Instructions: Click the answer button to see the correct answer.

Judge Jackman is a full-time judge in State A. Her father lives in a retirement home in State B. Judge Jackman's father told her on the telephone that several of his friends in the retirement home had employed attorney Abbott to write wills for them, that in each will attorney Abbott had included a bequest to himself, and that each bequest was approximately .5% of the estimated total value of the person's probable estate. The friends told Judge Jackman's father that they did not really want to leave Abbott anything; they had assumed it was merely a matter of routine, a part of the lawyer's compensation for drafting the will. Attorney Abbott is admitted to practice in State B, but not in State A. Judge Jackman did not talk personally with any of her father's friends, but she believes that her father's rendition of the story is entirely accurate. Would it be proper for Judge Jackman to communicate directly with attorney Abbott about the matter, and if that does not satisfy her, to communicate with the attorney disciplinary authority in State B about the matter'?
1. No, because she is not allowed to communicate directly with Abbott about the supposed legal ethics violation.
2. No, because legal ethics violations that take place outside State A are not her concern.
3. Yes, because she has personal knowledge that Abbott has violated a legal ethics role.
4. Yes, because she has received information indicating a substantial likelihood that Abbott has violated a legal ethics rule.
Lawyer Long, three years out of law school, had never set foot in a courtroom. Long was on the board of directors of the Community Nursery School ("CNS"), a nonprofit preschool for underprivileged children. One of the CNS teachers was charged with felony child abuse for allegedly molesting three of the CNS pupils. After conducting its own careful investigation, the CNS board of directors concluded that the criminal charge was totally unfounded, and the board resolved to provide defense counsel for the teacher. Long volunteered to do the work without a fee. A few days before the trial was to begin, Long got cold feet and became convinced that he was incompetent to serve as the teacher's trial counsel. He asked the trial judge for permission to withdraw. After thoroughly questioning Long about his preparation for trial, the judge said: Mr. Long, I understand your anxiety, but you are perfectly competent to handle this case. Your motion to withdraw is denied; I will postpone the trial for seven days to allow you to complete your preparation. Now go do your job. Instead of doing what the judge ordered, Long advised the teacher that he would not defend her. He handed her all of the files in the case and advised her to retain another lawyer. Is Long subject to discipline?
1. No, because he was working pro bono, not for a fee.
2. No, because he believed that he was not competent to represent his client at trial.
3. Yes, because he abandoned his client in direct violation of the trial judge's order.
4. Yes, because he undertook a case that he was not competent to handle.
During a brief recess in jury deliberations in a criminal case, juror Jimmerson telephoned a friend of hers, attorney Aulet, and asked for help in understanding a legal concept that was puzzling the jury--the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Aulet explained the term as best he could, given the circumstances and shortness of time. Is Aulet subject to discipline?
1. No, unless he was not competent in the field of criminal law.
2. Yes, because given the circumstances and shortness of time, his explanation may have been misleading.
3. No, unless he was in some manner connected with the case.
4. Yes, because he communicated with a juror about a pending case.
Duffy graduated from law school, but he never took the bar examination and was never admitted to practice. He works as an investigator and paralegal for the law firm of Schnell & Gao, a professional corporation. Which of the following statements are true? I. On Duffy's recommendation, one of Duffy's friends retained lawyer Gao to represent her as plaintiff in a personal injury case. It would be proper for Schnell & Gao to pay Duffy 10% of its fee in the case as compensation for the referral. II. Lawyer Schnell frequently assigns Duffy to draft wills for Schnell's estate planning clients. Schnell supervises Duffy's work, revises Duffy's drafts, and is ultimately responsible for the final product. Schnell is subject to discipline for assisting a nonlawyer to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. III. Schnell & Gao established a retirement plan that is funded partly by legal fees earned by the Finn’s lawyers. The firm may include Duffy as a beneficiary of the retirement plan. IV. Schnell & Gao established a stock option plan to compensate its personnel for hard work. The options allow recipients to purchase shares of stock in the law firm at a reduced price. It would be proper for Duffy to acquire stock in the firm through the stock option plan.
1. I., II., III, and IV.
2. III and IV. only.
3. III. only.
4. None of the above.
Client Curtis hired lawyer Lemont to represent her in a matter. If the matter had been handled properly, Curtis could have recovered a maximum of $9,000. Lemont failed to do proper legal research; as a result, Curtis lost her claim. Not wanting to tell Curtis what happened, Lemont informs Curtis: "Congratulations. We won ! Please stop by my office at your earliest convenience and pick up the $9,000." Lemont plans to pay the money out of his own pocket. If Lemont does so, will he be subject to discipline?
1. No, because Lemont has made Curtis whole.
2. Yes, unless Curtis accepts the $9,000 in satisfaction of her claim.
3. No, because Curtis can recover from Lemont for legal malpractice.
4. Yes, because Lemont has deceived Curtis.
Client Chason hired lawyer Lucero to do the legal work in connection with a complex public securities offering. Lucero agreed to do the work for $160 per hour. Lucero did a great deal of legal research, prepared numerous memoranda of fact and law, and drafted most of the documents needed for the public offering. At that point, Chason became angry with Lucero for no apparent mason and fired him. Chason paid Lucero at the agreed rate for the work Lucero had done, and Chason demanded that Lucero turn over to him the papers that Lucero had prepared, including the legal and fact memoranda and the document drafts. What papers must Lucero turn over to Chason?
