeral for her husband and observe accounting documents and in doing so, substantially
other pre-burial religious rites. The lawyer knew that if overvalued the goodwill of the business. Without
the court postponed the date of the trial it would very speaking to his former client, the lawyer telephoned the
likely be burdensome for the airline, because the airline purchaser to let him know that he had substantially
company was involved in litigation in another lawsuit overpaid for the business.
that was scheduled to go to trial in four weeks. The
woman was exhausted by the duration of the litigation Is the lawyer subject to discipline for revealing the
and the costs she had incurred thus far and wanted the client’s confidential information?
trial to be completed as soon as possible.
(A) No, because a lawyer is permitted to reveal
Did the lawyer’s request for a postponement comply confidential information to rectify substantial injury
with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? to the financial interests of another that has resulted
from the client's commission of a crime or fraud in
(A) No, because a lawyer is not permitted to routinely furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's
fail to expedite litigation solely for her own personal services.
reasons. (B) No, because a lawyer is permitted to reveal
(B) No, because the lawyer has a duty to expedite confidential information if the client’s conduct has
litigation in a manner that is consistent with her caused significant injury to the interests of a third
client’s interests. person.
(C) Yes, because the lawyer was acting in good faith in (C) Yes, because the lawyer was required to obtain his
requesting the postponement, which had some client’s informed consent before revealing his
substantial purpose other than delaying the lawsuit. client’s confidential information to the purchaser.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer’s request for a (D) Yes, because the lawyer is only permitted to reveal
postponement four days before the scheduled trial confidential information to prevent a client from
date will bring substantial hardship to the opposing committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably
party. certain to result in substantial injury to the financial
interests of another and in furtherance of which the
client has used the lawyer’s services.

Page | 18
Question 33: Question 34:

A lawyer who was duly admitted to practice in a foreign A lawyer entered into an agreement with a certified
jurisdiction served as in-house counsel at a software financial planner, which stated that the lawyer would
company in a jurisdiction in the United States. The refer clients who need assistance with investing to the
lawyer has never been admitted to practice in the United certified financial planner and the certified financial
States jurisdiction in which he is currently employed. planner would refer clients who are facing eviction to the
The forum in which he practices does not require pro hac real estate lawyer. The lawyer regularly informs all her
vice admission. As part of his duties, the lawyer clients about the existence and nature of her agreement
provided legal services to the software company, with the certified financial planner. The lawyer has
affiliates of the software company, and in a personal agreed to not pay the certified financial planner anything
capacity, to the company’s president and vice-president. solely for the referrals. The agreement has not interfered
with the lawyer’s professional judgment with respect to
Is the lawyer subject to discipline? making referrals or providing legal services.

(A) No, because the lawyer was duly licensed to practice Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
in a foreign jurisdiction and the services which the
lawyer is providing do not require pro hac vice (A) No, because the lawyer is not paying the certified
admission. financial planner anything solely for the referral.
(B) No, because the lawyer was permitted to provide (B) No, because the arrangement does not interfere with
legal services to the software company and affiliates the lawyer’s professional judgment as to making
of the software company. referrals or as to providing substantive legal
(C) Yes, because the lawyer provided legal services to services.
affiliates of the software company. (C) Yes, because a lawyer may only enter into a
(D) Yes, because the lawyer provided personal legal reciprocal referral agreement with another lawyer.
services to officers of the software company. (D) Yes, if the agreement was exclusive.

Page | 19
Question 35: Question 36:

During a lawyer’s time working at a firm, he met with a A lawyer represented a contractor who had mistakenly
man to discuss the implications of a criminal underreported his income to the Internal Revenue
investigation against the man for allegedly assaulting his Service. The lawyer worked tirelessly on the contractor’s
girlfriend. The alleged assault had not yet led to a public behalf to come up with a plan to gradually pay the
charge. One month later, the lawyer transferred to a new additional taxes to the federal government. After the
firm. The partners at the new firm were deciding lawyer’s representation of the contractor ended, the
whether to represent the girlfriend’s parents, who wanted contractor’s ex-wife sought the services of the lawyer to
to set up a trust fund for the girlfriend and wished to represent her in a petition to modify the spousal support
determine to what extent the girlfriend would be able to that she was receiving. She sought an increase in the
share the quarterly disbursements from the trust fund amount of spousal support because she had been
with her boyfriend. The lawyer revealed to the partners unexpectedly laid off.
that the boyfriend consulted with him about the criminal
investigation. On the following day, a nationally read May the lawyer represent the ex-wife?
newspaper published a story about the boyfriend being a
suspect in an assault case. (A) Yes, because the ex-wife is seeking assistance with a
matter that is not the same or substantially related to
Is the lawyer subject to discipline? the one in which the lawyer represented the
contractor (ex-husband).
(A) No, because a lawyer is permitted to reveal (B) Yes, unless the ex-wife provides informed consent to
information relating to the representation of a former the representation, confirmed in writing.
client to the former client’s disadvantage once that (C) No, unless the contractor provides informed consent
information has become generally known. to the representation, confirmed in writing.
(B) No, because the lawyer is permitted to reveal (D) No, because both the contractor and ex-wife’s
information about the consultation with the informed written consent is required for the attorney
boyfriend to detect and resolve conflicts of interest to take on the representation.
arising from the lawyer’s change of employment.
(C) No, because the lawyer was permitted to disclose
limited information about the boyfriend to the new
firm once substantive discussions regarding the
representation of the girlfriend’s parents occurred.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer revealed information about
the consultation that would prejudice the boyfriend.

Page | 20
Question 37: Question 38:

An administrative law judge asked a lawyer to represent A lawyer was asked by the administrators of a daycare
him in a trespass lawsuit against his neighbor. The facility to give a presentation to its employees about the
lawyer agreed to represent the judge in this matter. state legislature’s recent enactment of a mandatory
Shortly thereafter, the lawyer met with a woman whose reporting statute in the event a childcare provider
social security benefits had been terminated. She wanted reasonably suspected that a child was the victim of child
the lawyer to challenge the termination of her benefits. endangerment. The lawyer gave a two-hour presentation
Her case had been assigned to the same administrative about the statute and spoke at length about how cases in
law judge that the lawyer was representing. The judge the jurisdiction had defined “reasonableness” and “child
prohibited the lawyer from disclosing to the woman that endangerment.” After the presentation, the lawyer asked
he represented the judge. The lawyer reasonably the employees to complete a quiz about the parameters
believed that he could provide competent and diligent of the statute. A few days later, the lawyer was
representation to both the woman and the judge. approached by his neighbor, whose wife had initiated
child custody proceedings to gain sole custody of their
Is it proper for the lawyer to represent the woman? two-year-old daughter. The neighbor, who worked as an
elementary school teacher, did not have the funds to hire
(A) No, unless the lawyer obtains the judge’s informed counsel and asked the lawyer if he could give advice
written consent to the representation. about how to represent his interests in this matter. While
(B) No, because the lawyer cannot obtain informed the lawyer did not think it was wise for the neighbor to
written consent to the representation from the represent himself, he provided him with information on
woman. how to do so.
(C) Yes, because the representation of the judge is not
directly adverse to the interests of the woman. Has the lawyer violated the Model Rules of Professional
(D) Yes, because the representation does not involve the Conduct?
assertion of a claim by one client against another
client represented by the lawyer in the same (A) Yes, because the lawyer’s presentation about the
litigation. mandatory reporting statute impermissibly assisted
nonlawyers in the practice of the law.
(B) Yes, because the lawyer impermissibly assisted his
nonlawyer neighbor in the practice of law.
(C) No, unless the lawyer informed the neighbor in
writing that it was not in his best interest to proceed
pro se in the child custody dispute.
(D) No, because a lawyer may provide professional
advice to nonlawyers whose employment requires
knowledge of the law and a lawyer may counsel
nonlawyers who wish to proceed pro se.

Page | 21
Question 39: Question 40:

A farmer went to a lawyer’s office for a consultation. An apartment building had a gas leak and as a result, a
Before the consultation began the lawyer obtained the fire erupted causing partial structural damage to three of
farmer’s informed consent that no information disclosed the apartments, one owned by a disabled man, another
during the consultation would prohibit the lawyer from owned by an elderly woman, and the last one owned by
representing a different client in the matter. Further, the a man who had recently immigrated to the United States
agreement between the lawyer and farmer expressly and English was not his first language. After a local
provided that the lawyer would be able to subsequently news station reported this story, a lawyer who had been
use any of the information received from the farmer. practicing real estate law and personal injury law for 15
Even though the farmer was not fond of this provision, years reached out to all three individuals asking them if
he gave his informed consent to this as well because the he could represent them in filing a lawsuit against the
lawyer was well respected in the jurisdiction and he was building maintenance company. The lawyer thought that
eager to retain him. The farmer wanted to know whether these cases would be profitable for him. The lawyer
he could bring a lawsuit against a factory for polluting video conferenced with the disabled man who wore a
the river, from which several of his cattle drank water hearing aid, spoke in person to the elderly woman who
and died. The farmer went on to explain that because of was recovering from surgery, and sent a message in a
the polluted water, he had taken some of the surviving chat room to the man who had recently immigrated to
cattle to a lake located on the factory owner’s property the United States. In each of his communications, the
because the water there was safer to drink. At the end of lawyer stated: “My name is Bill Smith. I am an attorney
the consultation, the lawyer told the farmer that he who specializes in real estate and personal injury law
would not be able to represent him in this matter because and would like to represent you on a contingency fee
of his current workload given the potential complexity of basis to help you obtain damages as a result of the gas
the case. One month later, the factory owner hired the leak. To discuss this matter further call me at (123) 456-
lawyer to sue the farmer for trespassing on his property. 7890.” On his firm’s website, Bill Smith stated: “I have
won 11 of the last 12 cases dealing with negligence,
Is the lawyer subject to discipline? including several cases in which I represented a large
commercial building owner, Ann David.” The lawyer
(A) Yes, because a lawyer may not condition a had obtained Ann David’s consent several months ago
consultation with a prospective client on the so that he could include her name in advertisements.
person’s informed consent that no information Further, the lawyer explained that despite his past
disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the success, such results were not guaranteed.
lawyer from representing a different client in the
matter. Did the lawyer’s actions comply with Model Rules of
(B) Yes, because a lawyer may not obtain prospective Professional Conduct?
client’s informed consent to the lawyer's subsequent
use of information received from the prospective (A) No, because the lawyer impermissibly engaged in
client. live person-to-person contact with three individuals.
(C) No, because the lawyer did not obtain informed (B) No, because the lawyer impermissibly engaged in
written consent from both the farmer and the factory live person-to-person contact with two individuals.
owner. (C) Yes, because the lawyer obtained the consent of a
(D) No, because the lawyer validly obtained the farmer’s client that he regularly represented prior to including
informed consent indicating that he could represent a that client’s name in advertisements for his legal
different client in the matter and that the lawyer services.
would be able to subsequently use information that (D) Yes, because none of the statements in the lawyer’s
he received from the farmer. advertisement were false or misleading.

Page | 22
Question 41: Question 42:

A pedestrian alleged that he had suffered extensive A customer brought a products liability lawsuit against
physical injuries after the crane operator at a an automobile manufacturer, alleging that the airbags
construction site negligently dropped a glass window on had been defectively designed. During discovery, the
him. The pedestrian paid his lawyer an advance fee of customer sought the production of more than one
$15,000 which the lawyer deposited in a client trust thousand documents. The automobile manufacturer
account. However, the lawyer did not think it would be produced the documents, but they were heavily redacted.
enough to cover all of the costs for the medical experts. The customer wanted the manufacturer to resend the
The lawyer took some of the fees that he had earned on a documents without redactions, but the manufacturer
previous case and transferred them to the client trust refused to do so. Thus, the customer filed a motion to
account to ensure that no bank overdraft fees would be compel discovery and the court issued an order requiring
charged. the manufacturer to produce the documents. The lawyer
for the automobile manufacturer openly refused to do so,
Is the lawyer subject to discipline? arguing that the redacted information was protected by
attorney-client privilege.
(A) No, because a lawyer may deposit his own funds in a
client trust account for the sole purpose of paying Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
bank service charges on that account.
(B) No, because a lawyer is permitted to take reasonable (A) No, unless the court determined that the lawyer
measures to avoid paying bank overdraft fees for a should be sanctioned for making an open refusal
client trust account. based on an assertion that there was no valid
(C) Yes, because the lawyer impermissibly commingled obligation to comply with the court order.
his own funds in the client trust account. (B) No, because the lawyer made an open refusal based
(D) Yes, unless the lawyer obtained the client’s consent on an assertion that there was no valid obligation to
to deposit his own funds into the client trust account. comply with the court order.
(C) Yes, because the lawyer made an open refusal based
on an assertion that there was no valid obligation to
comply with the court order.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer failed to comply with the
court order.

Page | 23
Question 43: Question 44:

A client hired a lawyer to represent him in a medical A man retained a lawyer to represent him in an inverse
malpractice action and the doctor agreed to settle the condemnation action, alleging that the township’s new
case for $800,000. The lawyer deposited the check in the land use laws resulted in a total regulatory taking of his
client trust account. A few days later, the lawyer private property. The client testified that he had
received a phone call from a credit card company. The purchased the property for $10,000 an acre. However,
representative from the credit card company informed one week later, the lawyer uncovered information
the lawyer that her client had not paid her credit card bill showing that the client had actually purchased the
for the last six months and that the outstanding debt was property for $1,000 an acre. The lawyer immediately
$10,000. As a result, the representative asked the lawyer called the man and advised him of a lawyer’s duty of
to disburse $10,000 from the settlement to the credit card candor to the tribunal and sought the man’s assistance to
company. When the lawyer asked if the credit card had correct the false statement. However, the man refused to
obtained a lien on the funds, the representative replied cooperate. The lawyer then revealed to the tribunal that
that it did not have one. That same day, a representative the man had testified falsely about the purchase price.
of a cell phone service provider notified the lawyer that a However, the lawyer failed to ask the tribunal to make a
lien in the amount of $2,000 had been placed on the statement about this matter to the trier of fact.
client’s settlement. The lawyer then called her client and
told him that the credit card company and cell phone Did the lawyer comply with the Model Rules of
service provider wanted a certain portion of the Professional Conduct?
settlement money to be distributed to them. The client
responded that he disputed the $2,000 debt. The client (A) Yes, because the lawyer revealed to the tribunal that
gave the lawyer permission to distribute $10,000 to the the man had testified falsely.
credit card company, but told his lawyer not to pay the (B) Yes, because the lawyer spoke with the man about a
cell phone service provider. The lawyer complied with lawyer’s duty of candor to the tribunal and sought
his client’s wishes. The lawyer gave the credit card the man’s assistance to correct the false statement,
company $10,000, deducted her own fees, and disbursed which fulfilled his duty under the Model Rules of
the remainder of the settlement funds to the client. In Professional Conduct.
addition, the lawyer did not file an action to have the (C) No, because the lawyer revealed information
court resolve the dispute between the cell phone service protected by the duty of confidentiality to the
provider and the client. The client then requested an tribunal.
accounting of how the settlement funds had been (D) No, because the lawyer did not ask the court to make
distributed and the lawyer sent him the information the a statement about the false testimony to the trier of
following day. fact.

Did the attorney comply with the Model Rules of

Professional Conduct?

(A) No, because the lawyer disbursed $10,000 to the

credit card company even though it had not obtained
a lien on the client’s settlement funds.
(B) No, because the lawyer paid the client the entirety of
the balance in the client trust account rather than
putting the $2,000 in a separate account.
(C) Yes, but only if the lawyer filed an action to have a
court resolve the dispute between the cell phone
service provider and the client.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer promptly rendered a full
accounting regarding the settlement funds upon the
client’s request.

Page | 24
Question 45: Question 46:

A lawyer represented a plaintiff who was stung by his A man wanted to sue his former doctor for medical
neighbor’s honey bees and sought money damages. The malpractice for not diagnosing his brain tumor after
plaintiff made a timely demand for a jury trial on the reviewing his magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.
matter and the court granted the plaintiff’s demand. Two The man hired a lawyer to represent him in this matter.
days into the jury trial, the lawyer had a reasonable While the parties were discussing the possibility of a
belief that one of the jurors had been bribed by the settlement, the man’s current doctor, who was the
neighbor to convince all of the jurors to find that he was lawyer’s younger brother, informed him that the man’s
not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. After the third day brain tumor had grown in size despite his best efforts to
of trial, the lawyer approached one of the jurors to ask treat it but that he had not yet shared the information
her some questions about the possible jury tampering. with the man because feared the man would have a
The juror answered the first two questions that the psychotic breakdown and harm himself.
lawyer posed but then indicated that she no longer
wished to discuss the case. The lawyer then proceeded to Is the lawyer subject to discipline if he does not
ask the juror one quick and final question about the promptly share this information with the man, his client?
alleged jury tampering. After speaking with the juror, the
lawyer wrote a letter to the judge presiding over the case (A) Yes, because a lawyer has a duty to promptly inform
and told her about the suspected jury tampering. The the client of any decision or circumstances regarding
lawyer also immediately sent a copy of the letter to the client’s claim.
opposing counsel. The following day, the judge declared (B) No, because a lawyer is not permitted to reveal
a mistrial. The law of the jurisdiction requires a lawyer information to his client that is protected by doctor-
to obtain a court order in order to communicate with patient confidentiality.
jurors during trial unless the lawyer knows that jury (C) No, because a lawyer may delay the transmission of
tampering has occurred. information if the client would be likely to react
imprudently to an immediate communication.
Did the lawyer violate with the Model Rules of (D) No, but only if the lawyer determines that his client
Professional Conduct? is suffering from diminished capacity.

(A) No, because the lawyer avoided engaging in an ex

parte communication by sending a copy of the letter
he wrote to the judge to opposing counsel.
(B) No, because the lawyer had good cause to speak
with the juror before the completion of the juror’s
term.
(C) Yes, because a lawyer may not communicate with a
juror once the juror indicates that she has no desire
to speak with the lawyer.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer did not obtain a court order
to communicate ex parte with the juror before the
completion of his jury service.