1. Only the document drafts, but not the legal and fact memoranda.
2. Only the legal and fact memoranda, but not the document drafts.
3. None of the papers, because Chason fired Lucero.
4. All of the papers, even though Chason fired Lucero.
Judge Jeffery serves on a State A trial court that has nine other judges. Her husband, Horace, is a life insurance salesman for the Amalgamated Life Insurance Company. Amalgamated is occasionally a litigant in the court on which Judge Jeffery sits. Every year Amalgamated runs a national sales contest in which the person who sells the most life insurance during the year receives a valuable prize. Horace has just learned that he is the winner this year. The prize is an all-expense-paid vacation in Europe for two people. May Judge Jeffery urge Horace to accept the prize and take her on the European vacation?
1. Yes, but only if Judge Jeffery makes a public report of that portion of the prize that exceeds $150 in value.
2. Yes, unless giving Horace the prize could reasonably be perceived as an attempt to influence Judge Jeffery in the performance of her judicial duties.
3. No, because Amalgamated may later appear as a litigant in the court on which Judge Jeffery sits.
4. Yes, because the prize was won by Horace, not by Judge Jeffery.
Seymour is applying for admission to the State A Bar. When Seymour was in high school, he and his parents lived in State B, next door to attorney Azevedo. Azevedo is admitted to practice in State B, but not in State A. Seymour seemed to be a promising lad, and Azevedo was disappointed to learn that during his senior year in high school he was convicted of burglarizing a liquor store. After serving his sentence, Seymour went to college and later to law school. Azevedo has had no contact with Seymour since his high school years, but so far as Azevedo knows, Seymour has not done anything since high school that would reflect badly on his character. The Bar of State A sent Azevedo a routine questionnaire, asking a series of questions about Seymour's character. Azevedo does not know whether Seymour disclosed the burglary conviction on his bar application, and she does not know where to contact him to find out. How should Azevedo respond to the questionnaire?
1. She should not respond at all, because she has no relevant information to provide.
2. She should state what she knows about Seymour, including mention of his burglary conviction.
3. She should not mention Seymour's burglary conviction in her response unless she first contacts him and obtains his permission to do so.
4. She should not respond at all, because as a State B lawyer she is not obligated to provide information to the Bar of State A.
Attorney Anderson received her law degree two years ago from Flatland College of Law and Technical Sciences. Last summer she attended a three-day trial practice seminar at the Harvard Law School. During her brief career, she has tried five cases--two jury trials and three bench trials. She won both of the jury trials and two of the three judge trials. Anderson placed an ad under the subject heading "Trial Lawyers" in the classified pages of the local phonebook. Her ad states in relevant part: Arlene Anderson, Trial Attorney Harvard Trained/Never Lost a Jury Trial/Which of the following make Anderson subject to discipline? I. Placing her ad under the heading "Trial Lawyers" in the phonebook classified pages. II. Describing herself as a "Trial Attorney" in her ad. III. Describing herself as "Harvard Trained" in her ad. IV. Stating "never lost a jury trial" in her ad.
1. None of the above.
2. I., II., III., and IV.
3. III and IV. only.
4. IV. only.
Two years ago, Weaver obtained a divorce from her husband Hubbard in State A. The court awarded Weaver custody of the three children and ordered Hubbard to pay Weaver $3,000 per month in child support and alimony payments. The lawyer who represented Weaver in the divorce proceedings died. Hubbard failed to make the $3,000 payments for 17 months in a row. Weaver ran out of money and in desperation hired attorney Avilla to represent her in a proceeding to collect the past due payments from Hubbard. State A has no law or court rule that requires the loser to pay the winner's attorney fees in domestic relations matters. Because Weaver had no money to pay Avilla a regular fee, Avilla agreed to do the work on a contingent fee basis for 10% of whatever amount Weaver was ultimately able to recover. Avilla won an award for Weaver of the entire amount due ($51,000), and by tracking down and attaching Hubbard's secret bank account, he got the full amount paid to Weaver. He then sent Weaver a bill for his share, $5,100. Is Avilla subject to discipline?
1. Yes, because Avilla used a contingent fee in a domestic relations matter.
2. No, unless $5,100 is an unreasonably high fee for tile work Avilla did.
3. Yes, because Avilla took a portion of the money that was intended for support of Weaver and the children.
4. No, because Weaver had no money to pay a regular fee.
Lawyer Lohman (age 34) regularly represented client Cruikshank (age 78) in matters relating to the investment of Cruikshank's considerable wealth. Cruikshank told Lohman that he wanted to put $500,000 into a sound, income-producing investment. Lohman suggested that the two of them pool their money and talent and buy an attractive new apartment house. Lohman would put up $75,000 and do the legal work, and Cruikshank would put up $500,000 and serve as the live-in manager of the apartment house. Cruikshank enthusiastically agreed to the arrangement and told Lohman to draw up the papers. Lohman drafted an agreement between himself and Cruikshank, negotiated the purchase of the apartment house, and drafted a deed from the seller to himself and Cruikshank as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Lohman gave Cruikshank a carefully written explanation of the terms of the transaction, but he forgot to explain the significance of the joint tenancy, i.e., that upon the death of one joint tenant, the property would pass automatically to the other joint tenant. Lohman urged Cruikshank to have an outside lawyer look over the transaction, but Cruikshank said he trusted Lohman and signed all the papers without further ado. Lohman and Cruikshank operated the apartment house successfully for several years, until Cruikshank died at age 83. The executor of Cruikshank's estate sued Lohman to have the apartment house declared part of Cruikshank's estate, but the court concluded that the joint tenancy created a gift to Lohman, effective on Cruikshank's death. Were Lohman' s actions proper?
1. Yes, because Lohman might have died first, thus bestowing a gift on Cruikshank.
2. No, because Lohman entered into a business transaction with Cruikshank.
3. Yes, because the court concluded that the joint tenancy created a gift from Cruikshank to Lohman.
4. No, because Lohman drafted the deed that bestowed a substantial gift on himself.
For the past five years, attorney Aries has represented art dealer Corot in the sale of many valuable paintings. One of the major transactions occurred three years ago, when the American Museum of Art paid Corot $23 million for a Post-Impressionist landscape purportedly painted by Vincent Van Gogh in 1890. The American Museum of Art subsequently resold the painting to the Amsterdam Fine Arts Museum for $35 million. Today, Corot asked Aries to do the legal work in connection with the sale of a smaller, less valuable landscape, also a purported Van Gogh. The proposed purchase price is $12 million, and the prospective purchaser is Lavita Lavish, a wealthy television personality who knows nothing about art. During a confidential conversation in Arles's office, Arles said to Corot: "1 assume you have appraisal letters certifying the painting as a genuine Van Gogh?" Corot replied: "Of course I have letters! I forged them myself', just as I did for that bogus Van Gogh you helped me sell to the American Museum of Art three years ago!" When Aries inquired further, Corot told him in confidence that both of the purported Van Gogh paintings were in fact counterfeits created by a clever art student. Which of the following must Arles do at this point'? I. Report Corot to the law enforcement authorities. II. Warn Lavita Lavish about the proposed sale. III. Inform the American Museum of Art of the truth about the first painting. IV. Refuse to represent Corot in the present transaction.
1. None of the above.
2. 11., 111., and IV. only.
3. IV. only.
4. I., II., 111., and IV.
Two years ago, attorney Azari represented client Claubert in the sale of Blackacre to buyer Boyer. Unbeknownst to Azari, Claubert made some fraudulent statements to Buyer about the value of some mineral deposits on Blackacre. Boyer recently discovered the fraud and is now in Azari's office threatening to immediately file a civil fraud suit against both Claubert and Azari. Boyer accuses Azari of engineering the fraud and helping Claubert carry it out. The only way that Azari can convince Boyer that he had no part in the fraud is to tell Boyer a fact that Claubert disclosed to him in the deepest confidence when he was working on the Blackacre transaction. May Azari disclose the fact without the consent of Claubert?
1. Yes, but only after Boyer files the civil fraud suit against him.
2. No, because doing so would breach his duty of confidentiality to Claubert.
3. Yes, even if doing so will subject his client to civil or criminal liability.
4. No, if doing so will harm Claubert.
Attorney Adams is defending defendant Dutcher at his trial for armed robbery of a liquor store. Dutcher tells Adams in confidence that at the time in question, he was sitting at home watching television with his aged mother, and that his mother can confirm his alibi. Adams interviews the mother, who solemnly confirms Dutcher's story. After talking with her, Adams strongly suspects that she is lying to protect Dutcher. Adams does not know for sure that Dutcher and his mother are lying, but every instinct tells him that they are. Adams has warned both of them about the dangers of perjury, but both have insisted that they want to testify to the alibi at trial. May Adams call Dutcher, or his mother, or both, as trial witnesses?
1. No, as to both Dutcher and his mother.
2. Yes as to Dutcher, but no as to his mother.
3. Yes, as to both Dutcher and his mother.
4. No as to Dutcher, but yes as to his mother.
The Bar of State Alpha has established an Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts ("IOLTA") program, whereby lawyers deposit client trust funds into special client trust accounts that pay interest to the Bar of State Alpha, which then uses the money to help fund legal services for poor people. The State Alpha IOLTA program requires lawyers to deposit a particular client's funds in an IOLTA account unless the funds would earn more than $50 in interest during the time they are entrusted to the lawyer. If the client's funds would earn more than $50 in interest during that time, the lawyer must deposit them in a separate interest-bearing trust account and pay the interest to the client. State Alpha lawyer Longfisher settled a personal injury case brought by her client Choy. The defendant sent Longfisher a check for $9,000. Because she was leaving that day for a one month vacation in Fiji, Longfisher instructed her assistant to deposit the check in Longfisher's IOLTA account. The assistant is authorized to make deposits to and withdrawals from the account. Longfisher did not tell her assistant to notify Choy that the check had arrived. When Longfisher returned a month later, she notified Choy that the check had been received, and Choy came to Longfisher's office that same day to collect the $9,000. At the prevailing rate of interest, the $9,000 would have earned $40 during the month that Longfisher was gone. Was Longfisher's handling of the matter proper?
1. Yes, because she handled the matter in accordance with the State Alpha IOLTA program.
2. Yes, because Choy was not harmed.
3. No, because she should have instructed her assistant to notify Choy promptly that the check had arrived.
4. No, because she should have instructed her assistant to deposit the check in a separate trust account that would earn interest for Choy.
After lawyer Laben graduated from law school, she joined the congressional staff of U.S. Senator Senders. In that role, she personally drafted a bill that was ultimately enacted as the Educational Rights of Disabled Americans Act ("ERDAA"), a far-reaching statute that required colleges and universities to make many changes in the facilities they supply to blind, deaf, and physically-impaired students. Shortly thereafter, Laben moved to State A, where she became an associate in the private law firm of Dillard & Domish. Seeking legal advice on how to comply with ERDAA, the University of State A hired partner Dillard and specifically asked Dillard to assign Laben to assist him in doing the work. In light of Laben' s earlier role as the drafter of ERDAA, which of the two lawyers may work on the matter?