Page | 25
Question 47: Question 48:

A lawyer solicited campaign contributions on behalf of a A nationally recognized criminal defense lawyer who
judge who was seeking reelection. Upon being reelected, had not lost a case in two years was appointed by the
the judge appointed the lawyer to act as a guardian for tribunal to represent a defendant who had allegedly
several individuals who were suffering from diminished bombed a shopping mall, killing more than 200
capacity. The lawyer had solicited contributions for the individuals. The lawyer was troubled by this request
judge’s reelection campaign because he wanted to be because the lawyer’s sister died when a large
considered for such legal appointments, though he had commercial building had been bombed more than 30
only practiced immigration law. However, the fees from years ago. The lawyer thought about declining the
the appointments were significantly less than the amount appointment. However, the lawyer knew that no other
of contributions he had solicited for the judge’s lawyer would be likely to take on such a difficult and
campaign. Further, the fees he collected were slightly unpopular case. The lawyer was certain that
less than his regular hourly rate. representing the defendant would not create any conflict
of interest with any of his previous clients. Moreover, it
Has the lawyer violated the Model Rules of Professional was close to the end of the year and the lawyer knew that
Conduct? he still had to provide 25 hours of pro bono legal
services to satisfy his law firm’s policies.
(A) No, because the lawyer did not directly make
political contributions to the judge’s campaign for Is the lawyer required to accept the appointment?
the purpose of obtaining or being considered for a
legal appointment, and only solicited such donations (A) Yes, because a lawyer is obligated to accept an
from others. appointment by a tribunal even if a client is
(B) No, because the lawyer’s services as a guardian were unpopular.
substantially uncompensated. (B) Yes, because the court selected the lawyer to
(C) Yes, but only if the lawyer’s conduct constitutes represent the client on the basis of the lawyer’s
bribery. experience, expertise, and professional
(D) Yes, because a lawyer must not accept an qualifications.
appointment by a judge if the lawyer makes political (C) No, because the lawyer needed to satisfy his law
contributions or solicits political contributions for firm’s pro bono requirement.
the purpose of obtaining or being considered for that (D) No, if the client or cause is so repugnant to the
type of legal engagement or appointment. lawyer.

Page | 26
Question 49: Question 50:

A man retained a lawyer to represent him in the sale of A lawyer was representing a defendant in a complex
his car wash business. While the lawyer was at the car securities fraud lawsuit. The lawyer retained one of the
wash, a prospective buyer stopped by and began a nation’s leading securities professors to provide expert
conversation with the lawyer. The lawyer explained to testimony about companies’ compliance with securities
the prospective buyer that he represented the man in the laws. The lawyer agreed to pay the expert by the hour
sale of his car wash. The prospective buyer asked the for the time that the expert spent preparing to testify and
lawyer generally whether entering the car wash business for testifying before the court. The agreement with the
these days would be a lucrative investment. The lawyer expert also provided that if the court found in favor of
explained that it was a good investment because most the defendant, then the expert would receive an extra
people no longer wash their own cars. However, the $2,000. The lawyer also intended to call one of the
lawyer knew that the man (his client) did not use the defendant’s employees as a fact witness to testify that
latest equipment at the car wash and that it took 20 the corporation had not participated in the alleged
minutes longer to wash a car at the man’s business than misconduct. The lawyer agreed to compensate the
it did at many of the self-serve car washes in the city. defendant’s employee witness for her travel and lodging
Shortly thereafter, the prospective buyer and his personal expenses associated with testifying, as well as a one-
attorney met at the car wash. The prospective buyer time fee for her testimony on the day of trial. This
introduced his attorney to the lawyer and explained that jurisdiction has adopted the common law that is used in
the attorney was representing him in the purchase of a most jurisdictions with regard to the payment of expert
car wash. The lawyer immediately ended the and fact witnesses.
conversation with the prospective buyer.
Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
Did the lawyer comply with the Model Rules of
Professional Conduct? (A) Yes, because the lawyer’s agreements with both
witnesses were improper.
(A) No, because a lawyer is required to be truthful when (B) Yes, but only because the lawyer’s agreement with
dealing with others on a client’s behalf, which the expert witness is improper.
includes an affirmative duty to disclose relevant (C) No, because a lawyer is permitted to pay an
facts. occurrence witness a fee for testifying.
(B) No, because the lawyer’s omission of the fact that (D) No, because the lawyer compensated both
his client was not using the most up-to-date witnesses on terms permitted by the applicable law
equipment was the functional equivalent of an in the jurisdiction.
affirmative false statement.
(C) Yes, because the lawyer could communicate with the
purchaser regardless of whether he was represented
by an attorney.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer did not make a false
statement of material fact or law to a third person.

Page | 27
Question 51: Question 52:

A law clerk for a federal district judge began her search A lawyer was a senior associate in a firm and
for post-clerkship employment opportunities while she represented a major internet service provider in a class-
was still had six months left in her clerkship. She wanted action lawsuit brought by customers, alleging that the
to work as in-house counsel for a software company that terms of the service contract included an unlawful
had its principal place of business in the same judicial provision to collect a tax. Meanwhile, a rival internet
district. The law clerk did a significant amount of legal service provider contacted the lawyer and asked him to
research for the judge on a case in which the software represent it in a lawsuit against individuals that had
company was a party and in which the judge’s final hacked into its database and leaked the private
ruling was still pending. information of the company’s contracts with its
customers. There are only three internet service
Is it proper for the law clerk to negotiate future providers that operate in the jurisdiction.
employment with the software company during her
clerkship? May the lawyer represent the rival internet service
provider?
(A) Yes, but only after receiving the judge’s permission.
(B) Yes, but only after notifying the judge. (A) No, because the law firm is already representing a
(C) No, because it would raise a substantial question as competing internet service provider.
to the law clerk’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness (B) No, because there is a significant risk that the
as a lawyer. representation of the rival internet service provider
(D) No, because the software company is a party to the will be materially limited by the lawyer's
matter in which the clerk has been participating responsibilities to the major internet service
personally and substantially. provider.
(C) Yes, because the lawyer’s representation will not
create a concurrent conflict of interest.
(D) Yes, but only if the law firm first obtains the
informed consent, confirmed in writing, from the
rival internet service provider.

Page | 28
Question 53: Question 54:

A lawyer was defending a client who had been indicted A lawyer represented a client in an employment
for aggravated robbery. While preparing for trial, the discrimination case. After discovery came to a close, the
client revealed to his lawyer that he had lied under oath lawyer spoke with her client and informed her that a
when he was testifying before the grand jury that that settlement greater than $400,000 would be a positive
indicted him. The lawyer was deeply unsettled upon outcome. The client, however, told the lawyer that she
hearing this because she was certain that the client’s would not settle for less than $500,000 under any
actions constituted perjury. The lawyer promptly circumstances. Opposing counsel offered to settle the
revealed this information to the police authorities. case for $450,000. Without speaking with her client, the
lawyer immediately rejected the offer.
Is the lawyer subject to discipline for revealing the
information to the police? Has the lawyer violated the Model Rules of Professional
Conduct?
(A) No, because the lawyer was obligated to report
unprivileged knowledge of criminal activity. (A) No, because the lawyer decides the technical, legal,
(B) No, because the lawyer was certain that his client and tactical matters of the case.
had committed the crime of perjury. (B) No, because the lawyer received instructions from
(C) Yes, because the lawyer impermissibly revealed the client stating that she would not settle for less
confidential information. than $500,000.
(D) Yes, but only if the lawyer was required to get her (C) Yes, because a lawyer must consult with the client
client’s informed consent before notifying the about the means by which the client's objectives are
authorities. to be accomplished.
(D) Yes, but only if exigent circumstances required the
lawyer to act without consulting the client.

Page | 29
Question 55: Question 56:

After indicting a defendant on murder and kidnapping A judge who presided primarily over civil litigation
charges, a prosecutor held a joint press conference with cases was not required to perform marriages in his
local law enforcement. The local police sergeant had led jurisdiction. Two weeks ago, four members of the public
the investigative team that apprehended the defendant. requested that the judge perform marriages for them, but
However, the prosecutor did not have any supervisory the judge declined to do so. One week ago, the judge’s
authority over the sergeant. The sergeant asked the sister requested him to perform her marriage to her
prosecutor if he wanted to go over his statement to the boyfriend of five years. The judge was delighted to do
press, but the prosecutor chose not to, stating that he had so. Two days ago, one of the judge’s friends asked the
the utmost confidence in the sergeant. During the press judge to perform his marriage to his boyfriend but the
conference, the prosecutor stated that his office would judge declined to do so given his personal beliefs about
prosecute the defendant to the fullest extent of the law. same-sex marriage.
Thereafter, the sergeant spoke about the logistics of the
investigation and averred the defendant was a “heinous Has the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct?
criminal who deserved to spend the rest of his life
behind bars.” (A) Yes, because the judge chose to perform his sister’s
marriage but did not perform marriages for members
Is the prosecutor subject to discipline? of the public.
(B) Yes, because even though the judge did not perform
(A) No, because the sergeant’s conduct is not regulated marriages for the public, he declined to perform his
by the Modern Rules of Professional Conduct. friend’s same-sex marriage but chose to perform his
(B) No, because the prosecutor did not have any sister’s opposite-sex marriage.
supervisory authority over the sergeant. (C) No, because the judge was not required to perform
(C) Yes, because the prosecutor failed to exercise marriages as a mandatory obligation of judicial
reasonable care to prevent the sergeant from making office.
a statement that did not comply with the restrictions (D) No, because a judge may choose to perform
placed upon extrajudicial statements. marriages for his family members and not his
(D) Yes, because the prosecutor has a duty to ensure that friends.
law enforcement personnel, such as the sergeant, do
not make extrajudicial statements once a criminal
defendant has been indicted.

Page | 30
Question 57: Question 58:

A client hired a lawyer to draft a will for him. The A defendant was charged with armed robbery. The
lawyer met with the client to ask which assets the client defendant insisted on appearing pro se and the tribunal
wanted to leave to particular beneficiaries. During this permitted the defendant to do so. The assistant district
meeting, the lawyer learned that the client needed money attorney asked the defendant if he would waive the
for unrelated expenses. In particular, the client wanted preliminary hearing and to the attorney’s surprise, the
to start an organic dry-cleaning business and needed defendant agreed. Ultimately, the defendant was
funds to purchase the necessary equipment. The lawyer convicted of armed robbery. Three months after the
was impressed by his client’s ambition and offered to assistant district attorney secured the conviction, the
loan the client $100,000. In return, the client agreed to attorney learned of new, credible and material evidence
put up his three cars as collateral. Before loaning the creating a reasonable likelihood that the defendant did
client the money, the lawyer drafted a written document not commit the crime. The attorney promptly disclosed
that stipulated the terms of the agreement in language this evidence to the court and the defendant. Then the
that could be reasonably understood by the client. The attorney conducted an investigation as to whether the
lawyer orally informed the client that it was in the defendant was innocent and requested the court to
client’s best interest to seek independent counsel to appoint counsel to assist the defendant in taking
review the terms of the agreement and gave him one appropriate legal measures.
month to seek counsel. The client found the terms of the
agreement to be fair and reasonable and thus decided not Is the assistant district attorney subject to discipline?
to seek the advice of another attorney. The client gave
his informed written consent to the terms of the (A) Yes, because the assistant district attorney asked the
transaction and the lawyer loaned the client $100,000. court to appoint counsel to assist the defendant in
taking appropriate legal measures regarding the new
Is the lawyer subject to discipline? material evidence even though the defendant had
appeared pro se earlier.
(A) No, because the business transaction was not closely (B) Yes, because an attorney may not seek to obtain
related to the subject matter of representation. from an unrepresented accused a waiver of
(B) No, because the lawyer and client agreed upon terms important pretrial rights.
that were fair and reasonable and the client provided (C) No, because upon learning of new, credible and
his informed written consent. material evidence, the assistant district attorney was
(C) Yes, because the lawyer did not ensure that the client only required to promptly relay the information to
was independently represented before he provided the court and he went above and beyond by
his informed written consent. conducting an investigation into the defendant’s
(D) Yes, because the lawyer did not advise the client in innocence.
writing of the desirability of seeking the advice of (D) No, because an attorney may request a defendant to
independent legal counsel. waive a pretrial hearing if the tribunal permitted the
defendant to appear pro se.

Page | 31
Question 59: Question 60:

A lawyer who served as general counsel for a mining A woman wanted to sue her surgeon for medical
corporation also served as an officer for a local malpractice for leaving a surgical tool in her abdomen
environmental organization. The environmental during a cesarean section. The woman hired a lawyer
organization was lobbying for stricter rules concerning who had graduated from law school one year earlier and
air pollution. But because mining was the main source of who had no experience with medical malpractice law.
income for members of the community, some members According to the law of the jurisdiction, the woman had
of the environmental organization proposed working two years left to file the complaint before the statute of
with lawmakers to carve out an exception for air limitations would bar the claim. The lawyer thoroughly
pollution penalties for mining corporations if reviewed the applicable statutes and case law in the
corporations purchased a machine that reduced the jurisdiction as well as neighboring jurisdictions. For
amount of dust and coal particles. The members of the almost two years, the woman regularly contacted the
environmental organization, including the lawyer, voted lawyer about the status of her case and the lawyer
upon whether to lobby for this exception. The lawyer promptly told her that he was researching her claim. One
knew that the corporation he worked for had already week before the statute of limitations period expired, the
purchased two such machines. Prior to the vote, the lawyer filed the complaint with the state court.
lawyer told the members of the organization that he had
a client who may be materially benefitted by this Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
exception but failed to provide the name of his client.
(A) No, because the lawyer’s conduct did not have a
Is the lawyer subject to discipline? substantially adverse effect upon his client’s
interests.
(A) No, because the lawyer was not permitted to disclose (B) No, because the lawyer filed the complaint before
the identity of his client on the basis of attorney- the statute of limitations expired.
client privilege. (C) Yes, because the lawyer did not act with reasonable
(B) No, because the lawyer disclosed that he had a client diligence and promptness in representing his client.
who may be materially benefitted by the decision of (D) Yes, but only if the lawyer’s conduct would subject
the environmental organization. him to civil liability.
(C) Yes, because by becoming a member of the
environmental organization, the lawyer established a
client-lawyer relationship with the environmental
organization, which created a conflict of interest
given the lawyer’s duties to the mining corporation.
(D) Yes, because the lawyer did not disclose the identity
of his client prior to voting on whether the
environmental organization should lobby lawmakers
to carve out an exception to the air pollution laws.

Page | 32
 MPRE EXAM #2 ANSWER KEY
1. D 21. D 41. C
2. B 22. B 42. B
3. D 23. C 43. B
4. C 24. A 44. A
5. B 25. C 45. D
6. D 26. A 46. C
7. D 27. A 47. D
8. D 28. D 48. D
9. A 29. C 49. D
10. D 30. B 50. A
11. B 31. C 51. B
12. B 32. A 52. C
13. A 33. D 53. C
14. B 34. D 54. B
15. C 35. D 55. C
16. D 36. C 56. B
17. B 37. B 57. D
18. D 38. D 58. D
19. C 39. D 59. B
20. B 40. B 60. C

Page | 33
 MPRE EXAM #2 ANSWER EXPLANATIONS
1. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.3 states: “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.” Comment [4] to Model Rule 1.3 provides: “Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in
Rule 1.16, a lawyer should carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a client.” Comment [4] elaborates that
“[I]f a lawyer has handled a judicial or administrative proceeding that produced a result adverse to the client and the
lawyer and the client have not agreed that the lawyer will handle the matter on appeal, the lawyer must consult with the
client about the possibility of appeal before relinquishing responsibility for the matter.” Here, the judicial proceeding
ended with an adverse decision for the client and the facts do not indicate whether the lawyer and the client had agreed
whether the lawyer would represent the client in case of an appeal. Because it is unclear whether the attorney-client
relationship has terminated, the lawyer was required to consult with the client about the possibility of an appeal. Here, the
lawyer did not do so, and thus, is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. While it is true that the Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not require the lawyer to tell the client
that she is going out of town, the lawyer here still had a duty to consult with client about the possibility of appeal because
the scope of the attorney-client relationship was unclear, as explained above.

(B) is incorrect. As explained above, based on the facts provided, the scope of the lawyer’s representation on the personal
injury case is unclear (e.g., through trial, through appeal, etc.). Thus, after the client suffered an adverse result, the lawyer
still had a duty to consult with client about the possibility of appeal under Model Rule 1.3.

(C) is incorrect. Model Rule 1.5(b) states in relevant part: “The scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee
and expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or
within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, except when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented
client on the same basis or rate.” [Emphasis added.] Contingent fee agreements, on the other hand, must be in a writing
signed by the client. See Model Rule 1.6(c). Thus, because this case was not taken on a contingent fee basis, the lawyer
was permitted to communicate her fees either orally or in writing. Though written communication is preferred, it is not
required here.

2. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.8(i)(1) provides: “A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause
of action or subject matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client, except that the lawyer may: acquire a lien
authorized by law to secure the lawyer's fee or expenses[.]” Comment [16] clarifies that “[t]he law of each jurisdiction
determines which liens are authorized by law.” Here, as long as the laws of the relevant jurisdiction permit the lawyer to
acquire a lien to secure the lawyer’s fee, the lawyer will not be subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. Even if the client signed a document permitting the lawyer to place a lien on any judgment she received
in the case to secure the legal fees, the lawyer would be subject to discipline if this violated the rules of the relevant
jurisdiction.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, while a lawyer is generally not allowed to acquire a proprietary interest in the subject
matter of litigation, a lawyer may acquire a lien authorized by law to secure the lawyer's fee. See Model Rule 1.8(i)(1).

(D) is incorrect. There are not enough facts provided to determine whether the fee arrangement creates a current conflict
of interest. Furthermore, this answer does not accurately explain how a current conflict of exist may arise. Pursuant to
Model Rule 1.7(a), “Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation
involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will
be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be
materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal
Page | 34
interest of the lawyer.” Thus, Model Rule 1.7(a)(2) is concerned with whether there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s
representation of client will be materially limited by his duties to other clients, third persons or the lawyer’s own personal
interest.

3. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule. 1.8(h)(1) states: “A lawyer shall not: make an agreement prospectively limiting
the lawyer's liability to a client for malpractice unless the client is independently represented in making the agreement[.]”
Here, the lawyer entered into an agreement with the landlord to waive prospective malpractice claims even though the
landlord was not independently represented in making the agreement. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, because the lawyer entered into an agreement with the landlord to waive prospective
malpractice claims even though the landlord was not independently represented in making the agreement, the lawyer is
subject to discipline. Comment [14] to Model Rule 1.8 notes that a lawyer may enter an agreement with a client to
arbitrate legal malpractice claims as long as the agreement is enforceable, and the client is fully informed of the scope and
effect of the agreement. Here, however, the lawyer is not asking the landlord to agree to arbitration.

(B) is incorrect. As explained above, because the lawyer entered into an agreement with the landlord to waive prospective
malpractice claims even though the landlord was not independently represented in making the agreement, the lawyer is
subject to discipline. Model Rule 1.8(h)(2) provides: “A lawyer shall not: settle a claim or potential claim for such
[malpractice] liability with an unrepresented client or former client unless that person is advised in writing of the
desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel in connection
therewith.” Here, however, the lawyer is not attempting to enter into an agreement with the landlord to settle a malpractice
claim. Instead, Model Rule 1.8(h)(1) governs here to limit prospective liability, subjecting the lawyer to discipline.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, if the lawyer acts in accordance with Model Rule 1.8(h) and Comment [14] to Model
Rule 1.8, a lawyer may enter into an agreement with a client to waive prospective malpractice claims, arbitrate legal
malpractice claims, or settle a malpractice claim. Thus, this answer choice is too narrow.

4. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.6(c) states: “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent
or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.” More
specifically, according to ABA Formal Opinion 483 (2018), if a lawyer’s office file server was subject to a ransomware
attack, “disclosure will be required if material client information was actually or reasonably suspected to have been
accessed, disclosed or lost in a breach.” Here, the lawyer’s office file server was subject to a ransomware attack and the
facts do not indicate how this affected material client information. If the post-breach investigation reveals that material
client information was actually or reasonably suspected to have been accessed, disclosed or lost as a result of the breach,
the lawyer must notify her clients.

(A) is incorrect. This answer is overly broad. As explained in ABA Formal Opinion 483 (2018), “[N]o notification is
required if the lawyer’s office file server was subject to a ransomware attack but no information relating to the
representation of a client was inaccessible for any material amount of time, or was not accessed by or disclosed to
unauthorized persons.” As explained above, if the post-breach investigation reveals that material client information was
actually or reasonably suspected to have been accessed, disclosed or lost as a result of the breach, the lawyer must notify
her clients.

(B) is incorrect. This answer choice is too narrow. As discussed above, if the post-breach investigation reveals that
material client information was actually or reasonably suspected to have been accessed, disclosed or lost as a result of the
breach, the lawyer must notify her clients.

(D) is incorrect. This answer choice is too narrow because it merely states that the lawyer “may” notify clients. As
discussed above, if the post-breach investigation reveals that material client information was actually or reasonably
suspected to have been accessed, disclosed or lost as a result of the breach, the lawyer must notify her clients.
Page | 35
5. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.1 provides, “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.”
Comment [8] to Model Rule 1.1 states: “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of
changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in
continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is
subject.” ABA Formal Opinion 483 (2018) explains that with respect to a lawyer’s post-breach responsibilities, “[a]
lawyer’s competency in this regard may be satisfied either through the lawyer’s own study and investigation or by
employing or retaining qualified lawyer and nonlawyer assistants.” Here, the partners fulfilled their duty of competency
by having the junior associates, who had knowledge of how to protect electronically stored client information and how to
investigate the breach. Thus, the fact that the partners themselves were not qualified to conduct the post-breach
investigation does not mean that they violated the duty to provide competent representation to their clients.

(A) is incorrect. This answer choice is too narrow. As explained in ABA Formal Opinion 483 (2018), “Model Rules 1.1,
1.6, 5.1 and 5.3 . . . address the risks that accompany the benefits of the use of technology by lawyers. When a data breach
occurs involving, or having a substantial likelihood of involving, material client information, lawyers have a duty to notify
clients of the breach and to take other reasonable steps consistent with their obligations under these Model Rules.”
[Emphasis added.] The second part of this duty is to take reasonable steps such as conducting their own study and
investigation into what happened, not merely notifying their clients of the breach, as ithis answer choice suggests.

(C) is incorrect. As discussed above, ABA Formal Opinion 483 (2018) explains that with respect to a lawyer’s post-
breach responsibilities, “[a] lawyer’s competency in this regard may be satisfied either through the lawyer’s own study
and investigation or by employing or retaining qualified lawyer and nonlawyer assistants.” [Emphasis added.] Here, the
partners fulfilled their duty of competency by having the junior associates, who had knowledge of how to protect
electronically stored client information, investigate the breach. Thus, the fact that the partners themselves were not
qualified to conduct the post-breach investigation does not mean that they violated the duty to provide competent
representation to their clients.

(D) is incorrect. This answer choice is too narrow. As noted in ABA Formal Opinion 483 (2018), “While lawyers must
make reasonable efforts to monitor their technology resources to detect a breach, an ethical violation does not necessarily
occur if a cyber-intrusion or loss of electronic information is not immediately detected, because cyber criminals might
successfully hide their intrusion despite reasonable or even extraordinary efforts by the lawyer.” Here, we are not given
enough facts to determine whether the loss of electronic information could have been reasonably detected immediately
after the data breach. Thus, this is not the best answer.

6. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 5.4(a)(4) states that “a lawyer may share court-awarded legal fees with a
nonprofit organization that employed, retained or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter.” Here, the non-
profit organization recommended that the homeless man seek the services of the lawyer. Thus, the lawyer was permitted
to share the court-awarded legal fees with the non-profit organization.

(A) is incorrect. This answer choice is too narrow. As explained above, Model Rule 5.4(a)(4) states that “a lawyer may
share court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained or recommended employment of the
lawyer in the matter.” [Emphasis added.] Here, the non-profit organization recommended that the homeless man seek the
services of the lawyer. Thus, the lawyer was permitted to share the court-awarded legal fees with the non-profit
organization.

(B) is incorrect. This answer choice refers to a rule that does not apply to these facts. Model Rule 7.2(b) generally states
that “A lawyer shall not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s
services . . .” unless an exception applies. Here, however, as discussed above, this question pertains more specifically to
the issue of when a lawyer may share legal fees with nonlawyers. If you picked this answer choice, pay closer attention to
the facts.

Page | 36
(C) is incorrect. This answer choice refers to a rule that does not apply to these facts. Model Rule 7.2(b) generally states
that “A lawyer shall not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s
services . . .” unless an exception applies. Here, however, as explained above, this question pertains more specifically to
the issue of when a lawyer may share legal fees with nonlawyers (not when the lawyer may give a nominal gift as an
expression of appreciation). If you picked this answer choice, pay closer attention to the facts.

7. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 2.11(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct sets forth instances in which a judge is
required to disqualify himself or herself if the judge’s impartiality may be questioned. ABA Formal Opinion 488 (2019),
speaks specifically to a judge’s obligation to disqualify himself if a judge’s relationship with a lawyer or a party is
characterized as an acquaintanceship, friendship, or close personal relationship. The opinion points out that “a judge and
party may be characterized as acquaintances where the party owns or operates a business that the judge patronizes on the
same terms as any other person.” Further, the opinion provides: “[e]valuated from the standpoint of a reasonable person
fully informed of the facts, a judge’s acquaintance with a lawyer or party, standing alone, is not a reasonable basis for
questioning the judge’s impartiality. A judge, therefore, has no obligation to disclose his or her acquaintance with a
lawyer or party to other lawyers or parties in a proceeding. A judge may, of course, disclose the acquaintanceship if the
judge so chooses.” Here, the fact that the judge goes grocery shopping at a store owned by the plaintiff, without any more
information, amounts to a “relatively superficial” interaction. Thus, the plaintiff is merely an acquaintance of the judge
and the judge has no obligation to disqualify himself or disclose this acquaintanceship to the parties and their lawyers.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, the plaintiff is merely an acquaintance of the judge and the judge has no obligation
to disclose this acquaintanceship to the parties and their lawyers.

(B) is incorrect. As explained above, the plaintiff is merely an acquaintance of the judge and the judge has no obligation to
disqualify himself.

(C) is incorrect. As discussed above, these facts do not require the judge’s disqualification. Further, even if the judge was
disqualified, the parties could choose to waive the judge’s disqualification if the proper procedures were followed. The
only basis for disqualification that may not be waived is a judge’s bias or prejudice, which is not implicated by these facts.
See Model Rule 2.11(C).

8. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.8(c) provides in relevant part: “A lawyer shall not solicit any substantial gift
from a client, including a testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the lawyer or a person
related to the lawyer any substantial gift unless the lawyer or other recipient of the gift is related to the client.” Here, the
lawyer did not solicit the substantial gift (oceanfront property) from his client. The client offered to give the lawyer the
property. Additionally, the lawyer did not prepare the document transferring title of the oceanfront property to him, an
outside attorney did. Thus, the lawyer is not subject to discipline. Note: If the lawyer were related to the client, he could
have prepared the documents transferring title himself. As explained in Model Rule 1.8(c), “related persons include a
spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent or other relative or individual with whom the lawyer or the client maintains
a close, familial relationship.” However, the facts do not specify whether the lawyer and client are related.

(A) is incorrect. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not contain an outright prohibition on lawyers accepting a
gift from a client, even if the gift is a substantial one.

(B) is incorrect. As noted above, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not contain an outright prohibition on
lawyers accepting a gift from a client, even if the gift is a substantial one, regardless of whether the client is related to the
lawyer.

(C) is incorrect. While it is true that the lawyer did not solicit a substantial gift, this answer choice is not as complete an
answer choice (D). Answer choice (D) highlights the fact that the lawyer did not solicit a substantial gift and that he did
not prepare the document transferring title to the oceanfront property wholly in line with Model Rule 1.8(c).
Page | 37
9. (A) is the correct answer. ABA Formal Opinion 481 (2018) provides: “Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4
requires a lawyer to inform a current client if the lawyer believes that he or she may have materially erred in the client's
representation. Recognizing that errors occur along a continuum, an error is material if a disinterested lawyer would
conclude that it is (a) reasonably likely to harm or prejudice a client; or (b) of such a nature that it would reasonably cause
a client to consider terminating the representation even in the absence of harm or prejudice. No similar obligation exists
under the Model Rules to a former client where the lawyer discovers after the attorney-client relationship has ended that
the lawyer made a material error in the former client's representation.” [Emphasis added.] Here, because the lawyer’s
material drafting error pertains to information that the lawyer learned after the end of the attorney-client relationship, the
lawyer is not required to communicate this to the former client.

(B) is incorrect. This answer choice does not address the specific rule being tested by this question, namely whether a
lawyer has a duty to communicate with a former client about a material error. As discussed above, because the lawyer’s
material drafting error pertains to information that the lawyer learned after the end of the attorney-client relationship, the
lawyer is not required to communicate this to the former client.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, if the attorney learned of his material drafting error before the attorney-client
relationship had ended, he would have been required to communicate this to the client under Model Rule 1.4. However,
because the lawyer’s material drafting error pertains to information that the lawyer learned after the end of the attorney-
client relationship, the lawyer is not required to communicate this to the former client.

(D) is incorrect. As explained in ABA Formal Opinion 481 (2018), “Model Rule 1.16(d) provides in pertinent part that,
upon termination of a representation, ‘a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's
interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering
papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee[s] or expense[s] that has not
been earned or incurred.’ ” However, the opinion explains that based upon the language of Model Rule 1.16(d), “[t]his
provision does not create a duty to inform former clients of material errors . . . .”

10. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.13(f) provides: “In dealing with an organization's directors, officers,
employees, members, shareholders or other constituents, a lawyer shall explain the identity of the client when the lawyer
knows or reasonably should know that the organization's interests are adverse to those of the constituents with whom the
lawyer is dealing.” Comment [10] to Model Rule 1.13 states: “There are times when the organization's interest may be or
become adverse to those of one or more of its constituents. In such circumstances the lawyer should advise any
constituent, whose interest the lawyer finds adverse to that of the organization of the conflict or potential conflict of
interest, that the lawyer cannot represent such constituent, and that such person may wish to obtain independent
representation. Care must be taken to assure that the individual understands that, when there is such adversity of interest,
the lawyer for the organization cannot provide legal representation for that constituent individual, and that discussions
between the lawyer for the organization and the individual may not be privileged.”

Further, Model Rule 1.18(a) provides: “A person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-
lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.” Additionally, Model Rule 1.18(b) states: “Even when
no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned information from a prospective client shall not use or
reveal that information, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.”

Here, associate counsel represented the corporation. When the technician told the associate counsel that he had made
some mistakes at work and needed some advice, the associate counsel had a duty to explain to him that she represented
the corporation (and not him), because the lawyer reasonably should have known that the corporation’s interests were
adverse to those of the technician. Further, because the lawyer did not take this step and continued her conversation with
the technician about his mistakes at work, at a minimum, a prospective client relationship with the technician was
established, and her conversation with the technician was protected by the duty of confidentiality. Thus, the associate
counsel should not have revealed the contents of her conversation with the technician to the associate attorney. For these
reasons, the associate counsel is subject to discipline.
Page | 38
(A) is incorrect. Model Rule 1.6(a), provides: “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a
client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the
representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).” The technician did not need to request that the associate
counsel keep their conversation confidential. Once the technician reasonably believed that the associate counsel was
representing him, the associate counsel was only permitted to reveal confidential information under the aforementioned
circumstances, none of which are applicable to these facts.

(B) is incorrect. Comment [6] to Model Rule 1.7 notes that “[l]oyalty to a current client prohibits undertaking
representation directly adverse to that client without that client's informed consent.” While it is true that the associate
counsel owed a duty of loyalty to the corporation, the issues here, as explained above, are that the associate counsel did
not explain to the technician that she represented the corporation and that she impermissibly revealed confidential
information about her conversation with the technician, who at a minimum had become a prospective client.

(C) is incorrect. This is not the most complete answer choice. As explained above, the associate counsel is subject to
discipline because she did not explain to the technician that she represented the corporation. Additionally, this answer
choice does not state that the associate counsel is subject to discipline because she impermissibly revealed confidential
information about her conversation with the technician, who at a minimum, had become a prospective client.

11. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.8(j) provides: “A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a
consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.” Comment [19] to
Model Rule 1.8 further clarifies, “ When the client is an organization, paragraph (j) of this Rule prohibits a lawyer for the
organization (whether inside counsel or outside counsel) from having a sexual relationship with a constituent of the
organization who supervises, directs or regularly consults with that lawyer concerning the organization's legal matters.”
Here, the lawyer (as outside counsel) began a sexual relationship with the chief financial officer, who regularly consulted
with the lawyer concerning the organization’s legal matters. The sexual relationship arose after the lawyer began
representing the company. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. Comment [20] to Model Rule 1.8 explains that “[t]he prohibition set forth in paragraph (j) is personal
and is not applied to associated lawyers.” Thus, the lawyer’s violation of Model Rule 1.9(j) will not be imputed to the
associate.

(C) is incorrect. As discussed above, Comment [19] to Model Rule 1.8 notes, “When the client is an organization,
paragraph (j) of this Rule prohibits a lawyer for the organization (whether inside counsel or outside counsel) from having
a sexual relationship with a constituent of the organization who supervises, directs or regularly consults with that lawyer
concerning the organization's legal matters.” Thus, even if the chief financial officer does not supervise the organization’s
legal matters, the prohibition set forth in Model Rule 1.8(j) applies because the lawyer for the company is engaged in a
sexual relationship with a constituent that “regularly consults” with that lawyer concerning the organization's legal
matters.

(D) is incorrect. As explained above, Model Rule 1.8(j) applies to the conduct of inside and outside counsel alike. Thus,
the lawyer cannot avoid liability merely be serving as outside counsel.

12. (B) is the correct answer. ABA Formal Opinion 487 (2019) provides, “In a contingent fee matter, when a counsel
(successor counsel) from one firm replaces a counsel (predecessor counsel) from another firm as counsel for the client,
Rules 1.5(b) and (c) require that the successor counsel notify the client, in writing, that a portion of any contingent fee
earned may be paid to the predecessor counsel.” Further, the opinion elaborates, “making the disclosure in the fee
agreement itself is the better practice, but this disclosure may be made in a separate document associated with the
contingent fee agreement and provided to the client at the same time.” Here, the new (successor) counsel notified the
client that a portion of the contingent fee would be divided with the original lawyer (predecessor counsel) one week after

Page | 39
she reviewed the written contingent fee agreement with the client–not at the same time. Thus, the new counsel is subject
to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. This is not the most complete answer. As noted above, the new counsel has the option to notify the client
in a written document that the contingent fee will be shared with the original lawyer either in the written fee agreement or
in a separate writing provided to the client at the same time. Here, the new counsel’s written fee agreement did not state
that the contingent fee would be shared with original lawyer. However, the new counsel could have resolved this issue
with a subsequent timely written disclosure (but the disclosure took place two weeks later). Thus, it was not timely.

(C) is incorrect. As discussed above, the new counsel notified the client that a portion of the contingent fee would be
divided with the original lawyer two weeks after she reviewed the written contingent fee agreement with the client–not at
the same time. Thus, the new counsel is subject to discipline.

(D) is incorrect. This is not the best answer. Model Rule 1.5(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not make an agreement for,
charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses.” Some factors to be taken into account are
“the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services” and “the experience, reputation, and ability of the
lawyer or lawyers performing the services.” See Model Rule 1.5(a)(3) and Model Rule 1.5(a)(7). Here, the facts indicate
that the new counsel’s fee was reasonable, so for that reason, she would not be subject to discipline. However, the issue
here is that the new counsel did not properly inform her client that the contingent fee would be shared with the original
lawyer.

13. (A) is the correct answer. Model Rule 7.2(c) provides: “A lawyer shall not state or imply that a lawyer is certified as
a specialist in a particular field of law, unless: (1) the lawyer has been certified as a specialist by an organization that has
been approved by an appropriate authority of the state or the District of Columbia or a U.S. Territory or that has been
accredited by the American Bar Association; and (2) the name of the certifying organization is clearly identified in the
communication.” Further, Comment [9] to Model Rule 7.2 states in pertinent part: “Paragraph (c) of this Rule permits a
lawyer to communicate that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular areas of law. A lawyer is generally
permitted to state that the lawyer ‘concentrates in’ . . . particular fields based on the lawyer’s experience, specialized
training or education[.]” Thus, the lawyer may state that he concentrates in guardianship law and that he does not
specialize in real estate law.

(B) is incorrect. Model Rule 7.2(d) states: “Any communication made under this Rule must include the name and contact
information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content.” Further, Comment [12] to Model Rule 7.2 adds,
“This Rule requires that any communication about a lawyer or law firm’s services include the name of, and contact
information for, the lawyer or law firm. Contact information includes a website address, a telephone number, an email
address or a physical office location.” Here, the communication includes the name of the lawyer and the website of the
law firm. Thus, there is no need to also include the name of the second partner.

(C) is incorrect. As discussed above, the advertisement contains the contact information that is required by Model Rule
7.2(d). Here, the communication includes the name of the lawyer and the website of the law firm.

(D) is incorrect. As explained above, nothing in the advertisement indicates that the lawyer implied that he was a certified
specialist in guardianship law. He did not allude to the fact that the Organization for Elder was seeking certification from
the American Bar Association. The lawyer’s advertisement validly states that he concentrates in guardianship law and that
he does not specialize in real estate law.

14. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 8.4(g) states that it is “professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in
conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic
status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Pursuant to Comment [4] to Model Rule 8.4, “Lawyers may engage in
Page | 40
conduct undertaken to promote diversity and inclusion without violating this Rule by, for example, implementing
initiatives aimed at recruiting, hiring, retaining and advancing diverse employees or sponsoring diverse law student
organizations.” Thus, the partners are not subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. According to Model Rule 6.1, “A lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico
legal services per year.” Further the rule explains, “In fulfilling this responsibility, the lawyer should: (a) provide a
substantial majority of the (50) hours of legal services without fee or expectation of fee to: (1) persons of limited means or
(2) charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters which are designed
primarily to address the needs of persons of limited means[.]” Because a substantial majority of the partners’ activities
here are not directed at providing legal services to persons of limited means or organizations designed to address this
issue, the partners’ have not complied with Model Rule 6.1(a). However, this rule is aspirational. It does not mandate that
a lawyer render at least fifty hours of pro bono publico legal services per year.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, the partners’ recruitment initiatives and sponsorship activities do not constitute
professional misconduct according to Model Rule 8.4(g).

(D) is incorrect. As discussed above, even though the partners’ activities do not comply with the ways to fulfill the
voluntary pro bono public goal under Model Rule 6.1(a), the partners are not subject to discipline, because this is an
aspirational goal, not a mandatory requirement. Further, it is clear that the partner’s actions are done in an attempt to
recruit more diverse associates and not necessarily with the intention of also completing pro bono legal services.

15. (C) is the correct answer. According to Model Rule 5.7(a), “A lawyer shall be subject to the Rules of Professional
Conduct with respect to the provision of law-related services . . . if the law-related services are provided: (1) by the lawyer
in circumstances that are not distinct from the lawyer's provision of legal services to clients; or (2) in other circumstances
by an entity controlled by the lawyer individually or with others if the lawyer fails to take reasonable measures to assure
that a person obtaining the law-related services knows that the services are not legal services and that the protections of
the client-lawyer relationship do not exist.” Further, Comment [7] to Model Rule 5.7 states: “The burden is upon the
lawyer to show that the lawyer has taken reasonable measures under the circumstances to communicate the desired
understanding. For instance, a sophisticated user of law-related services, such as a publicly held corporation, may require
a lesser explanation than someone unaccustomed to making distinctions between legal services and law-related services,
such as an individual seeking tax advice from a lawyer-accountant or investigative services in connection with a lawsuit.”

Here, the lawyer provides both legal services and investigative services. The burden is upon the lawyer to show that the
lawyer has taken reasonable measures under the circumstances to communicate that his legal services were distinct from
his investigative services. Given that the client is not a sophisticated user of law-related services, it is possible that the
attorney would be subject to discipline for only speaking with the client for a few minutes about how his legal services
were separate from his investigative services. Thus, the lawyer bears the burden of proving that the complied with Model
Rule 5.7(a).

(A) is incorrect. As discussed above, just because the lawyer only agreed to provide investigative services does not mean
that the lawyer complied with Model Rule 5.7(a). Given that the client is not a sophisticated user of law-related services, it
is possible that the attorney would be subject to discipline for only speaking with the client for a few minutes about how
his legal services were separate from his investigative services. Thus, the lawyer bears the burden of proving that the
complied with Model Rule 5.7(a).

(B) is incorrect. Model Rule 5.7(b) states: “The term ‘law-related services’ denotes services that might reasonably be
performed in conjunction with and in substance are related to the provision of legal services, and that are not prohibited as
unauthorized practice of law when provided by a nonlawyer.” Further, as explained above, Comment [7] to Model Rule
5.7 notes that investigative services are law-related services.

Page | 41
(D) is incorrect. The client’s subjective understanding is not the primary issue. The lawyer is not obligated to ensure that
the client absolutely understood that the protections of the client-lawyer relationship do not exist. Rather, as noted by
Comment [7] to Model Rule 5.7, the lawyer must show that he has taken reasonable measures under the circumstances.
Thus, this answer choice overstates the lawyer’s burden.

16. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.16(b)(2) provides that one of the reasons a lawyer may withdraw is if “the
client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or
fraudulent[.]” However, as noted in Model Rule 1.16(b)(1), permissive withdrawal may be proper if the “withdrawal can
be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client.” Here, the lawyer has a valid reason to
withdraw—the client is persisting in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes
is criminal or fraudulent. However, the lawyer withdrew just one week before trial, which would likely have a materially
adverse effect on the client’s interests because it would not give the client a reasonable amount of time to seek and employ
other counsel. Thus, it was not proper for the lawyer to withdraw from the case.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, even though the lawyer has a valid reason to withdraw—the client is persisting in a
course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent—it is likely
improper under the circumstances. The lawyer withdrew just one week before trial, which would likely have a materially
adverse effect on the client’s interests because it would not give the client a reasonable amount of time to seek and employ
other counsel. As such, it was not proper for the lawyer to withdraw from the case.

(B) is incorrect. This answer choice does not match the facts provided. First, the lawyer did not know that continuing to
represent the client would result in a violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law. The lawyer “suspected”
that this would be the case. Second, this answer choice points to one of the reasons for mandatory withdrawal, not
permissive withdrawal. Model Rule 1.16(a)(1) provides that “where representation has commenced, [a lawyer] shall
withdraw from the representation of a client if: the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional
conduct or other law[.]”

(C) is incorrect. As stated above, even though the lawyer has a valid reason to permissively withdraw—the client is
persisting in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or
fraudulent—it is likely improper under the circumstances. The lawyer withdrew just one week before trial, which would
likely have a materially adverse effect on the client’s interests because it would not give the client a reasonable amount of
time to seek and employ other counsel. As such, the lawyer is subject to discipline. Note: According to Model Rule
1.16(b)(3) another reason a lawyer may permissively withdraw is if “the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate
a crime or fraud.”

17. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 3.6(a) provides: “(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the
investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should
know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially
prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.” Comment [5] to Model Rule 3.6 states, “There are, on the other
hand, certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when
they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration.”
Further, Comment [5]subsection (3) to Model Rule 3.6 clarifies, that “the performance or results of any examination or
test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence
expected to be presented[]” is more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding. Here, the
defendant is on trial for manslaughter (a criminal matter) and the prosecuting attorney commented upon the results of the
defendant’s mental examination. Thus, the prosecuting attorney is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. This answer choice confuses the rules that a lawyer must follow when communicating with a person who
is represented by counsel. See Model Rule 4.2. As detailed above, the prosecuting attorney was not attempting to speak

Page | 42
with the defendant (who was represented by counsel). Rather, the lawyer made an extrajudicial comment during a press
conference about the results of the defendant’s mental exam. Thus, as explained above, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(C) is incorrect. This answer choice applies the incorrect standard to determine whether the lawyer’s extrajudicial
statement to the press would have a materially prejudicial effect on the proceeding. As explained above, the standard is
not whether a lawyer reasonably believes that the results of a mental exam do not establish an insanity defense, but rather
whether the “lawyer knows or reasonably should know [that an extrajudicial statement] will be disseminated by means of
public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the
matter.”

(D) is incorrect. While Model Rule 3.6(b)(4) provides that a lawyer is permitted to make an extrajudicial statement about
the “the scheduling or result of any step-in litigation[,]” what the lawyer did here was make a comment about the results
of the defendant’s mental exam. Thus, as explained above, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

18. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 3.10 of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct states: “A judge shall not practice
law. A judge may act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a
member of the judge’s family,* but is prohibited from serving as the family member’s lawyer in any forum.” Here, the
judge represented his brother in traffic court, and in doing so, violated the Model Code of Judicial Conduct.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, a judge may draft documents for family members as long he does not receive
compensation for doing so. Thus, the judge was permitted to draft a will for his sister for free. However, the issue here is
that the judge also represented his brother in traffic court, which he was not permitted to do.

(B) is incorrect. As discussed above, even though the judge may act pro se in a matter (here, he represented himself in the
trespass claim that his neighbor brought against him), the issue here is that the judge represented his brother in traffic
court, which he was not permitted to do.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, a judge may draft documents for family members as long he does not receive
compensation for doing so. Thus, the judge was permitted to draft a will for his sister for free.

19. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 3.7(A) of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct provides in pertinent part:
“Subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1, a judge may participate in activities sponsored by organizations or governmental
entities concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, and those sponsored by or on behalf of
educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations not conducted for profit, including but not limited to the
following activities: (1) assisting such an organization or entity in planning related to fund-raising, and participating in the
management and investment of the organization’s or entity’s funds; (2) soliciting* contributions* for such an organization
or entity, but only from members of the judge’s family,* or from judges over whom the judge does not exercise
supervisory or appellate authority; (3) soliciting membership for such an organization or entity, even though the
membership dues or fees generated may be used to support the objectives of the organization or entity, but only if the
organization or entity is concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice[.]” Here, the purpose of
the charitable organization was to build homes for low-income families. It did not pertain to “the law, the legal system, or
the administration of justice.” Thus, the judge was not permitted to solicit membership for the organization. As such, the
judge violated the Model Code of Judicial Conduct.

(A) is incorrect. This is not the best answer because some of the judge’s actions do violate the Model Code, which this
answer choice ignores. As detailed above, the judge is permitted to participate in certain activities sponsored by charitable
organizations, including assisting in planning related to fund-raising. Thus, the judge was permitted to suggest that the
non-profit should have a silent auction and a 50/50 raffle at the organization’s annual gala. However, the issue here is that
the judge was not permitted to solicit membership for the charitable organization because the organization’s purpose was
not related to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.
Page | 43
(B) is incorrect. This is not the best answer because some of the judge’s actions do violate the Model Code, which this
answer choice ignores. As explained above, it is true that the judge is permitted to solicit contributions for a charitable
organization from his family members (as he did here, when he asked his children, parents, and siblings for donations).
However, the issue here is that the judge was not permitted to solicit membership for the charitable organization because
the organization’s purpose was not related to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.

(D) is incorrect. As detailed above, the judge is permitted to participate in certain activities sponsored by charitable
organizations, including participating in the management and investment of the organization’s or entity’s fund. Thus, the
judge was permitted to serve on a committee to determine how the non-profit organization’s funds should be invested and
won’t be subject to discipline for it.

20. (B) is the correct answer. Comment [6] to Model Rule 1.15 states: “A lawyers' fund for client protection provides a
means through the collective efforts of the bar to reimburse persons who have lost money or property as a result of
dishonest conduct of a lawyer. Where such a fund has been established, a lawyer must participate where it is mandatory,
and, even when it is voluntary, the lawyer should participate.” Here, the facts do not indicate whether the jurisdiction in
which the lawyer practices requires all lawyers to participate in the lawyers' fund for client protection. Thus, if
participation was not mandatory, the lawyer will not be subject to discipline for not enrolling in the fund.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, the facts do not indicate whether the jurisdiction in which the lawyer practices
requires all lawyers to participate in the lawyers' fund for client protection. Further, Model Rule 1.5 does not enumerate
instances in which a lawyer would be excused from participating in the lawyers' fund for client protection. This will be
determined by each jurisdiction. Thus, if participation was not mandatory, the lawyer will not be subject to discipline for
not enrolling in the fund.

(C) is incorrect. As discussed above, the facts do not indicate whether the jurisdiction in which the lawyer practices
requires all lawyers to participate in the lawyers' fund for client protection. Thus, if participation was not mandatory, the
lawyer will not be subject to discipline for not enrolling in the fund.

(D) is incorrect. Model Rule 1.15(a) provides in relevant part: “A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons
that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property. Funds shall
be kept in a separate account maintained in the state where the lawyer's office is situated, or elsewhere with the consent of
the client or third person.” Thus, the rule does not specifically require a client’s written consent to deposit the client’s fees
in an account located out-of-state.

21. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.13(g) states: “A lawyer representing an organization may also represent any
of its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents, subject to the provisions of Rule 1.7. If
the organization's consent to the dual representation is required by Rule 1.7, the consent shall be given by an appropriate
official of the organization other than the individual who is to be represented, or by the shareholders.” Here, the facts
establish that if the lawyer, who serves as the corporation’s associate counsel, also defends the president of the
corporation in the sexual harassment lawsuit brought by one of the other officers of the corporation, it will give rise to a
concurrent conflict of interest. Thus, to take on the president’s case, the lawyer must obtain the informed written consent
of the president and an appropriate official of the organization other than the individual who is to be represented. The
facts are unclear regarding which individual gave informed written consent on behalf of the corporation. As such, if the
president was the one who gave informed written consent on behalf of the corporation, the lawyer is subject to discipline.
Notwithstanding that, the associate counsel’s actions were permissible.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, both the corporation and the president could have validly consented to the associate
counsel’s representation despite the current conflict of interest. The lawyer reasonably believed that she could provide
competent and diligent representation to both clients. Thus, provided that an appropriate official of the organization other

Page | 44
than the individual who is to be represented (president), gave informed written consent on behalf of the corporation, the
lawyer will not be subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. Comment [10] to Rule 1.13 states: “There are times when the organization's interest may be or become
adverse to those of one or more of its constituents. In such circumstances the lawyer should advise any constituent, whose
interest the lawyer finds adverse to that of the organization of the conflict or potential conflict of interest, that the lawyer
cannot represent such constituent, and that such person may wish to obtain independent representation.” Thus, the rule
does not require a lawyer for an organization to advise a constituent whose interests are adverse to the organization to
obtain independent counsel in writing.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, the facts establish that if the lawyer, who serves as the corporation’s associate
counsel, also defends the president of the corporation in the sexual harassment lawsuit brought by one of the other officers
of the corporation, it will give rise to a concurrent conflict of interest. Thus, to take on the president’s case, the lawyer
must obtain the informed written consent of the president and an appropriate official of the organization other than the
individual who is to be represented. The facts are unclear regarding which individual gave informed written consent on
behalf of the corporation. As such, if the president was the one who gave informed written consent on behalf of the
corporation, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

22. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.13(b) provides: “If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer,
employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter
related to the representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law that
reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and that is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then
the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. Unless the lawyer reasonably
believes that it is not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher
authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the circumstances to the highest authority that can act on behalf of
the organization as determined by applicable law.”

Further, Model Rule 1.13(c) explains that if the “(1) . . . the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization
insists upon or fails to address in a timely and appropriate manner an action, or a refusal to act, that is clearly a violation
of law, and (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the violation is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the
organization, then the lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation whether or not Rule 1.6 permits such
disclosure, but only if and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent substantial injury to the
organization.” However, the Model Rule 1.13(d) makes clear that a lawyer may not report outside of the organization
even if the highest authority within the organization fails to take action “with respect to information relating to a lawyer's
representation of an organization to investigate an alleged violation of law, or to defend the organization or an officer,
employee or other constituent associated with the organization against a claim arising out of an alleged violation of law.”

Here, because the general counsel for the software company was tasked with investigating the suspected wrongdoing
(bribery and embezzlement) on the part of an employee, the lawyer was not permitted to report his findings outside of the
organization (to the prosecutor’s office) even though the board of directors refused to take action. Thus, the lawyer is
subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, even if the software company had given its consent to the general counsel to tell the
prosecutor’s office that the employee was engaging in bribery and embezzlement, the lawyer still would not be permitted
to reveal this information outside of the company because he was tasked with investigating the suspected wrongdoing
(bribery and embezzlement) on the part of an employee.

(C) is incorrect. As detailed above, Model Rule 1.13(d) makes clear that a lawyer may not report outside of the
organization even if the highest authority within the organization fails to take action “with respect to information relating
to a lawyer's representation of an organization to investigate an alleged violation of law, or to defend the organization or
an officer, employee or other constituent associated with the organization against a claim arising out of an alleged
Page | 45
violation of law.” [Emphasis added.] Here, because the general counsel for the software company was tasked with
investigating the suspected wrongdoing (bribery and embezzlement) on the part of an employee, the lawyer was not
permitted to report his findings outside of the organization (to the prosecutor’s office) even though the board of directors
refused to take action. If the lawyer had done what is stated in this answer choice (and also represented the employee) he
would additionally be liable. But the lawyer is already liable notwithstanding such representation for the reasons
explained above, so liability does not hinge on this alone. (However, the answer choice implies that it does by saying “No,
unless…” which is why it is incorrect.)

(D) is incorrect. As detailed above, Model Rule 1.13(d) makes clear that a lawyer may not report outside of the
organization even if the highest authority within the organization fails to take action “with respect to information relating
to a lawyer's representation of an organization to investigate an alleged violation of law, or to defend the organization or
an officer, employee or other constituent associated with the organization against a claim arising out of an alleged
violation of law.” [Emphasis added.] Here, because the general counsel for the software company was tasked with
investigating the suspected wrongdoing (bribery and embezzlement) on the part of an employee, the lawyer was not
permitted to report his findings outside of the organization (to the prosecutor’s office) even though the board of directors
refused to take action. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

23. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.11(a) reads: “Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer who
has formerly served as a public officer or employee of the government: (1) is subject to Rule 1.9(c); and(2) shall not
otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a
public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing, to
the representation.” Further, Model Rule 1.11(b) explains, “ When a lawyer is disqualified from representation . . . , no
lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a
matter unless: (1) the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part
of the fee therefrom; and (2) written notice is promptly given to the appropriate government agency to enable it to
ascertain compliance with the provisions of this rule.

Additionally, Comment [4] to Model Rule 1.11 clarifies that “[t]he limitation of disqualification [applies] to matters
involving a specific party or parties, rather than extending disqualification to all substantive issues on which the lawyer
worked, serves a similar function.” Here, the facts indicate that the lawyer’s tasks at the Division of Parks and Forestry do
not create a conflict of interest because the lawyer did not participate personally and substantially in the bonfire matter.
All the lawyer did was draft regulations, which did not involve specific parties. Thus, both the lawyer and the attorney are
permitted to represent the client.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, the facts indicate that the lawyer’s tasks at the Division of Parks and Forestry do not
create a conflict of interest because the lawyer did not participate personally and substantially in the bonfire matter. The
lawyer solely drafted regulations, which did not involve specific parties. Thus, both the lawyer and the attorney are
permitted to represent the client.

(B) is incorrect. As discussed above, the lawyer would only need to get the government’s informed written consent if the
lawyer wanted to represent the client in a matter in which the lawyer had personally and substantially participated while
working for the government. However, the facts indicate that the lawyer’s tasks at the Division of Parks and Forestry do
not create a conflict of interest because the lawyer did not participate personally and substantially in the bonfire matter.
The lawyer solely drafted regulations, which did not involve specific parties. Thus, both the lawyer and the attorney are
permitted to represent the client.

(D) is incorrect. As detailed above, the lawyer would only have to be screened from the case if the attorney was seeking to
represent the client in a matter in which the lawyer had personally and substantially participated while working for the
government. However, the facts indicate that the lawyer’s tasks at the Division of Parks and Forestry do not create a
conflict of interest because the lawyer did not participate personally and substantially in the bonfire matter. The lawyer

Page | 46
solely drafted regulations, which did not involve specific parties. Thus, both the lawyer and the attorney are permitted to
represent the client.