1. Neither Dillard nor Laben.
2. Both Dillard and Laben.
3. Dillard only, and only if Laben is properly screened off from the matter.
4. Dillard only, and only if the University consents after full disclosure.
Consolidated Insurance Corporation offers a legal services insurance policy. In return for a yearly premium, an insured person will be reimbursed by Consolidated for a specified amount of legal services during the year. The insured selects a lawyer from a list of "Authorized Providers" supplied by Consolidated. Any lawyer who agrees to follow a maximum lee schedule set by Consolidated can become an "Authorized Provider." Consolidated solicits insurance sales by in-person and live telephone contact with potential insurance buyers. Will attorney Alvarado be subject to discipline if he becomes an "Authorized Provider" and receives clients through Consolidated's insurance plan?
1. No, because Consolidated's insureds are allowed to select whatever lawyer they wish from among the "Authorized Providers.''
2. Yes, because Consolidated uses in-person and live telephone solicitation to get business.
3. No, unless Consolidated solicits persons whom it knows are in need of legal services in a particular matter covered by its insurance plan.
4. Yes, unless Consolidated's fee schedule provides for legal fees that are reasonable in light of the nature and amount of legal services performed.
State Alpha lawyer LaFrank represents Inventex Corp., a State Alpha corporation that owns a valuable United States patent. State Beta lawyer Levin represents Demonics, Inc., a State Beta corporation. Inventex believes that Demonics is infringing tile Inventex patent, and for the past three months LaFrank has been negotiating with Levin, seeking an amicable resolution of the dispute. The negotiations have broken down, and Inventex has decided to sue Demonics for infringement. Venue in an action for patent infringement is proper in any United States judicial district where the defendant or its agent resides or can constitutionally be served with process. For tactical reasons, LaFrank wants venue in State Alpha. She believes, but is not certain, that Demonics has a branch sales office somewhere in State Alpha. To find out for sure, LaFrank telephones Demonics's headquarters in State Beta and asks to speak with the vice president for sales. Without identifying herself, she asks the vice president where in State Alpha she can find a sales office for Demonics's products. The vice president politely tells her the address of the office and the name of Demonics's head sales agent in State Alpha. Is LaFrank subject to discipline?
1. Yes, because when she talked with the vice president, she did not identify herself as counsel for Inventex.
2. Yes, because she talked with the vice president about the matter without getting Levin's consent.
3. No, because at the time she talked with the vice president, Inventex had not yet sued Demonics.
4. No, because her conversation with the vice president did not concern the substance of the dispute between the parties.
Building contractor Carter and his lawyer Lewis met with landowner Owens to negotiate a contract whereby Carter would construct an office building on land owned by Owens. Carter, Lewis, and Owens were the only persons present at the meeting. Ultimately the three of them worked out a written agreement, and Carter commenced work on the building. It soon became apparent that the building site required far more preparation work than Carter had contemplated when he agreed to the contract price. Carter and Owens got into a dispute about who had to pay for the additional site preparation. One important issue is whether Owens made certain oral representations to Carter during the contract negotiating session that Lewis attended. Carter contends that Owens did make the representations, and Owens contends that he did not. Lewis was present during the entire negotiating session, and she is virtually certain that Owens did not make the representations. Carter stopped work on the building and refused to proceed until Owens paid for the extra site preparation. Owens then sued Carter for specific performance of the construction contract. Carter asked Lewis to represent him as trial counsel. Lewis should:
1. Agree to serve as trial counsel for Carter, because Carter is entitled to the counsel of his choice.
2. Decline to serve as trial counsel for Carter, because she can foresee that she will be called as a witness.
3. Agree to serve as trial counsel for Carter, because she can refuse to testify if she is called as a witness by Owens.
4. Decline to serve as trial counsel for Carter, because a lawyer is not allowed to testify in a manner that is prejudicial to her client.
Author Arthur wrote a best-selling novel based on the life and crimes of John Dillinger, the famous bank robber. Arthur sold the movie rights to film producer Prosser, who promised to pay Arthur a lump-sum royalty of $5 million upon release of the movie. After Prosser hired actor Clint Nickleman to play the lead role and made other expensive preparations for filming, Arthur repudiated the contract. Prosser hired lawyer Laine to sue Arthur for a declaratory judgment that the contract was valid and enforceable. At Prosser's request, Laine agreed to do the legal work on a contingent fee basis: If Prosser wins, Laine will be paid 1.75% of the gross receipts from the movie, but if Prosset loses, Laine will be paid nothing. Prosser and Laine entered into a written fee agreement that contains all the details required by the rules of legal ethics. Which of the following statements is true?
1. (B)Laine is subject to discipline for acquiring a personal interest in the subject of the litigation.
2. (c)Laine's fee agreement is proper, but only if Arthur consents after full disclosure.
3. Laine is subject to discipline for entering into a publication rights contract with his client.
4. Laine's fee agreement is proper, even though it gives Laine a personal interest in the subject of the litigation.
For many years lawyer Lacy has done business transactions work for wealthy client Chung. Chung was recently injured in an automobile crash, and she has asked Lacy to represent her as plaintiff in an action against the driver who injured her. Lacy has taken some business cases to trial, but has never handled a personal injury case. Lacy would like to earn a profit from Chung's case. Which of the following would be proper ways for him to do so? I. Take the case and, with Chung's consent, associate a co-counsel who is competent in the field of personal injury law. II. Reier Chung to a competent personal injury lawyer and charge that lawyer a $1,000 forwarding fee. III. Take the case and do the study and re-search needed to handle it competently. IV. Refer Chung to a competent personal injury lawyer and charge Chung a reasonable sum for the time spent in making the referral.
1. I. and IV. only.
2. I., II., and III only.
3. I., III., and IV. only.
4. I. and III. only.
Attorney Adams is a voting member of the legislation committee of Citizens for Safer Food ("CSF"), a consumer-based law reform group that drafts and advocates the passage of proposed statutes on food safety. CSF is currently debating a draft statute that sets quality and safety standards for growth hormones administered to chickens, turkeys, and other poultry. Attorney Adams is also engaged in the private practice of patent law. She regularly represents Genetico, Inc., a biotechnology firm. Using the techniques of genetic engineering, Genetico invents, develops, and sells a variety of patented growth hormones. Adams herself has obtained patents on some of these hormones for Generico. If enacted into law, CSF's proposed statute on poultry hormones could substantially affect Genetico's hormone sales. Would it be proper for Adams, as a member of the CSF legislation committee, to participate in the debate on, and to cast her vote on, the proposed statute?
1. No, if the statute would substantially benefit Genetico's hormone sales.
2. Yes, provided that she informs the legislation committee that she represents an unnamed client whose interests could be substantially affected by the statute.
3. No, if the statute would substantially harm Genetico's hormone sales.
4. Yes, provided that she informs the legislation committee that she represents Genetico, whose interests could be substantially affected by the statute.
Attorney Adams is a voting member of the legislation committee of Citizens for Safer Food ("CSF"), a consumer-based law reform group that drafts and advocates the passage of proposed statutes on food safety. CSF is currently debating a draft statute that sets quality and safety standards for growth hormones administered to chickens, turkeys, and other poultry. Attorney Adams is also engaged in the private practice of patent law. She regularly represents Generico, Inc., a biotechnology firm. Using the techniques of genetic engineering, Genetico invents, develops, and sells a variety of patented growth hormones. Adams herself has obtained patents on some of these hormones for Generico. If enacted into law, CSF's proposed statute on poultry hormones could substantially affect Genetico's hormone sales. Would it be proper for Adams, as a member of the CSF legislation committee, to participate in the debate on, and to cast her vote on, the proposed statute?
1. Yes, provided that she informs the legislation committee that she represents Genetico, whose interests could be substantially affected by the statute.
2. Yes, provided that she informs the legislation committee that she represents an unnamed client whose interests could be substantially affected by the statute.
3. No, if the statute would substantially benefit Genetico's hormone sales.
4. No, if tile statute would substantially harm Genetico's hormone sales.
Judge Jettelson sits on a United States Court of Appeals. He and two other Court of Appeals judges heard a diversity of citizenship case in which they were required to interpret a statute of State A concerning the marital communications privilege. Judge Jettelson's two colleagues wrote the majority opinion, in which they concluded that the statute gives only the witness-spouse the right to claim the privilege. Judge Jettelson wrote a vigorous and scholarly dissent, arguing that the statute gives both spouses the right to claim the privilege. Later, a State A senator legislator introduced a bill to amend the statute to reflect Judge Jettelson's position. The State Senate Justice Committee invited Judge Jettelson to testify about the public policy reasons for giving both spouses the right to claim the privilege. May Judge Jettelson testify?
1. No, because a judge is not allowed to make public statements about disputed propositions of law, except when acting in his judicial capacity.
2. Yes, but only if the two judges who wrote the majority opinion are also allowed to testify.
3. Yes, because a judge may engage in activities designed to improve the law.
4. No, because a judge must not become involved in politics, subject to certain exceptions that do not apply here.
Attorney Anthony Altamirez has organized his law practice as a professional corporation. Altamirez is the sole shareholder. The sign on the office door states: Anthony Ahamirez, P.C.-- Attorney at Law/Corporate and Business law Torts and Domestic Relations...Altamirez has only one lawyer-employee, Leola Lipkis, who was admitted to practice two years ago. Altamirez pays Lipkis a modest monthly salary plus 60% of the fees collected in cases that Lipkis handles by herself. Altamirez has a general business practice, and when a client needs representation in a tort or domestic relations matter, Altamirez turns the case over to Lipkis. When Altamirez turns a case over to Lipkis, he provides general guidance and is available to answer any questions she may have, but he does not supervise every step she takes. Is Altamirez subject to discipline?
1. No, unless he is not certified as a specialist in the areas noted on his office sign.
2. No, because Lipkis is a lawyer-employee of Altamirez.
3. Yes, because he splits fees with Lipkis in matters she handles by herself.
4. Yes, because he does not closely supervise the work done by Lipkis.
Three years ago, lawyer Lenoski successfully defended Wolner in a narcotics case. In the course of that work, Lenoski obtained significant confidential information about Wolner's life history. Now the local trial court has appointed Lenoski to defend Drexel in a totally unrelated narcotics case. The prosecution's key witness against Drexel is Wolner. If Lenoski accepts the appointment, will she be subject to discipline?
1. No, because she would be representing Drexel under court appointment.
2. No, because the two narcotics cases are unrelated to each other.
3. Yes, if the confidential information she learned from Wolner would be relevant to impeach Wolner's testimony against Drexel.