24. (A) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.2(d) states: “(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a
client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but 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.” Based on the facts provided, the lawyer has not assisted the client in
the perpetration of a crime or a fraud. Thus, he will not be subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. Comment [9] to Model Rule 1.2 reads: “Paragraph (d) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly counseling or
assisting a client to commit a crime or fraud. This prohibition, however, does not preclude the lawyer from giving an
honest opinion about the actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client's conduct. Nor does the fact that a
client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent of itself make a lawyer a party to the course of
action.” Thus, even if the pharmaceutical company uses the lawyer’s advice to commit a crime or fraud, this is not
enough, in and of itself, to subject the lawyer to discipline.

(C) is incorrect. Model Rule 1.16(a)(1) explains that one of the instances in which a lawyer generally will be required to
withdraw from the representation of a client is if “the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional
conduct or other law[.]” Based on the facts at hand, it is not inevitable that the representation of the pharmaceutical
company will result in a violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law. The lawyer has only explained the
legal consequences of the client’s proposed course of conduct (omitting information about the drug’s side effects in the
regulatory disclosures).

(D) is incorrect. Model Rule 1.6(b)(1) provides: “A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a
client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily
harm[.]” [Emphasis added.] As such, if the pharmaceutical company does not disclose the side effects of the drug, the
lawyer could choose to reveal this information. However, the lawyer is not required to reveal that taking the drug could
cause cancer.

25. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.17(a) explains that unless an exception applies if a lawyer or a law firm
sells or purchases a law practice, or an area of law practice the seller must “cease[] to engage in the private practice of
law, or in the area of practice that has been sold, [in the geographic area] [in the jurisdiction] (a jurisdiction may elect
either version) in which the practice has been conducted[.]” Comment [5] to Model Rule 1.17 states: “If an area of
practice is sold and the lawyer remains in the active practice of law, the lawyer must cease accepting any matters in the
area of practice that has been sold, either as counsel or co-counsel or by assuming joint responsibility for a matter in
connection with the division of a fee with another lawyer as would otherwise be permitted by Rule 1.5(e).” Here, the
lawyer chose to sell her immigration removal defense portion of her law practice, so she was not permitted to assume joint
responsibility on a deportation defense case with the business immigration attorney.

(A) is incorrect. Model Rule 1.5(e) provides: “A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be
made only if: (1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint
responsibility for the representation; (2) the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive,
and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and (3) the total fee is reasonable.” Even though each of these elements is
satisfied based on the facts provided, as explained above, the lawyer was not permitted to assume joint responsibility on a
deportation defense case with the business immigration attorney after she had sold that area of her law practice.

(B) is incorrect. As noted above, the lawyer was not permitted to act as counsel, co-counsel, or assume joint responsibility
on a deportation defense case with the business immigration attorney after she had sold that area of her law practice.

Page | 47
(D) is incorrect. Comment [2] to Model Rule 1.1 notes, “A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior
experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar.” Therefore, the business immigration
attorney may have still been competent to handle the matter on her own. Further, the comment explains, “competent
representation can also be provided through the association of a lawyer of established competence in the field in
question.” Thus, had the lawyer not sold the immigration removal defense portion of her practice, she would have been
permitted to work with the business immigration attorney on the deportation defense case.

26. (A) is the correct answer. Model Rule 5.4(d) provides: “A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a
professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if: (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest
therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a
reasonable time during administration; (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of
similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or (3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or
control the professional judgment of a lawyer.” Here the lawyer and two other attorneys started a professional corporation,
the purpose of which was to practice law for a profit. Thus, when one of the attorneys passed away, the remaining lawyer
and attorney acted improperly in allowing the deceased attorney’s daughter, a nonlawyer, to hold on to the shares and
assume a position on the board of directors.

(B) is incorrect. As explained above, “a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of
the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration” in a professional corporation, the purpose of which is to practice
law for profit. Here, the deceased attorney’s sister, a nonlawyer, held on to his shares for two months while administering
the estate. This is likely a reasonable time to hold on to the shares, and thus, the lawyer and attorney will not be subject to
discipline for this reason.

(C) is incorrect. Even though the deceased attorney’s daughter did not interfere with the professional judgment of the
lawyer and the other attorney, as explained above, the attorney and lawyer are still subject to discipline. The issue here is
that the lawyer and other attorney acted improperly in allowing the deceased attorney’s daughter, a nonlawyer, to hold on
to the shares and assume a position on the board of directors.

(D) is incorrect. This is not the best answer choice. While this statement may be true, the attorney and lawyer are still
subject to discipline based upon the fact that they allowed the deceased attorney’s daughter, a nonlawyer, to hold on to the
shares and assume a position on the board of directors, which this answer does not address. As noted above, “a fiduciary
representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during
administration” in a professional corporation, the purpose of which is to practice law for profit. Here, the deceased
attorney’s sister, a nonlawyer, held on to his shares for two months while administering the estate. This is likely a
reasonable time to hold on to the shares, and thus, the lawyer and attorney will not be subject to discipline for this reason.

27. (A) is the correct answer. Model Rule 6.5(a)(1) provides: “A lawyer who, under the auspices of a program sponsored
by a nonprofit organization or court, provides short-term limited legal services to a client without expectation by either the
lawyer or the client that the lawyer will provide continuing representation in the matter: is subject to Rules 1.7 and 1.9(a)
only if the lawyer knows that the representation of the client involves a conflict of interest[.]” Comment [1] to Model Rule
6.5 provides, “Legal services organizations, courts and various nonprofit organizations have established programs through
which lawyers provide short-term limited legal services — such as advice or the completion of legal forms - that will
assist persons to address their legal problems without further representation by a lawyer. In these programs, such as legal-
advice hotlines, advice-only clinics or pro se counseling programs, a client-lawyer relationship is established, but there is
no expectation that the lawyer's representation of the client will continue beyond the limited consultation. Such programs
are normally operated under circumstances in which it is not feasible for a lawyer to systematically screen for conflicts of
interest as is generally required before undertaking a representation.”

Further, Comment [2] to Model Rule 6.5 states that “[a] lawyer who provides short-term limited legal services pursuant to
this Rule must secure the client's informed consent to the limited scope of the representation.” Here, the lawyer was
Page | 48
providing short-term limited legal services at the naturalization workshop, and thus, was only required to avoid current
and former conflicts of interest that he knew of and to obtain informed consent from each client as to the limited
representation (which the lawyer did). Thus, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. As detailed above, even when a lawyer provides short-term limited legal services to a client, the lawyer
must avoid the current and former conflicts of interest that he knows of.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, because the lawyer was providing short-term limited legal services at the
naturalization workshop, he was only required to avoid current and former conflicts of interest that he knew of.

(D) is incorrect. As noted above, the Model Rules do not stipulate that a client’s informed consent to short-term limited
legal services must be in writing. Thus, the lawyer was permitted to obtain the naturalization workshop clients’ oral
informed consent.

28. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.10(b) provides: “When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm,
the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client
represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by the firm, unless: (1) the matter is the same
or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and (2) any lawyer
remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter.” Here, when the
lawyer worked at the previous firm, she used to represent the cosmetics company against complaints that there was lead in
its lipstick. Then the lawyer moved to a new firm and took the cosmetics company with her as a client. Her old firm then
sought to represent a plaintiff who had become ill as a result of using the lipstick, which is essentially the same matter that
the lawyer and her colleague, the attorney, worked on before. Because the attorney still works at the previous firm and has
knowledge of confidential information that pertains to the case (the letter from the president to the board), the previous
firm will be disqualified from representing the plaintiff. Thus, the previous firm is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, even though the lawyer moved to a new firm and took the cosmetics company with
her as a client, the lawyer’s previous firm then sought to represent a plaintiff who had become ill as a result of using the
lipstick, which is essentially the same matter that the lawyer and her colleague, the attorney, worked on before. Because
the attorney still works at the previous firm and has knowledge of confidential information that pertains to the case (the
letter from the president to the board), the previous firm will be disqualified from representing the plaintiff. Thus, the
previous firm is subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. Because the attorney still works at the previous firm and has knowledge of confidential information that
pertains to the case (the letter from the president to the board), the entire previous firm will be disqualified from
representing the plaintiff, not just the attorney that previously worked on the case. Essentially, it would not be fair to the
cosmetics company if the previous firm could represent the plaintiff if the attorney still works at the firm and has
disqualifying information (the letter from the president to the board) that could be shared with other colleagues working
on the case. Thus, the previous firm is subject to discipline.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, when the lawyer worked at the previous firm, she used to represent the cosmetics
company against complaints that there was lead in its lipstick. Then the lawyer moved to a new firm and took the
cosmetics company with her as a client. Her previous firm then sought to represent a plaintiff who had become ill as a
result of using the lipstick, which is essentially the same matter that the lawyer and her colleague, the attorney, worked on
before. Because the attorney still works at the previous firm and has knowledge of confidential information that pertains
to the case (the letter from the president to the board), the previous firm will be disqualified from representing the
plaintiff. The central issue in this question is with the attorney that still works at the previous firm. However, this answer
choice incorrectly focused on any lawyers who previously, rather than currently, worked at the firm. Thus, the previous
firm is subject to discipline.

Page | 49
29. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 3.8(A) of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct states that “[a] judge shall not
accept appointment to serve in a fiduciary* position, such as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact, or
other personal representative, except for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the judge’s family,* and then only if
such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.” Here, the judge may not act as his
nephew’s guardian if it interferes with the judge’s ability to perform his judicial duties.

(A) is incorrect. Model Rule 2.9(A) of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct provides that “[a] judge shall not initiate,
permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of
the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,* except [. . .]” under certain circumstances. One
such instance is that “[w]hen circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or
emergency purposes, which does not address substantive matters, is permitted, provided: (a) the judge reasonably believes
that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and (b)
the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication, and gives
the parties an opportunity to respond.” Model Rule 2.9(A)(1)(a)-(b) of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. Here, the
judge did initiate an ex parte communication with the defendant’s attorney about rescheduling the hearing due to a family
emergency and opposing counsel was not present. Note: However, this communication would likely fall into the
exception for ex parte communications because the conversation with the defendant’s counsel pertained to a scheduling
issue, no substantive matter was discussed, the judge asked his secretary to notify opposing counsel, and the facts do not
indicate that the judge believed any of the parties would gain a tactical advantage as a result of the communication.

(B) is incorrect. Even if acting in a fiduciary capacity will not lead to a judge’s frequent disqualification, it is necessary to
also examine whether acting as a fiduciary will interfere with the performance of the judge’s judicial duties. Model Rule
3.8(A) of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, (B) is not the best answer.

(D) is incorrect. This answer choice is too narrow. As explained above, a judge may serve in various fiduciary capacities
for his family members, including as an “executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact, or other personal
representative . . .” as long as it does not interfere with the performance of the judge’s judicial duties. Model Rule 3.8(A)
of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct.

30. (B) is the correct answer. The client merely being “too busy with work and family obligations” does not constitute a
good faith argument to modify the law. Model Rule 3.1 states in relevant part: “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a
proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous,
which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” Comment [2] to Model
Rule 3.1 states: “[2] The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely because
the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence only by discovery.
What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients' cases and the
applicable law and determine that they can make good faith arguments in support of their clients' positions. Such action is
not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client's position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous,
however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the
action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” Here, the lawyer was
unable to make a good faith argument because all of the lawyer’s extensive research revealed that the courts in the
jurisdiction at issue had rejected all arguments to extend the statute of limitations for malpractice actions and the facts
state that the client learned about the sponge in his abdomen within the statute of limitations period but was too busy with
work and family obligations to pursue the claim at that time. Thus, the lawyer would be subject to discipline.

Note: Generally, a lawyer does not violate the Model Rules by filing a time-barred claim, provided that the client is made
fully aware, it is not prohibited by any other sorts of rules/laws of the jurisdiction, and there aren't any other sort of other
circumstances that might make the actions inappropriate. However, ABA Formal Opinion 94-387 (1994) explains that
courts have sanctioned lawyers in some situations for filing a time-barred claim. There is a footnote in the aforementioned
ABA opinion citing to a case (Brubaker v. Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1991)), in which the court reasoned that the
"plaintiff's assertion of a defamation claim, after being informed that it was time-barred and at a time where the plaintiffs
Page | 50
did not intend to seek reversal of existing precedent, constituted the makings of a claim 'groundless in law' in violation of
Rule 11."

In our case, the facts state that the statute of limitations had run on the malpractice claim. Further, the lawyer
conducted extensive research to see whether any arguments to extend the statute of limitations period existed,
but all arguments had been rejected. There are no additional facts provided that explain what possible good faith argument
the lawyer intended to make under the circumstances. Thus, the lawyer did not have a good faith argument for modifying
the law and would be subject to discipline for violating Model Rule 3.1.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, a lawyer does not have to believe that his client will prevail before filing a claim.

(C) is incorrect. Comment [1] to Model Rule 1.3 notes: “A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the
interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf. A lawyer is not bound, however, to press for
every advantage that might be realized for a client.” However, as discussed above, the issue here is that the lawyer was
unable to make a good faith argument because all of the lawyer’s extensive research revealed that the courts in the
jurisdiction at issue had rejected all arguments to extend the statute of limitations for malpractice actions. Acting as a
zealous advocate does not mean that a lawyer can violate the other Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

(D) is incorrect. While it is true that the lawyer was not required to fully substantiate all of the facts before filing the
claim, the issue here is that the lawyer was unable to make a good faith argument because all of the lawyer’s extensive
research revealed that the courts in the jurisdiction at issue had rejected all arguments to extend the statute of limitations
for malpractice actions.

31. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 3.2 provides: “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation
consistent with the interests of the client.” Comment [1] to Model Rule 3.2 clarifies, “Although there will be occasions
when a lawyer may properly seek a postponement for personal reasons, it is not proper for a lawyer to routinely fail to
expedite litigation solely for the convenience of the advocates. Nor will a failure to expedite be reasonable if done for the
purpose of frustrating an opposing party's attempt to obtain rightful redress or repose. It is not a justification that similar
conduct is often tolerated by the bench and bar. The question is whether a competent lawyer acting in good faith would
regard the course of action as having some substantial purpose other than delay.” Here, the facts state that the lawyer was
requesting a postponement of the trial date because her husband had suddenly passed away from a heart attack and she
wanted to make funeral arrangements and observe some pre-burial religious rites. Thus, the lawyer was requesting a
postponement in good faith, which had some substantial purpose other than delaying the lawsuit.

(A) is incorrect. While this is an accurate statement according to Comment [1] to Model Rule 3.2 as detailed above, the
facts do not indicate that the lawyer routinely failed to expedite litigation solely for her own personal reasons. Here, the
facts state that the lawyer was requesting a postponement of the trial date because her husband had suddenly passed away
from a heart attack and she wanted to make funeral arrangements and observe some pre-burial religious rites. Thus, the
lawyer was requesting a postponement in good faith, which had some substantial purpose other than delaying the lawsuit.

(B) is incorrect. While it is true that a lawyer has a duty to expedite litigation in a manner that is consistent with her
client’s interests, the Comment [1] to Model Rule 3.2 makes clear that there are occasions when a lawyer may properly
seek a postponement for personal reasons. The lawyer was requesting a postponement of the trial date because her
husband had suddenly passed away from a heart attack and she wanted to make funeral arrangements and observe some
pre-burial religious rites. Thus, the lawyer was requesting a postponement in good faith, which had some substantial
purpose other than delaying the lawsuit.

(D) is incorrect. As explained above, the lawyer was requesting a postponement of the trial date because her husband had
suddenly passed away from a heart attack and she wanted to make funeral arrangements and observe some pre-burial
religious rites. Thus, the lawyer was requesting a postponement in good faith, which had some substantial purpose other
than delaying the lawsuit.
Page | 51
32. (A) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.6(b)(3) explains that “A lawyer may reveal information relating to the
representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify
substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from
the client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services[.]” [Emphasis
added.] Here, the facts indicate that the client used the lawyer’s services to commit fraud and overstate the value of his
business’s goodwill to the purchaser, which resulted in the purchaser overpaying for the seller’s business. Thus, the
lawyer was permitted (but not required) to reveal this information to the purchaser in order to rectify the substantial injury
to the purchaser’s financial interests.

(B) is incorrect. While Model Rule 1.6(b) enumerates seven instances in which a lawyer is permitted to reveal confidential
information about a client, this is not one of the exceptions set forth therein. This answer choice is overly broad.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, the lawyer was not required to obtain the client’s informed consent before revealing
information about the fraudulent valuation of the business to the purchaser.

(D) is incorrect. This answer choice is too narrow. It is not the only circumstances that permit such revelation, as
suggested in the answer choice. While Model Rule 1.6(b)(2) does enumerate this exact exception to a lawyer’s duty of
confidentiality, this is only one of seven exceptions set forth in Model Rule 1.6(b).

33. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 5.5(d)(1) provides: “A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction or
in a foreign jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction or the equivalent thereof, or a
person otherwise lawfully practicing as an in-house counsel under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction, may provide legal
services through an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction that: are provided to the
lawyer's employer or its organizational affiliates, are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission;
and when performed by a foreign lawyer and requires advice on the law of this or another U.S. jurisdiction or of the
United States, such advice shall be based upon the advice of a lawyer who is duly licensed and authorized by the
jurisdiction to provide such advice[.]” Further, Comment [16] to Model Rule 5.5 notes in relevant part: “Paragraph (d)(1)
applies to a U.S. or foreign lawyer who is employed by a client to provide legal services to the client or its organizational
affiliates, i.e., entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with the employer. This paragraph does
not authorize the provision of personal legal services to the employer’s officers or employees.” Here, the lawyer was duly
licensed to practice in a foreign jurisdiction and then served as in-house counsel to software company in the U.S. While
the lawyer was permitted to provide advice to the software company and its organizational affiliates, the lawyer was not
permitted to provide personal legal services to the officers (i.e. president and vice-president) of the software company.

(A) is incorrect. While it is true that the lawyer was duly licensed to practice in a foreign jurisdiction and was not required
to be admitted pro hac vice to serve as in-house counsel to the software company in the U.S., the lawyer exceeded the
scope of permissible tasks under the Model Rules. While the lawyer was permitted to provide advice to the software
company and its organizational affiliates, the lawyer was not permitted to provide personal legal services to the officers
(i.e. president and vice-president) of the software company.