4. Yes, unless Drexel is fully informed of the situation and gives his written consent.
Universal Steel, Inc., merged with Delta Iron Corp. The attorney general of State A sued Universal and Delta in federal court to enjoin the merger, alleging that it was in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The federal district judge enjoined the merger, and Universal appealed his decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Universal's lawyer on the appeal is attorney Alvarez. In doing the legal research for the appeal, Alvarez found a recent merger decision rendered by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") that is directly adverse to Universal's position. FTC decisions do not control the United States Courts of Appeal, but they are persuasive. The attorney general for State A failed to cite the FTC decision. Must attorney Alvarez disclose it to the court?
1. Yes, because it is persuasive authority.
2. Yes, because the FTC decision is directly adverse to Universal's position.
3. No, because the Court of Appeals is not obliged to follow the FTC ruling.
4. No, because an attorney has no obligation to volunteer facts harmful to his client's case.
Solo practitioner Proctor is one of only three lawyers in the small town of Sandy Gulch. Proctor is presently defending client Cridley in a criminal action for assault and battery. This morning one of Proctor's regular clients, the Sandy Gulch Gas & Grocery, asked Proctor to sue Cridley to recover $638.64 that is past due on Cridley's gasoline and grocery charge account. Would it be proper for Proctor to represent the Sandy Gulch Gas & Grocery in the charge account case?
1. No, unless the other two lawyers in town are disqualified from representing the Sandy Gulch Gas & Grocery.
2. No, unless both Cridley and the Sandy Gulch Gas & Grocery consent after full disclosure.
3. Yes, unless there is a substantial relationship between the charge account case and the assault and battery case.
4. Yes, unless Proctor has gotten confidential information from Cridley that would be relevant to the charge account case.
Lawyer Lorenz agreed to represent wife Withers on an hourly fee basis in securing a divorce from her husband Hullar. Hullar is represented in the matter by attorney Atwell. Despite repeated warnings by Lorenz, Withers kept pestering Lorenz with telephone calls and office visits concerning inconsequential details and trifling personal complaints. When Withers was unable to contact Lorenz on the phone or in person, she would telephone Atwell, her husband's attorney, and try to put her questions and complaints to him. Atwell always refused to talk to Withers. Lorenz repeatedly told Withers not to contact Atwell, but to no avail. Finally, Lorenz told Withers that she would withdraw unless Withers changed her ways, but Withers did not do so. Lorenz withdrew and sent Withers a fee bill for the total number of hours she had spent on the case. Withers refused to pay the bill, and after futile efforts to settle the matter, Lorenz sued her to collect the fee. Which of the following propositions are true? I. It was proper for Lorenz to withdraw. II. It was proper for Atwell to refuse to talk with Withers on the phone. III. It was proper for Lorenz to bill Withers for the total amount of time she spent on the case. IV. It was proper for Lorenz to sue Withers to collect the unpaid fee.
1. I. and III. only.
2. None of the above.
3. II. only.
4. I., II., III., and IV.
Lawyer Lars is defending Castco, Inc. in a suit brought in federal district court in the Second Circuit. One of the issues in the case is whether Castco violated a workplace rule promulgated by the Federal Employment Commission ("FEC"). Castco denies doing the act that allegedly violates the FEC rule. As a fall-back position, Castco argues that even if it did the act, the rule should be interpreted to exclude acts of that kind. For which of the following actions is Lars subject to discipline? I. Failing to turn over incriminating documents that Castco gave him in confidence upon his employment, and which were requested during discovery. II. Failing to cite a case directly on point decided last month by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. III. Failing to notify the opposing side of a witness who can testify that the president of Castco specifically instructed one of her deputies to commit the act in question. IV. Failing to cite a three-week-old FEC decision that Lars found in a computer search and that interprets the FEC rule to include precisely the kind of act Castco allegedly committed.
1. II. and IV., but not I. and III
2. I. and IV>, but not II. and III.
3. I. and III., but not II. and IV.
4. I., III, and IV., but not II.
The Bar of State A has established a peer counseling program whereby lawyers who are addicted to alcohol or other drugs can receive confidential counseling from other lawyers. The Bar of State A's ethics rule on confidential information provides that communications between the counselor lawyer and the counseled lawyer are to be treated just like confidential communications between attorney and client. Lawyer Loontis is addicted to alcohol and is receiving peer counseling under the program from lawyer Lin. Loomis is a large, strong man, and his addiction has made him subject to periodic fits of physical violence. This afternoon, during their peer counseling session, Loontis told Lin: "My client Crothers has refused to pay the fees he owes me; the next time I get drunk enough, I'm going to smash the little creep's face in." From working with Loomis over an extended period, Lin believes that he may really do it. May Lin disclose Loomis's statement to Crothers, the police, and the Bar of State A?
1. No, unless Loomis consents.
2. No, unless Lin is certain that Loomis will carry out his threat.
3. Yes, because Lin is serving as a peer counselor, not a lawyer.
4. Yes, even if Loomis objects.
Wilma is the only living child of widower Warner, age 83. Wamer's main asset is a 51% partnership interest in Mobiland, Ltd., a wealthy real estate syndicate that owns and operates mobile home parks throughout the state. Wilma is married to attorney Atwater. One of Atwater's regular clients, Christopher, asks Atwater to represent him in negotiating the sale of 3,000 acres of roadside property to Mobiland. Mobiland is represented by its own lawyer in the matter. May Atwater represent Christopher?
1. Yes, because Atwater has no significant personal interest in Mobiland.
2. Yes, but only if Christopher consents after full disclosure of Atwater's connection with Warner.
3. No, even if Christopher consents after full disclosure of Atwater's connection with Warner.
4. No, because to do so would create an appearance of impropriety.
Lawyer Loftand agreed to defend client Crow in a criminal case in which Crow was charged with arson. At Lofiand's request, Crow entrusted Loftand with his large diamond ring as a deposit to secure the payment of Lofland's fee. Loftand put the ring in her purse to take home to show her husband. When she took her car keys out of her purse, she unknowingly dropped the ring, and she was never able to find it. Crow was acquitted, paid Lofiand's fee, and asked for his ring back. At that point, Loftand told Crow what had happened. Which of the following statements is most nearly correct?
1. Loftand is not subject to discipline, but she is subject to liability for malpractice.
2. Loftand is not subject to discipline and she is not subject to liability for malpractice.
3. Loftand is subject to discipline, and she is subject to liability for malpractice.
4. Loftand is subject to discipline, but she is not subject to liability for malpractice.
Lawyer London and her nonlawyer friend Ferguson created a partnership to serve people who want to invest in commercial real estate. Ferguson, a licensed real estate developer, finds promising commercial real estate projects, brings together groups of investors, and works with local planning authorities to gain approval for the projects. London drafts the legal documents for the projects, assists the investors with the legal technicalities, advises the investors on their tax liabilities, and does whatever legal work the investors need in connection with management and operation of the projects. London and Ferguson charge the investors a single fee for their work, and they divide the partnership profits 50%-50%. Is London subject to discipline?
1. No, provided the investors consent after full disclosure of the potential conflicts of interest.
2. Yes, because Ferguson and London are partners in the business.
3. No, because Ferguson does only development work, and London does only legal work.
4. Yes, because she is aiding Ferguson in the unauthorized practice of law.
Union Bank and Trust Company maintains a list of Approved Estate and Trust Lawyers as a service to Union customers who seek Union's advice on estate planning matters. When lawyer Lieu opened her trust and estate practice in town, she asked other lawyers how to get on Union's approved list. They explained that Union lists lawyers who regularly name Union in wills and trust agreements they draft for clients who need an institutional executor or trustee. Union is one of the most stable and reputable banks in the state, and its fees for executor and trustee services are competitive with those of similar institutions. In light of what she has been told by the other lawyers, may Lieu seek to have her name included on Union's list?
1. Yes, because those who use Union's list are already Union customers.
2. No, because a tacit condition of being on the list is regularly to name Union as executor or trustee.
3. No, because a lawyer must not solicit business through an intermediary.
4. Yes, because naming Union causes no harm to clients who need an institutional executor or trustee.
Carla alleges that she was assaulted by Devlin, a very wealthy businessman. Carla contacted lawyer Lazar about representing her in a civil action against Devlin. After several lengthy discussions about the merits of the case, Carla decided to employ attorney Arnold to represent her instead. Devlin was later charged with criminal assault in connection with this incident, and his trial was televised. Lazar watched the trial and was astonished when Carla testified to facts that Lazar knew from their previous discussions to be false. Lazar sent a letter with a messenger over to the court to notify the court that Carla had perjured herself. Were Lazar's actions proper?
1. No, unless he sent copies of the letter to the prosecution and defense attorneys and they are given an opportunity to respond.
2. No, because Lazar's information was gained during his discussions with Carla.
3. Yes, because his actions were necessary to prevent Carla from perpetrating a fraud on the court.
4. Yes, because Carla committed a criminal act by testifying falsely.
Lawyer Laden regularly represents Electratec, Inc., a manufacturer of electric kitchen appliances. One morning the president of Electratec called Laden and said excitedly: Did you read in this morning's paper about the woman who got electrocuted when she opened the door of her dishwasher? The paper said the washer was three years old, and I'm pretty sure that it was one of ours. I found our quality control records from that period, and some of our washers left the plant without proper testing. Those records should have been shredded after two years, but somehow this batch was overlooked. I'm going to send them to the shredder now, unless you tell me that I can't. Must Laden advise the president to keep the records?
1. No, because at this point there is no litigation pending against the company respecting this matter.
2. Yes, because the records have potential evidentiary value if the company gets sued.
3. No, unless it was certain that the company was the manufacturer of the dishwasher in question.
4. Yes, unless the company has a clearly established policy of shredding quality control records after two years.
Defendant Duncan hired lawyer Lamar to defend him at his trial for second degree murder. The day before the trial, Duncan asked Lamar if he could tell Lamar something in complete confidence. Lainar said he could. Duncan said: "The truth is that my son, Samuel, is the one who committed the murder. He's a good boy, and I'm willing to go to jail to protect him. I will not testify at the trial, and I don't want you to put on any false evidence. Do the best you can to defend me, but don't do anything that would point the finger at Samuel." Lamar discussed all of the possible alternatives with Duncan, but Duncan refused to change his mind. What should Lamar do'?