(B) is incorrect. While the lawyer was permitted to provide advice to the software company and its organizational affiliates,
the lawyer was not permitted to provide personal legal services to the officers (i.e. president and vice-president) of the
software company.

(C) is incorrect. While the lawyer was permitted to provide advice to the software company and its organizational affiliates,
the lawyer was not permitted to provide personal legal services to the officers (i.e. president and vice-president) of the
software company.

Page | 52
34. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 7.2(b)(4) provides: “A lawyer shall not compensate, give or promise anything
of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a lawyer may: refer clients to another lawyer or a
nonlawyer professional pursuant to an agreement not otherwise prohibited under these Rules that provides for the other
person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, if: (i) the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive; and (ii) the
client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement[.]” Further, Comment [8] to Model Rule 7.2 adds, “Such
reciprocal referral arrangements must not interfere with the lawyer’s professional judgment as to making referrals or as to
providing substantive legal services. See Rules 2.1 and 5.4(c). Except as provided in Rule 1.5(e) [fee division with
lawyers who are not in the same firm], a lawyer who receives referrals from a lawyer or nonlawyer professional must not
pay anything solely for the referral[.]” Here, the lawyer has followed nearly all of the requirements for a valid reciprocal
referral arrangement with a nonlawyer professional. However, the facts are silent as to whether the agreement is exclusive
or not. If the agreement is exclusive, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. While it is true that the lawyer is not paying the certified financial planner anything solely for the referral,
it is still necessary to determine whether the reciprocal referral arrangement is exclusive or not. If the agreement is
exclusive, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. While it is true that the arrangement does not interfere with the lawyer’s professional judgment as to
making referrals or as to providing substantive legal services, it is still necessary to determine whether the reciprocal
referral arrangement is exclusive or not. If the agreement is exclusive, the lawyer is subject to discipline. Note: It would
be difficult to choose between (A) and (B) as correct answers since they are both correct. If you find yourself having
difficulty choosing between two answers, consider whether both answer choices are incorrect, as is the case here.

(C) is incorrect. As noted above, a lawyer may enter into a reciprocal referral agreement with another lawyer or a
nonlawyer professional (such as the certified financial planner), provided that the terms of the agreement comply with
Model Rule 7.2(b).

35. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.6(b)(7) notes that a lawyer may reveal confidential information about a
client to the extent that he believes is reasonably necessary to “to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the
lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed
information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client.” Comment 13 to Model
Rule 1.6 provides, “Moreover, the disclosure of any information is prohibited if it would compromise the attorney-client
privilege or otherwise prejudice the client (e.g., . . . that a person has consulted a lawyer about a criminal investigation that
has not led to a public charge). Under those circumstances, paragraph (a) prohibits disclosure unless the client or former
client gives informed consent.” Here, the boyfriend consulted the lawyer about the criminal investigation into him for
assault that had not yet lead to a public charge. When the lawyer transferred to the new firm, he disclosed this information
to the partners even though it would prejudice the client. The girlfriend’s parents wanted to set up a trust fund for the
girlfriend and to determine to what extent the girlfriend would able to share the quarterly disbursements from the trust
fund with her boyfriend. Knowledge of fact that the boyfriend had been the subject of a criminal investigation of the
assault of the girlfriend would likely have an adverse impact on the boyfriend’s access to such funds. Thus, the attorney is
subject to discipline for revealing this information without first obtaining the boyfriend’s informed consent.

(A) is incorrect. ABA Formal Opinion 479 (2017) provides: “A lawyer’s duty of confidentiality extends to former clients.
Under Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(c), a lawyer may not use information relating to the representation of a
former client to the former client’s disadvantage without informed consent, or except as otherwise permitted or required
by the Rules of Professional Conduct, unless the information has become ‘generally known.’” Further, the opinion makes
clear: “The ‘generally known’ exception to the duty of former-client confidentiality is limited. It applies (1) only to the
use, and not the disclosure or revelation, of former-client information; and (2) only if the information has become (a)
widely recognized by members of the public in the relevant geographic area; or (b) widely recognized in the former
client’s industry, profession, or trade.” Here, information about the criminal investigation into the boyfriend for assault
became generally known after the nationally read newspaper published the story. However, this took place after the

Page | 53
lawyer had already revealed information to the partners at the new firm about his prior consultation with the boyfriend.
Thus, the lawyer may not rely on this exception to the duty of confidentiality.

(B) is incorrect. As discussed above, even though a lawyer is permitted to reveal information about former clients to aid
the new firm in detecting and resolving conflicts of interest, disclosure is prohibited when it would prejudice the former
client (as is detailed above) unless the former client gave informed consent to the disclosure. Here, no such consent was
given.

(C) is incorrect. Comment [13] to Model Rule 1.6 explains that a lawyer is generally permitted to reveal information about
former clients to aid the new firm in detecting and resolving conflicts of interest, “but only once substantive discussions
regarding the new relationship have occurred.” However, as explained above, disclosure is prohibited when it would
prejudice the former client (as is the case here) unless the former client gave informed consent to the disclosure.

36. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.9(a) states: “a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall
not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are
materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in
writing.” Further, Comment [3] to Model Rule 1.9 explains, “Matters are ‘substantially related’ for purposes of this rule if
they involve the same transaction or legal dispute or if there is otherwise a substantial risk that confidential factual
information that would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the client's
position in the subsequent matter.” Here, the lawyer’s representation of the contractor would have provided the lawyer
with confidential factual information about his finances. This information is substantially related to the ex-wife’s petition
for an increase in her spousal support and would materially advance the ex-wife’s position. Thus, there is a former client
conflict, and the lawyer may not represent the ex-wife unless the contractor (ex-husband) provides informed consent,
confirmed in writing.

(A) is incorrect. As detailed above, the lawyer’s representation of the contractor (ex-husband) would have provided the
lawyer with confidential factual information about his finances. This information is substantially related to the ex-wife’s
petition for an increase in her spousal support and would materially advance the ex-wife’s position. Thus, there is a former
client conflict, and the lawyer may not represent the ex-wife unless the contractor (ex-husband) provides informed
consent, confirmed in writing.

(B) is incorrect. This answer choice incorrectly focuses on the ex-wife’s informed consent, which is not needed; it is the
contractor’s (ex-husband) informed consent, confirmed in writing, that is needed. As explained above, the lawyer’s
representation of the contractor (ex-husband) would have provided the lawyer with confidential factual information about
his finances. This information is substantially related to the ex-wife’s petition for an increase in her spousal support and
would materially advance the ex-wife’s position. Thus, there is a former client conflict, and the lawyer may not represent
the ex-wife unless the contractor (ex-husband) provides informed consent that is confirmed in writing.

(D) is incorrect. This answer choice is too strict. Only the informed consent of the contract (ex-husband) is required. The
ex-wife’s does not need to provide informed consent, confirmed in writing. As explained above, the lawyer’s
representation of the contractor (ex-husband) would have provided the lawyer with confidential factual information about
his finances. This information is substantially related to the ex-wife’s petition for an increase in her spousal support and
would materially advance the ex-wife’s position. Thus, there is a former client conflict, and the lawyer may not represent
the ex-wife unless the contractor (ex-husband) provides informed consent that is confirmed in writing.

37. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.7(a) explains that a current conflict of interest exists when: “(1) the
representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the
representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former
client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.” Further, Model Rule 1.7(b) states that a lawyer can
represent a client even if a current conflict of interest exists if: “(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be
able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by
Page | 54
law; (3) the representation does not involve 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; and (4) each affected client gives informed consent,
confirmed in writing.” Here, there is a current conflict of interest because there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s
representation of the woman will be materially limited by the lawyer’s personal interests (e.g., maybe to curry favor with
the judge, the lawyer may not act as a zealous advocate for the woman in the judge’s courtroom). The lawyer reasonably
believes that he will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to the woman and the judge. Nothing in the
facts indicates that the representation is prohibited by law. And the representation does not involve 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. However, the issue here is that because the lawyer is not permitted to disclose to the woman that he also
represents the judge, the woman cannot provide informed written consent to the representation. A client in the woman’s
position would likely want to know that the lawyer also represents the judge. Thus, it is not proper for the lawyer to
represent the woman.

(A) is incorrect. It is the women’s informed written consent that is needed. As explained above, even if the lawyer obtains
the judge’s informed written consent, the issue here is that because the judge told the lawyer that he was not allowed to
disclose his representation of the judge, the woman will not able to provide the required informed written consent.

(C) is incorrect. While it is true that the judge’s interests are not directly adverse to the woman’s interests, this is not the
only way a current conflict of interest may arise. As detailed above, there is a current conflict of interest under Model
Rule 1.7(a)(2) because there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s representation of the woman will be materially limited
by the lawyer’s personal interests (e.g., maybe to curry favor with the judge, the lawyer may not act as a zealous advocate
for the woman in the judge’s courtroom).

(D) is incorrect. While it is true that neither the judge nor the woman is asserting a claim against each other, the issue
here, as detailed above, is whether the lawyer may obtain the informed written consent of the woman. Here, he cannot do
so because the judge prohibited it. Because informed written consent is required from the woman, it is improper for the
lawyer to represent her without it.

38. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 5.5(a) states: “A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.” Comment [3] to Model Rule 5.5
provides, “A lawyer may provide professional advice and instruction to nonlawyers whose employment requires
knowledge of the law; for example, claims adjusters, employees of financial or commercial institutions, social workers,
accountants and persons employed in government agencies. Lawyers also may assist independent nonlawyers, such as
paraprofessionals, who are authorized by the law of a jurisdiction to provide particular law-related services. In addition, a
lawyer may counsel nonlawyers who wish to proceed pro se.” Here, the lawyer rendered advice to daycare employees
whose jobs required knowledge of the mandatory reporting statute. Also, the lawyer counseled his neighbor on how to
proceed pro se in the child custody matter. None of these actions are prohibited by the Model Rules of Professional
Conduct. Thus, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, the lawyer was permitted to render advice to daycare employees whose jobs required
knowledge of the mandatory reporting statute.

(B) is incorrect. As stated above, the lawyer was permitted to counsel his neighbor who wished to proceed pro se in the
child custody matter.

(C) is incorrect. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not require the lawyer to inform an individual who wishes
to proceed pro se that it is not in his best interest to so, whether orally or in writing.

39. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.18(c) reads: “A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client
with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer
Page | 55
received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter.” Model
Rule 1.18(d)(1) explains that “[w]hen the lawyer has received disqualifying information . . . , representation is permissible
if: both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmed in writing[.]”However,
Comment [5] to Model Rule 1.18 clarifies: “A lawyer may condition a consultation with a prospective client on the
person's informed consent that no information disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the lawyer from representing
a different client in the matter.” Further, the comment adds, “If the agreement expressly so provides, the prospective client
may also consent to the lawyer's subsequent use of information received from the prospective client.” Here, when the
lawyer met with the farmer as a prospective client, the lawyer conditioned the consultation with the farmer based on his
informed consent that no information disclosed during the consultation would prohibit the lawyer from representing a
different client in the matter. Additionally, the farmer consented to the lawyer's subsequent use of information received
from him. Thus, the lawyer was permitted to represent the factory owner without obtaining the informed written consent
of the farmer and the factory owner even though the lawyer’s representation of the factory owner pertains to the same or
substantially related matter and the lawyer received information from the farmer that could be significantly harmful to
him (i.e., that he did trespass onto the factory owner’s property).

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, a lawyer may condition a consultation with a prospective client on the person's
informed consent that no information disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the lawyer from representing a
different client in the matter.

(B) is incorrect. As detailed above, the prospective client may consent to the lawyer's subsequent use of information
received from the prospective client.

(C) is incorrect. As noted above, the lawyer is not required to obtain the informed written consent of the farmer and the
factory owner because of the lawyer’s stipulations to the consultation and the client’s informed consent thereof.

40. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 7.3(b) provides: “A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment by live
person-to-person contact when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s or law firm’s pecuniary gain,
unless the contact is with a: (1) lawyer; (2) person who has a family, close personal, or prior business or professional
relationship with the lawyer or law firm; or (3) person who routinely uses for business purposes the type of legal services
offered by the lawyer.” Comment [2] to Model Rule 7.3 adds, “‘Live person-to-person contact’ means in-person, face-to-
face, live telephone and other real-time visual or auditory person-to-person communications where the person is subject to
a direct personal encounter without time for reflection. Such person-to-person contact does not include chat rooms, text
messages or other written communications that recipients may easily disregard.” Comment [6] to Model Rule 7.3
explains, “Live, person-to-person contact of individuals who may be especially vulnerable to coercion or duress is
ordinarily not appropriate, for example, the elderly, those whose first language is not English, or the disabled.” Here, the
lawyer engaged in live person-to-person contact for the purpose of pecuniary gain when he video conferenced with the
disabled man and spoke to the elderly woman in-person. Because each of these individuals generally should not be
solicited using live person-to-person contact, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, while the lawyer engaged in impermissible live person-to-person contact with the
disabled man and the elderly woman, the lawyer did not engage in live person-to-person contact (here, he posted a
message in a chat room) when he communicated with the man who had recently immigrated to the United States.

(C) is incorrect. This is not the best answer choice. While true, the lawyer is in violation of the Model Rules for his live
person-to-person contact, as explained above. Model Rule 7.2(a) states that “[a] lawyer may communicate information
regarding the lawyer’s services through any media.” Comment [1] to Model Rule 7.2 provides: “This Rule permits public
dissemination of information concerning a lawyer’s or law firm’s name, address, email address, website, and telephone
number; the kinds of services the lawyer will undertake; the basis on which the lawyer’s fees are determined, including
prices for specific services and payment and credit arrangements; a lawyer’s foreign language ability; names of references
and, with their consent, names of clients regularly represented; and other information that might invite the attention of
those seeking legal assistance.” Thus, while it is true the lawyer rightly obtained the consent of a client he regularly
Page | 56
represented (Ann David) before including her name in advertising his legal services on his firm’s website, the issue here
is that the lawyer engaged in impermissible live person-to-person contact with the disabled man and the elderly woman, as
noted above.

(D) is incorrect. This is not the best answer choice. While true, the lawyer is in violation of the Model Rules for his live
person-to-person contact, as explained above. Model Rule 7.1 states: “A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading
communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material
misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially
misleading.” Comment [3] to Model Rule 7.1 adds, “[a] communication that truthfully reports a lawyer’s achievements on
behalf of clients or former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified
expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific
factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case.” Further, the comment clarifies, “[t]he inclusion of an appropriate
disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or
otherwise mislead the public.” Here, the lawyer indicated that he had won 11 of his last 12 cases, but included a
disclaimer noting that such results were not guaranteed. Thus, while it is true that the lawyer did not violate this rule, the
issue here is that the lawyer engaged in impermissible live person-to-person contact with the disabled man and the elderly
woman, as noted above.

41. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.15(a) notes that “[a] lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons
that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property.” Model Rule
1.15(b) reads: “A lawyer may deposit the lawyer's own funds in a client trust account for the sole purpose of paying bank
service charges on that account, but only in an amount necessary for that purpose.” [Emphasis added.] Here, the lawyer
deposited the fees he had earned on a previous case into the client trust account to cover the cost of the medical experts
and subsequently avoid bank overdraft charges. However, the lawyer may not deposit his own funds in the client’s
account as a buffer to cover the costs of the experts and avoid bank service charges. Instead, the Rule only permits the
lawyer to have deposited the specific amount necessary to cover the bank service fee, in the event that the account is
overdrawn, but not to cover the cost of medical experts to prevent such services fees from occurring. The distinction is
subtle but important. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline for improperly commingling his own funds with his client’s.

(A) is incorrect. This answer choice may be true as a standalone statement, but it does not correlate to the facts. As
explained above, under Model Rule 1.15(b), “[a] lawyer may deposit the lawyer's own funds in a client trust account for
the sole purpose of paying bank service charges on that account, but only in an amount necessary for that purpose.”
[Emphasis added.]. Here, however, the lawyer did not do this. Instead, the lawyer deposited his own funds into the
account to cover the cost of the medical experts and prevent such bank fees from even incurring. Thus, the lawyer is
subject to discipline for improperly commingling his own funds with his client’s.

(B) is incorrect. This answer choice is too broad and misstates the Rule’s allowance. Under Model Rule 1.15(b), “[a]
lawyer may deposit the lawyer's own funds in a client trust account for the sole purpose of paying bank service charges on
that account, but only in an amount necessary for that purpose.” [Emphasis added.] A lawyer is, therefore, only permitted
to deposit the amount necessary to pay bank services charges on that account. The lawyer is not permitted to take
measures to avoid paying those fees altogether. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline for improperly commingling his
own funds with his client’s.

(D) is incorrect. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not require a lawyer to obtain a client’s consent prior to
depositing funds into the client trust account. However, as explained above, the lawyer may not deposit his own funds in
the client’s account as a buffer to avoid bank service charges.

42. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 3.4(c) states that a lawyer must not “knowingly disobey an obligation under
the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.” Here, the lawyer
knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of the tribunal. However, the lawyer did so based upon an open refusal
Page | 57
that no valid obligation exists when he argued that the redacted information was protected by attorney-client privilege.
Thus, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, the lawyer knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of the tribunal.
However, the lawyer did so based upon an open refusal that no valid obligation exists when he argued that the redacted
information was protected by attorney-client privilege. This is permitted under Model Rule 3.4(c), and thus, the lawyer
could not be rightfully disciplined for this behavior. Accordingly, whether sanctions are imposed upon the lawyer is not
the correct analysis for determining whether the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, the lawyer knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of the tribunal.
However, the lawyer did so based upon an open refusal that no valid obligation exists when he argued that the redacted
information was protected by attorney-client privilege. Thus, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

(D) is incorrect. Though this may be true, the lawyer’s actions were permissible. As explained above, the lawyer
knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of the tribunal. However, the lawyer did so based upon an open refusal
that no valid obligation exists when he argued that the redacted information was protected by attorney-client privilege.
Thus, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

43. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.15(d) provides: “Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or
third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this rule or
otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person
any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third
person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.” Further, Model Rule 1.15(e) states: “When in
the course of representation a lawyer is in possession of property in which two or more persons (one of whom may be the
lawyer) claim interests, the property shall be kept separate by the lawyer until the dispute is resolved. The lawyer shall
promptly distribute all portions of the property as to which the interests are not in dispute.” Here, the lawyer received
$800,000 in settlement funds for her client. The cell phone service provider had an interest in the settlement funds up to
the amount of the lien it had obtained. However, the client did not want the lawyer to distribute the $2,000 in which the
provider had an interest and disputed that amount. Given that the $2,000 was in dispute, the lawyer had a duty to keep that
property separate until the dispute between the client and the provider had been resolved (instead of disbursing the $2,000
to the client).

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, the lawyer had a duty to distribute $10,000 to the credit card company (even though
it did not obtain a lien on the settlement funds) because the client agreed to do so.

(C) is incorrect. Comment [4] to Model Rule 1.15 notes: “A lawyer should not unilaterally assume to arbitrate a dispute
between the client and the third party, but, when there are substantial grounds for dispute as to the person entitled to the
funds, the lawyer may file an action to have a court resolve the dispute.” Thus, the lawyer may choose (but is not required)
to file an action to have a court resolve the dispute between her client and the cell phone service provider if there are
substantial grounds to dispute the cell phone service provider’s interest in the settlement funds.

(D) is incorrect. While it is true that lawyer was required to deliver a prompt accounting of the settlements funds to her
client (and she did), the issue here is that because $2,000 was in dispute, the lawyer had a duty to keep that property
separate until the dispute between the client and the provider had been resolved (instead of disbursing the $2,000 to the
client).

44. (A) is the correct answer. Model Rule 3.3(a)(3) provides in pertinent part: “A lawyer shall not knowingly: offer
evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered
Page | 58
material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures,
including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” Further, Comment [10] to Model Rule 3.3 clarifies: “In such situations,
the advocate's proper course is to remonstrate with the client confidentially, advise the client of the lawyer’s duty of
candor to the tribunal and seek the client’s cooperation with respect to the withdrawal or correction of the false statements
or evidence. If that fails, the advocate must take further remedial action. If withdrawal from the representation is not
permitted or will not undo the effect of the false evidence, the advocate must make such disclosure to the tribunal as is
reasonably necessary to remedy the situation, even if doing so requires the lawyer to reveal information that otherwise
would be protected by Rule 1.6. It is for the tribunal then to determine what should be done — making a statement about
the matter to the trier of fact, ordering a mistrial or perhaps nothing.” Here, the lawyer learned that his client had testified
falsely in a civil proceeding. Thus, the lawyer first had a duty to speak with the man about a lawyer’s duty of candor to
the tribunal and sought his client’s assistance to correct the false statement about the purchase price, which the lawyer did.
But because the client would not cooperate and correct the false statement, and nothing in the facts indicates that
withdrawing from representation would solve the issue, the lawyer was permitted to reveal the situation to the tribunal
even though it was protected by the duty of confidentiality (given that the information about the purchase price was
learned during the course of representation).

(B) is incorrect. This answer choice is true but incomplete. As explained above, the lawyer first had a duty to speak with
the man about a lawyer’s duty of candor to the tribunal and sought his client’s assistance to correct the false statement
about the purchase price, which the lawyer did. But because the client would not cooperate and correct the false statement,
and nothing in the facts indicates that withdrawing from representation would resolve the issue, the lawyer was permitted
to reveal the situation to the tribunal even though it was protected by the duty of confidentiality (given that the
information about the purchase price was learned during the course of representation).

(C) is incorrect. As detailed above, the lawyer first had a duty to speak with the man about a lawyer’s duty of candor to
the tribunal and sought his client’s assistance to correct the false statement about the purchase price, which the lawyer did.
But because the client would not cooperate and correct the false statement, and nothing in the facts indicates that
withdrawing from representation would solve the issue, the lawyer was permitted to reveal the situation to the tribunal
even though it was protected by the duty of confidentiality (given that the information about the purchase price was
learned during the course of representation).

(D) is incorrect. As explained above, under the circumstances, the lawyer’s obligation to take remedial measures
regarding his client’s false testimony only went as far as revealing the situation to the tribunal. Once the lawyer revealed
that his client had testified falsely, it was up to the tribunal to decide how to proceed.

45. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 3.5(a) reads that a lawyer shall not: “seek to influence a judge, juror,
prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law[.]” Model Rule 3.5(b) provides in relevant part that a
lawyer shall not “communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or
court order[.]” An ex parte communication is one that occurs outside the presence of the other parties and without their
consent. A written communication to a judge is not ex parte if a copy is sent to opposing counsel. The second issue posed
by this question is that the law of the jurisdiction requires a lawyer to obtain a court order in order to communicate with
jurors during trial unless the lawyer knows that jury tampering has occurred. Here, the lawyer engaged in a
communication with the juror about the potential jury tampering while he was still serving on the jury. The facts state that
the lawyer only had a “reasonable belief” about the alleged jury tampering—not knowledge. Thus, the lawyer was
required to obtain a court order before speaking with the juror. As a result, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. While it is true that the lawyer avoided engaging in an ex parte communication by sending a copy of the
letter he wrote to the judge to opposing counsel, this answer choice misses the issue here, which as noted above, is that the
lawyer engaged in an ex parte communication with the juror about the possible jury tampering while he was still serving
on the jury. The issue posed by this question is that the law of the jurisdiction requires a lawyer to obtain a court order in
order to communicate with jurors during trial unless the lawyer knows that jury tampering has occurred. Here, the lawyer
engaged in a communication with the juror about the potential jury tampering while he was still serving on the jury. The
Page | 59
facts state that the lawyer only had a “reasonable belief” about the alleged jury tampering—not knowledge. Thus, the
lawyer was required to obtain a court order before speaking with the juror. As a result, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not carve out a good cause exception that would permit a
lawyer to communicate ex parte with the juror about possible jury tampering before the completion of his jury service.
Furthermore, the law of the jurisdiction does not create such an exception. As noted above, the law of the jurisdiction
requires a lawyer to obtain a court order in order to communicate with jurors during trial unless the lawyer knows that jury
tampering has occurred. Here, the lawyer engaged in a communication with the juror about the potential jury tampering
while he was still serving on the jury. The facts state that the lawyer only had a “reasonable belief” about the alleged jury
tampering—not knowledge. Thus, the lawyer was required to obtain a court order before speaking with the juror. As a
result, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(C) is incorrect. Model Rule 3.5(c) states that “a lawyer shall not: communicate with a juror or prospective juror after
discharge of the jury if: (1) the communication is prohibited by law or court order; (2) the juror has made known to the
lawyer a desire not to communicate; or (3) the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress or
harassment[.]” This rule applies specifically to a lawyer’s communication with a juror after trial. Here, the lawyer’s
communication with the juror took place during trial, so the best approach is apply to Model Rule 3.5(b), detailed above.
Here, the threshold question is whether the lawyer was permitted to speak with the juror about the alleged jury tampering
in the first place, not whether the lawyer was permitted to continue speaking with the juror after she had expressly stated
that she no longer wished to speak to the lawyer.

As explained above, the law of the jurisdiction requires a lawyer to obtain a court order in order to communicate with
jurors during trial unless the lawyer knows that jury tampering has occurred. Here, the lawyer engaged in a
communication with the juror about the potential jury tampering while he was still serving on the jury. The facts state that
the lawyer only had a “reasonable belief” about the alleged jury tampering—not knowledge. Thus, the lawyer was
required to obtain a court order before speaking with the juror. As a result, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

46. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.4(a)(3) explains that “a lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed
about the status of the matter.” Further, Model Rule 1.4(b) provides: “A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.” Comment [7] to
Model Rule 1.4 clarifies, “[i]n some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in delaying transmission of information
when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication. Thus, a lawyer might withhold a
psychiatric diagnosis of a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client.” Here,
the lawyer has a duty to keep his client reasonably informed about matters pertaining to representation (knowing that the
brain tumor had increased in size would be relevant to the settlement negotiations with the former doctor about the
malpractice claim). However, if the man would be likely to act imprudently (by having a psychotic breakdown) upon the
lawyer’s immediate communication about the growth of this brain tumor, the lawyer would not be subject discipline for
not promptly sharing this information with the client. However, the lawyer would not be able to withhold this information
indefinitely from the client.

(A) is incorrect. As noted above, while the lawyer has a duty to keep his client reasonably informed about matters
pertaining to representation (knowing that the brain tumor had increased in size would be relevant to the settlement
negotiations with the former doctor about the malpractice claim), if the man would be likely to act imprudently (by having
a psychotic breakdown) upon the lawyer’s immediate communication about the growth of this brain tumor, the lawyer
would not be subject discipline for not promptly sharing this information with the client. However, the lawyer would not
be able to withhold this information indefinitely from the client.

(B) is incorrect. Even though the current doctor breached the duty of confidentiality that he owed the man, this does not
alter the lawyer’s duty to communicate with his client. As noted above, while the lawyer has a duty to keep his client
reasonably informed about matters pertaining to representation (knowing that the brain tumor had increased in size would
be relevant to the settlement negotiations with the former doctor about the malpractice claim), if the man would be likely
Page | 60
to act imprudently (by having a psychotic breakdown) upon the lawyer’s immediate communication about the growth of
this brain tumor, the lawyer would not be subject discipline for not promptly sharing this information with the client.
However, the lawyer would not be able to withhold this information indefinitely from the client.

(D) is incorrect. This answer choice is too narrow. Comment [6] to Model Rule 1.4 provides: “Ordinarily, the information
to be provided is that appropriate for a client who is a comprehending and responsible adult. However, fully informing the
client according to this standard may be impracticable, for example, where the client is a child or suffers from diminished
capacity.” Comment [1] to Model Rule 1.14 notes that “[n]evertheless, a client with diminished capacity often has the
ability to understand, deliberate upon, and reach conclusions about matters affecting the client's own well-being.” Thus,
just because a client suffers from diminished capacity does not in and of itself justify a lawyer’s delay in communicating
with his client about matters pertaining to the representation. Such decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. As
explained above, the lawyer has a duty to keep his client reasonably informed about matters pertaining to representation.
But, if the man would be likely to act imprudently (by having a psychotic breakdown) upon the lawyer’s immediate
communication about the growth of this brain tumor, the lawyer would not be subject discipline for not promptly sharing
this information with the client. However, the lawyer would not be able to withhold this information indefinitely from the
client.

47. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 7.6 states: “A lawyer or law firm shall not accept a government legal
engagement or an appointment by a judge if the lawyer or law firm makes a political contribution or solicits political
contributions for the purpose of obtaining or being considered for that type of legal engagement or appointment.”
Comment [3] to Model Rule 7.6 provides several exceptions to this rule: “(a) substantially uncompensated services; (b)
engagements or appointments made on the basis of experience, expertise, professional qualifications and cost following a
request for proposal or other process that is free from influence based upon political contributions; and (c) engagements or
appointments made on a rotational basis from a list compiled without regard to political contributions. Here, the lawyer
solicited political contributions for the judge’s reelection campaign for the purpose of being considered for a legal
appointment and the judge appointed the lawyer as a guardian in several cases after being reelected. The position does not
fall into the aforementioned exception for substantially uncompensated services—even though the lawyer was paid
“slightly less than his regular hourly rate” it does not mean that the position was substantially uncompensated. In addition,
the facts state that the lawyer had only practiced immigration law up to this point. Therefore, the lawyer could not have
been appointed as a guardian on the basis of his experience. So, the second exception is not applicable. Finally, the third
exception does not apply because the facts do not indicate that the lawyer was appointed based upon a list that was
compiled without regard to political contributions. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, a lawyer is subject to discipline for accepting an appointment by a judge if the
lawyer makes political contributions or solicits political contributions or the for the purpose of obtaining or being
considered for that type of legal engagement or appointment. Thus, even though the lawyer did not personally make
political contributions to the judge’s campaign, the lawyer solicited political contributions for the judge’s reelection
campaign for the purpose of being considered for a legal appointment and the judge appointed the lawyer as a guardian in
several cases after being reelected. The position does not fall into the aforementioned exception for substantially
uncompensated services—even though the lawyer was paid “slightly less than his regular hourly rate” it does not mean
that the position was substantially uncompensated. In addition, the facts state that the lawyer had only practiced
immigration law up to this point. Therefore, the lawyer could not have been appointed as a guardian on the basis of his
experience. So, the second exception is not applicable. Finally, the third exception does not apply because the facts do not
indicate that the lawyer was appointed based upon a list that was compiled without regard to political contributions. Thus,
the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. This answer choice is factually incorrect. While it is true that the lawyer would not be subject to
discipline if the legal appointments were substantially uncompensated, as explained above, even though the fees from the
appointments were significantly less than the amount of contributions that the lawyer had solicited for the judge’s
campaign and slightly less than his regular hourly rate, does not mean that the legal appointments were substantially
uncompensated. As explained above, a lawyer is subject to discipline for accepting an appointment by a judge if the
Page | 61
lawyer makes political contributions or solicits political contributions or the for the purpose of obtaining or being
considered for that type of legal engagement or appointment. Thus, even though the lawyer did not make political
contributions to the judge’s campaign, the lawyer solicited political contributions for the judge’s reelection campaign for
the purpose of being considered for a legal appointment and the judge appointed the lawyer as a guardian in several cases
after being reelected.

(C) is incorrect. This answer choice is too narrow. Comment [6] to Model Rule 7.6 provides, “If a lawyer makes or
solicits a political contribution under circumstances that constitute bribery or another crime, Rule 8.4(b) is implicated.”
However, this is not the only way that a lawyer would be subject to discipline based on the facts presented. Here, the
lawyer solicited political contributions for the judge’s reelection campaign for the purpose of being considered for a legal
appointment and the judge appointed the lawyer as a guardian in several cases after being reelected. Further, the position
does not fall into the aforementioned exception—even though the lawyer was paid slightly less than his hourly rate does
not mean that the position was substantially uncompensated. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

48. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 6.2 states: “A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to
represent a person except for good cause, such as: (a) representing the client is likely to result in violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct or other law; (b) representing the client is likely to result in an unreasonable financial burden on the
lawyer; or (c) the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or
the lawyer's ability to represent the client.” Here, based on the fact that lawyer’s sister had been killed by a bomb and that
the lawyer had been asked to represent a defendant who had allegedly committed a bombing, it is possible that the lawyer
would find the defendant to be so repugnant as to impair the lawyer’s ability to represent him. Thus, the lawyer would not
be required to accept the appointment.

(A) is incorrect. This is an inaccurate statement. Comment [1] to Model Rule 6.2 states in relevant part: “A lawyer may
also be subject to appointment by a court to serve unpopular clients or persons unable to afford legal services.” However,
as detailed above, a lawyer can avoid an appointment by a tribunal if he can establish good cause. One way to establish
good cause is if the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer, which could apply to the facts at hand.

(B) is incorrect. Even if a tribunal selects a lawyer based on his skills, training, and expertise for a particular appointment,
a lawyer may still avoid the appointment if he can establish good cause, as explained above. One way to establish good
cause is if the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer, which could apply to the facts at hand.

(C) is incorrect. A lawyer is not required to complete pro bono hours under the Model Rules. Rather, a lawyer “should
aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year.” [Emphasis added.] Model Rule 6.1. Thus,
the lawyer would not be subject to discipline under the Model Rules.

49. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 4.1 states in pertinent part: “In the course of representing a client a lawyer
shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person[.]” Comment [2] to Model Rule
4.1 provides, “Under generally accepted conventions in negotiation, certain types of statements ordinarily are not taken as
statements of material fact. Estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction and a party’s intentions as to
an acceptable settlement of a claim are ordinarily in this category, and so is the existence of an undisclosed principal
except where nondisclosure of the principal would constitute fraud.” Here, the lawyer’s statement about whether entering
the car wash business was a lucrative business was a general statement about the industry—it was not a statement of
material fact. Thus, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. This is an inaccurate statement. Comment [1] to Model Rule 4.1 notes that “[a] lawyer is required to be
truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of
relevant facts.” Further, as noted above, estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction is generally not a
statement of material fact. Here, the lawyer’s statement about whether entering the car wash business was a lucrative

Page | 62
business was a general statement about the industry—it was not a statement of material fact. Thus, the lawyer is not
subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. Comment [1] to Model Rule 4.1 explains that “misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but
misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements.” However, as noted above,
estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction is generally not a statement of material fact. Here, the
lawyer’s statement about whether entering the car wash business was a lucrative business was a general statement about
the industry—it was not a statement of material fact. Thus, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

(C) is incorrect. Model Rule 4.2 provides, “[i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of
the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has
the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.” Comment [3] to Model Rule 4.2 states,
“[t]he Rule applies even though the represented person initiates or consents to the communication. A lawyer must
immediately terminate communication with a person if, after commencing communication, the lawyer learns that the
person is one with whom communication is not permitted by this Rule.” As such, a lawyer does have an obligation to
terminate communication with a person as soon as the lawyer learns that the person is represented by another lawyer in
the matter.

50. (A) is correct. Model Rule 3.4(b) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not: falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to
testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law.” Comment [3] to Model Rule 3.4 explains:
“[I]t is not improper to pay a witness's expenses or to compensate an expert witness on terms permitted by law. The
common law rule in most jurisdictions is that it is improper to pay an occurrence witness any fee for testifying and that it
is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee.” Here, the portion of the expert witness agreement that pays the
expert (securities professor) an hourly fee for preparing his testimony and for testifying is proper. However, the issue is
that the agreement also provides that the expert will be paid a contingency fee ($2,000) if the defendant wins. This is
improper. For the occurrence (fact) witness agreement, the portion of the agreement compensating the witness for travel
and lodging expenses is valid. However, the portion of the agreement paying the fact witness a fee for testifying is
improper. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. It is true that the portion of the agreement with the expert stating that he will be paid a contingency fee
($2,000) if the defendant wins is improper. In addition, as explained above, for the occurrence (fact) witness agreement,
the portion of the agreement compensating the witness for travel and lodging expenses is valid. However, the portion of
the agreement paying the fact witness a fee for testifying is improper. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, Comment [3] to Model Rule 3.4 explains: “[I]t is not improper to pay a witness's
expenses or to compensate an expert witness on terms permitted by law. The common law rule in most jurisdictions is that
it is improper to pay an occurrence witness any fee for testifying and that it is improper to pay an expert witness a
contingent fee.” Here, the jurisdiction has adopted the common law rule that is used in most jurisdictions. Therefore, the
portion of the agreement paying the fact witness a fee for testifying is improper. Further, as detailed above, the portion of
the agreement with the expert stating that he will be paid a contingency fee ($2,000) if the defendant wins is improper.
Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(D) is incorrect. Here, the jurisdiction has adopted the common law rule that is used in most jurisdictions. Therefore, the
portion of the agreement paying the fact witness a fee for testifying is improper. Further, as detailed above, the portion of
the agreement with the expert stating that he will be paid a contingency fee ($2,000) if the defendant wins is improper.
Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

51. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.12(b) states: “A lawyer shall not negotiate for employment with any person
who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and
substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral. A lawyer
Page | 63
serving as a law clerk to a judge or other adjudicative officer may negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer
involved in a matter in which the clerk is participating personally and substantially, but only after the lawyer has notified
the judge or other adjudicative officer.” Here, the software company has a matter before the judge. And the facts state that
the clerk has performed a significant amount of legal research on the matter pertaining to the software company. Thus, the
law clerk has participated personally and substantially. However, the law clerk may still negotiate future employment with
the software company if she first notifies the judge.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, even though the law clerk participated personally and substantially on the matter
involving the software company, she may still negotiate future employment with the software company if she first notifies
the judge. She does not, however, need the judge’s permission.

(C) is incorrect. As detailed above, Model Rule 1.12(b) states “a law clerk to a judge or other adjudicative officer may
negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer involved in a matter in which the clerk is participating personally and
substantially, but only after the lawyer has notified the judge or other adjudicative officer.” Thus, even though the law
clerk participated personally and substantially on the matter involving the software company, she may still negotiate
future employment with the software company if she first notifies the judge.

(D) is incorrect. While it is true that the law clerk participated personally and substantially on the matter involving the
software company by performing legal research on issues pertaining to the matter, she may still negotiate future
employment with the software company if she first notifies the judge.

52. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.7(a) explains that a lawyer generally may not represent a client if the
representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. Specifically, “A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the
representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the
representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former
client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.” Model Rule 1.7(b) provides: “Notwithstanding the
existence of a concurrent conflict of interest . . . , a lawyer may represent a client if: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes
that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation
is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve 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; and (4) each affected client
gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.” Comment [6] to Model Rule 1.7 provides: “[S]imultaneous representation
in unrelated matters of clients whose interests are only economically adverse, such as representation of competing
economic enterprises in unrelated litigation, does not ordinarily constitute a conflict of interest and thus may not require
consent of the respective clients.” Here, although the major internet service provider and the rival service provider are
business competitors, there is no concurrent conflict of interest that arises based on the facts provided if the lawyer
represents both companies in separate actions against different third parties.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, Comment [6] to Model Rule 1.7 provides: “[S]imultaneous representation in
unrelated matters of clients whose interests are only economically adverse, such as representation of competing economic
enterprises in unrelated litigation, does not ordinarily constitute a conflict of interest and thus may not require consent of
the respective clients.” Here, although the major internet service provider and the rival service provider are business
competitors, there is no concurrent conflict of interest that arises based on the facts provided if the lawyer represents both
companies in separate actions against different third parties.

(B) is incorrect. Nothing in the facts indicates that there is a significant risk that the representation the rival internet
service provider will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to the major internet service provider. Further,
as explained above, the representation of the major internet service provider is not directly adverse to the rival internet
service provider. Here, although the major internet service provider and the rival service provider are business
competitors, there is no concurrent conflict of interest that arises based on the facts provided if the lawyer represents both
companies in separate actions against different third parties.

Page | 64
(D) is incorrect. As detailed above, because there is no current conflict of interest present in these facts, the lawyer does
not need to find a way around the conflict. Further, if the facts did give rise to a current conflict of interest, the lawyer
would need to first obtain the major service provider and the rival internet service provider’s informed consent, confirmed
in writing. Although the major internet service provider and the rival service provider are business competitors, there is no
concurrent conflict of interest that arises based on the facts provided if the lawyer represents both companies in separate
actions against different third parties.

53. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.6(a) states: “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the
representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry
out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).” Here, the lawyer learned information relating to the
representation of the client, namely that the client lied during his grand jury testimony that resulted in the indictment for
aggravated robbery. Because the lawyer did not obtain the client’s informed consent, disclosure was not impliedly
authorized in order to defend the client on the aggravated robbery charge, and none of the exceptions to confidentiality
apply. Therefore, the lawyer is subject to discipline for revealing confidential information to the local authorities. Note:
Model Rule 3.3 pertains to a lawyer’s duty of candor to the tribunal which applies in several instances. Model Rule 3.3(a)
provides: “If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer
comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the
tribunal.” This rule does not apply here because the question is specifically asking whether it was proper for the lawyer to
reveal information to the police (which does not fall under the definition of a tribunal). Model Rule 1.0(m) states:
“‘Tribunal’ denotes a court, an arbitrator in a binding arbitration proceeding or a legislative body, administrative agency
or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity. A legislative body, administrative agency or other body acts in an
adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties,
will render a binding legal judgment directly affecting a party's interests in a particular matter.”

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, when the lawyer’s client admitted to lying under oath during his grand jury
testimony, this information was protected by the duty of confidentiality. Because the lawyer did not obtain the client’s
informed consent, disclosure was not impliedly authorized in order to defend the client on the aggravated robbery charge,
and none of the exceptions to confidentiality apply. Therefore, the lawyer is subject to discipline for revealing confidential
information to the local authorities.

(B) is incorrect. As discussed above, when the lawyer’s client admitted to lying under oath during his grand jury
testimony, this information was protected by the duty of confidentiality. Because the lawyer did not obtain the client’s
informed consent, disclosure was not impliedly authorized in order to defend the client on the aggravated robbery charge,
and none of the exceptions to confidentiality apply. Therefore, the lawyer is subject to discipline for revealing that the
client committed perjury to the local authorities.

(D) is incorrect. While it is true that that client’s informed consent would have permitted the lawyer to reveal that her
client had committed perjury, this is not the only way that would permit the lawyer to reveal confidential information, as
discussed above.

54. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.4(a)(1) states that “lawyer shall promptly inform the client of any decision or
circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent . . . is required by these Rules[.]” Comment [2] to Model
Rule 1.4 clarifies, “[A] lawyer who receives from opposing counsel an offer of settlement in a civil controversy or a
proffered plea bargain in a criminal case must promptly inform the client of its substance unless the client has previously
indicated that the proposal will be acceptable or unacceptable or has authorized the lawyer to accept or to reject the offer.”
Here, the client explicitly told the lawyer that she would not settle for less than $500,000. Thus, because the settlement
offer was for $450,000, the lawyer was permitted to reject the offer without first consulting with the client. Therefore, the
lawyer is not subject to discipline.

Page | 65
(A) is incorrect. While it is true that the lawyer decides the technical, legal, and tactical matters of the case, a client
decides: (1) the objectives of representation, (2) whether to settle, and (3) the expense to be incurred. As noted above, the
client explicitly told the lawyer that she would not settle for less than $500,000. Thus, because the settlement offer was for
$450,000, the lawyer was permitted to reject the offer without first consulting with the client. Therefore, the lawyer is not
subject to discipline.

(C) is incorrect. As noted above, the client explicitly told the lawyer that she would not settle for less than $500,000.
Thus, because the settlement offer was for $450,000, the lawyer was permitted to reject the offer without first consulting
with the client. Therefore, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

(D) is incorrect. A client decides: (1) the objectives of representation, (2) whether to settle the case, and (3) the expense to
be incurred. As noted above, the client explicitly told the lawyer that she would not settle for less than $500,000 under any
circumstances. Thus, because the settlement offer was for $450,000, the lawyer was permitted to reject the offer without
first consulting with the client. Therefore, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

55. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 3.8(f) states that prosecutors in a criminal case shall: “except for statements
that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law
enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public
condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees
or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that
the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.” Comment [6] to Model Rule 3.8 clarifies,
“Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions to law-
enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals.” Here, the prosecutor had a duty to take reasonable care to ensure
that the sergeant’s statements would comply with the Model Rules. However, the prosecutor did not take reasonable care
because he refused to review the sergeant’s statement before the press conference. Further, the fact pattern does not
indicate that the prosecutor issued the requisite cautions to law enforcement personnel. The sergeant made a statement
calling the defendant a “heinous criminal who deserved to spend the rest of his life behind bars,” which is substantially
likely to increase the public condemnation of the defendant. Thus, the prosecutor is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. As explained above, the prosecutor had a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the sergeant’s
statements would comply with the Model Rules. However, the prosecutor did not take reasonable care because he refused
to review the sergeant’s statement before the press conference. Further, the fact pattern does not indicate that the
prosecutor issued the requisite cautions to law enforcement personnel. The sergeant made a statement calling the
defendant a “heinous criminal who deserved to spend the rest of his life behind bars,” which is substantially likely to
increase the public condemnation of the defendant. Thus, the prosecutor is subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. Model Rule 3.8(f) does not limit a prosecutor’s duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the
extrajudicial statements of law enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals comply with the Model Rules to only
those individuals over whom the prosecutor has supervisory authority.

(D) is incorrect. Model Rule 3.8(f) does not restrict when a prosecutor or law enforcement personnel assisting in the
criminal case may make an extrajudicial statement. As explained above, the prosecutor had a duty to take reasonable care
to ensure that the sergeant’s statements would comply with the Model Rules. However, the prosecutor did not take
reasonable care because he refused to review the sergeant’s statement before the press conference. Further, the fact pattern
does not indicate that the prosecutor issued the requisite cautions to law enforcement personnel. The sergeant made a
statement calling the defendant a “heinous criminal who deserved to spend the rest of his life behind bars,” which is
substantially likely to increase the public condemnation of the defendant. Thus, the prosecutor is subject to discipline.

56. (B) is the correct answer. ABA Formal Opinion 485 (2019) states: “A judge for whom performing marriages is a
discretionary judicial function may not decline to perform marriages of same-sex couples if the judge agrees to perform
Page | 66
opposite-sex marriages. A judge’s refusal to perform same-sex marriages while performing opposite-sex marriages calls
into question the judge’s integrity and impartiality and reflects bias and prejudice in violation of Rules 1.1, 2.2, 2.3(A),
and 2.3(B) of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. In a jurisdiction in which a judge is not obligated to perform marriages
but has the discretion to do so, a judge may refuse to perform marriages for members of the public. A judge who declines
to perform marriages for members of the public may still perform marriages for family and friends. If a judge chooses to
perform marriages for family and friends, however, the judge may not decline to perform same-sex marriages for family
and friends.” Here, performing marriages was a discretionary judicial function. Thus, the judge was permitted to decline
performing marriages for the public. However, because the judge chose to perform an opposite-sex marriage for his sister,
the judge could not decline to perform a same-sex marriage for his friend based on his personal beliefs about same-sex
marriage.

(A) is incorrect. As discussed above, performing marriages was a discretionary judicial function. Thus, the judge was
permitted to decline performing marriages for the public. However, because the judge chose to perform an opposite-sex
marriage for his sister, the judge could not decline to perform a same-sex marriage for his friend based on his personal
beliefs about same-sex marriage. In doing so, the judge, at a minimum, violated the duty to act fairly and impartially
under Model Rule 2.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, even though performing marriages was not a mandatory judicial function in this
jurisdiction, the judge still had a duty to act fairly and impartially under Model Rule 2.2. The judge was permitted to
decline performing marriages for the public. However, because the judge chose to perform an opposite-sex marriage for
his sister, the judge could not decline to perform a same-sex marriage for his friend based on his personal beliefs about
same-sex marriage.

(D) is incorrect. This answer choice is overly broad. As explained above, even though performing marriages was not a
mandatory judicial function in this jurisdiction, the judge still had a duty to act fairly and impartially. The judge was
permitted to decline performing marriages for the public. However, because the judge chose to perform an opposite-sex
marriage for his sister, the judge could not decline to perform a same-sex marriage for his friend based on his personal
beliefs about same-sex marriage.

57. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.8(a) states: “A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client
or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless: (1) the
transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed
and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client; (2) the client is advised in writing
of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the
transaction; and (3) the client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the
transaction and the lawyer's role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the
transaction.” [Emphasis added.] Here, the lawyer entered into a business transaction with his client. While the terms of the
agreement were fair and reasonable and the client gave his informed written consent, the lawyer failed to advise the client
in writing of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel. Instead, the lawyer conveyed this information verbally.
Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. Comment [1] to Model Rule 1.8 explains that “[t]he requirements of paragraph (a) must be met even
when the transaction is not closely related to the subject matter of the representation, as when a lawyer drafting a will for a
client learns that the client needs money for unrelated expenses and offers to make a loan to the client.” Thus, as explained
above, while the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable and the client gave his informed written consent, the
lawyer failed to advise the client in writing of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel. Instead, the lawyer
conveyed this information orally. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. As discussed above, even though the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable and the client gave
his informed written consent, the lawyer failed to advise the client in writing of the desirability of seeking independent
legal counsel. Instead, the lawyer conveyed this information orally. Thus, the lawyer is subject to discipline.
Page | 67
(C) is incorrect. As stated above, Model Rule 1.8(a) does not require that a lawyer ensure that his client is independently
represented before giving his informed written consent to the terms of a business transaction. Rather, the lawyer must
advise the client in writing of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel. Because the lawyer did not follow this
step, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

58. (D) is the correct answer. Model Rule 3.8(c) states that “[t]he prosecutor in a criminal case shall not seek to obtain
from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing[.]” Further,
Comment [2] to Model Rule 3.8 provides: “In some jurisdictions, a defendant may waive a preliminary hearing and
thereby lose a valuable opportunity to challenge probable cause. Accordingly, prosecutors should not seek to obtain
waivers of preliminary hearings or other important pretrial rights from unrepresented accused persons. Paragraph (c) does
not apply, however, to an accused appearing pro se with the approval of the tribunal.” Here, the tribunal approved the
defendant’s request to appear pro se, and thus, the assistant district attorney was entitled to ask whether the defendant
would waive the preliminary hearing. Thus, the attorney is not subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. Comment [7] to Model Rule 3.8 states in pertinent part: “When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and
material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a person . . . was convicted of a crime that the person did not
commit . . . If the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction, paragraph (g) requires the prosecutor to
examine the evidence and undertake further investigation to determine whether the defendant is, in fact, innocent or make
reasonable efforts to cause another appropriate authority to undertake the necessary investigation, and to promptly
disclose the evidence to the court and, absent court-authorized delay, to the defendant. Consistent with the objectives of
Rules 4.2 and 4.3, disclosure to a represented defendant must be made through the defendant’s counsel, and, in the case of
an unrepresented defendant, would ordinarily be accompanied by a request to a court for the appointment of counsel to
assist the defendant in taking such legal measures as may be appropriate.” Here, the fact that the defendant is
unrepresented does not prohibit a prosecutor who learns of new, credible and material evidence pertaining to the
defendant’s innocence from requesting that a defendant be appointed counsel.

(B) is incorrect. As explained above, because the tribunal approved the defendant’s request to appear pro se, the attorney
was entitled to ask whether the defendant would waive the preliminary hearing. This is the exception to the general rule
otherwise stated in this answer choice. Thus, the attorney is not subject to discipline.

(C) is incorrect. As explained above, because the conviction was obtained in the assistant district attorney’s jurisdiction,
the attorney is generally required to reveal the new, credible and material evidence pertaining to the defendant’s innocence
to the court as well as the defendant. Further, the attorney is required to conduct an investigation or report this evidence to
an appropriate authority. Here, the answer choice is too narrow. The attorney did tell the court and undertook an
investigation into the new evidence, but the attorney is also required to convey this information to the defendant (which
this answer choice does not address).

59. (B) is the correct answer. Model Rule 6.4 provides: “A lawyer may serve as a director, officer or member of an
organization involved in reform of the law or its administration notwithstanding that the reform may affect the interests of
a client of the lawyer. When the lawyer knows that the interests of a client may be materially benefitted by a decision in
which the lawyer participates, the lawyer shall disclose that fact but need not identify the client.” Here, the lawyer served
as general counsel for a mining corporation but also served as an officer in an organization involved in the reform of air
pollution laws. The lawyer knew that his client, the mining corporation, might materially benefit from the environmental
organization’s decision to lobby for an exception to the penalties for air-polluting for corporations that used a more
environmentally friendly machine during the mining process (because the corporation had already purchased two of these
machines). Before partaking in the vote, the lawyer rightly disclosed that he had a client who may be materially benefitted
by the decision of the environmental organization. Thus, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. Attorney-client privilege does not apply here. First, the attorney-client privilege is an evidentiary rule that
Page | 68
prevents a court or other government entity from using its powers to compel the revelation of confidential
communications between an attorney and a client (or agents of either). Second, the attorney-client privilege typically does
not cover the identity of the client, absent exceptional circumstances. The attorney-client privilege is inapplicable to the
facts at hand because no court or government entity is trying to compel the lawyer to reveal his confidential
communications with the mining corporation. Further, the identity of the mining corporation would not be protected by
the attorney-client privilege.

(C) is incorrect. Comment [1] to Model Rule 6.4 states: “Lawyers involved in organizations seeking law reform generally
do not have a client-lawyer relationship with the organization. Otherwise, it might follow that a lawyer could not be
involved in a bar association law reform program that might indirectly affect a client.” Nothing in the facts indicates that
the lawyer entered into a lawyer-client relationship with the environmental organization, let alone that a current conflict of
interest arose.

(D) is incorrect. As explained above, before partaking in the vote, the lawyer rightly disclosed that he had a client who
may be materially benefitted by the decision of the environmental organization. The lawyer was not required to identify
his client. Thus, the lawyer is not subject to discipline.

60. (C) is the correct answer. Model Rule 1.3 states: “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.” Comment [3] to Model Rule 1.3 notes: “Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely
resented than procrastination. A client's interests often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of
conditions; in extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks a statute of limitations, the client's legal position may be
destroyed. Even when the client's interests are not affected in substance, however, unreasonable delay can cause a client
needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer's trustworthiness.” Here, the lawyer took almost two years to
investigate and research his client’s medical malpractice claim and filed the complaint just one week before the statute of
limitations ran. While the lawyer needed to familiarize himself with medical malpractice law, this delay was
unreasonable. Therefore, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(A) is incorrect. As noted above, the lawyer took almost two years to investigate and research his client’s medical
malpractice claim and filed the complaint just one week before the statute of limitations ran. As Comment [3] to Model
Rule 1.3 notes: “A client's interests often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of conditions.”
The facts do not tell us whether the client was adversely affected due to this lapse in time but Comment [3] goes on to
state that “[e]ven when the client's interests are not affected in substance, however, unreasonable delay can cause a client
needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer's trustworthiness.” This behavior is still in violation of the
lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable diligence. While the lawyer needed to familiarize himself with medical malpractice
law, this delay was unreasonable. Therefore, the lawyer is subject to discipline.

(B) is incorrect. As explained above, the lawyer took almost two years to investigate and research his client’s medical
malpractice claim and filed the complaint just one week before the statute of limitations ran. While the lawyer needed to
familiarize himself with medical malpractice law, this delay was unreasonable. Therefore, the lawyer is subject to
discipline.

(D) is incorrect. A lawyer does not need to be subject to civil liability (i.e. liable to the client for misconduct) in order to
be subject to discipline by the state bar. As explained above, the lawyer took almost two years to investigate and research
his client’s medical malpractice claim and filed the complaint just one week before the statute of limitations ran. While
the lawyer needed to familiarize himself with medical malpractice law, this delay was unreasonable. Therefore, the lawyer
is subject to discipline.

Page | 69