1. Withdraw as Duncan's lawyer, and advise Duncan not to tell his new lawyer about Samuel's involvement.
2. Keep Duncan's statement in confidence, and defend Duncan as best he can.
3. Reveal Duncan's statement to the trial judge, and let the trial .judge decide what to do.
4. Advise Duncan to change his plea to guilty, and prepare to argue for a lenient sentence.
Lawyer Leavitt practices environmental law. He also happens to be one of the nation's leading experts on the environmental effects of filling wetlands. The legislature of State A has scheduled hearings on a bill to prohibit the filling of wetlands surrounding Clearwater Bay. One of Leavitt’s regular clients is Bay View Development Company, which owns development rights to some of the wetlands in question. Bay View wants to fill its wetlands so that it can build low-cost housing for underprivileged families. Bay View hired Leavitt to appear as a witness at the legislative hearings and to testify in opposition to the ban on wetland filling. Leavitt appeared as a witness, identified himself as an expert on wetlands, and testified vigorously against the proposed legislation. Was Leavitt s conduct proper?
1. No, because a lawyer must not be a witness for his client on a contested matter.
2. Yes, unless his testimony was contrary to his own beliefs about the environmental effects of filling wetlands.
3. Yes, because he is a leading expert on the environmental effects of filling wetlands.
4. No, unless he informed the legislators that he was appearing in a representative capacity.
Law professor Pompman was selected as the neutral arbitrator of a boundary line dispute between land owners Owens and Osborne. Pompman decided the matter in favor of Owens. Shortly thereafter, Pompman quit his teaching position and entered private law practice. Osborne brought suit to have the arbitration award set aside. Owens asked Pompman to represent him in the suit. If Pompman takes the case, will he be subject to discipline?
1. Yes, because there is reasonable ground to doubt his impartiality in the case.
2. No, because by seeking to hire Pompman, Owens is deemed to have consented to the conflict of interest
3. Yes, because his earlier service as neutral arbitrator creates a conflict of interest.
4. No, because serving as Owens's lawyer is consistent with his decision as arbitrator in favor of Owens.
Paul Poller brought a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries he suffered as the victim of alleged police brutality inflicted by defendant police officers Able, Baker, and Carter. The trial was widely reported by the media. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Poller and against the three police officers for $500 million. When Trial Judge Johnston received the verdict, he was shocked by the size of the award. Before dismissing the jurors, Judge Johnston directed the following statements to the jury: When you people were sworn in as jurors in this case, you promised that you would deliver a verdict based on the evidence, and that you would not be swayed by passion or prejudice. You have failed in those duties and made a mockery of justice. You should be ashamed of yourselves. He then dismissed the jury, and the defense lawyers renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, moved for a new trial. Judge Johnston announced that he would rule on the motions the following Monday at 10 a.m. in open court. The press reports of the verdict and the judge's comments to the jury created a great public tumult in the city where the case was tried. On the following Monday, the courtroom wag jammed with reporters. Primarily for the purpose of educating the reporters, Judge Johnston first gave a detailed explanation of the legal requirements for granting a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and for granting a new trial motion. He then granted the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, the motion for a new trial. Were Judge Johnston' s actions proper?
1. The statements to the jury were proper, but the communication with the reporters was not.
2. The communication with the reporters was proper, but the statements to the .jury were not.
3. Both the statements to the jury and the communication with the reporters were proper.
4. Neither the communication with the reporters nor the statements to the jury were proper.
Client Corrales lives in State A and is a regular client of attorney Amundson, who is admitted to practice only in State A. When Corrales was on vacation in distant State B, she was injured in a car accident caused by a resident of State B. Corrales hired Amundson to represent her in a civil action against the State B driver. For masons of jurisdiction and venue, the case had to be filed and tried in State B. The written fee agreement between Corrales and Amundson provided that: (1) Amundson would assume full responsibility for the case as lead lawyer; (2) Corrales would pay Amundson 40% of the net recovery after deduction of litigation expenses; (3) Amundson would associate State B lawyer Linz to serve as trial counsel in State B; (4) Linz would assume responsibility only for his work as trial counsel; and (5) Amundson would pay Linz an appropriate portion of the 40% contingent fee. Corrales ultimately recovered $1.2 million. After deduction of $200,000 in litigation expenses, Corrales paid Amundson $400,000 (40% of $1 million). By measure of both quality and quantity, Linz did 10% of the work in the case, and Amundson did the other 90%. Assuming that $400,000 is a reasonable fee for all the work done, which of the following amounts would be proper for Amundson to pay Linz?
1. $400,000 (100% of the total), because Amundson was not admitted in State B and should not have taken the case in the first place.
2. $40,000 (10% of the total), because Linz did 10% of the work.
3. Any amount mutually agreed to between Amundson and Linz, because they jointly shared responsibility for the case.
4. $200,000 (50% of the total), because the two lawyers worked on the case jointly.
Lawyer Lawrence is a partner in the firm of Lawrence and Loeb. That firm regularly provides legal services to three major banks and two other important lending institutions in the community of Farmdale. Lawyer Lawrence has been invited to become a member of the board of directors of the Farmdale Legal Aid Society, the group that sets overall governing policies for the local Legal Aid office. One of the major issues that will soon face the board of directors is whether to amend the Case Intake Guidelines to allow the Legal Aid office to represent clients in disputes with banks and other lending agencies. Which of the following statements is most nearly correct?
1. Lawrence should join the board of directors to help discharge her pro bono obligation, and she should vote in favor of amending the Case Intake Guidelines in order to make it easier for low income persons to sue banks and other lending institutions.
2. Lawrence will be subject to discipline if she joins the board of directors, because service on the board is in conflict with the interests of her firm's bank and lending institution clients.
3. Lawrence may join the board of directors, but she should refrain from participating in the decision about the Case Intake Guidelines.
4. It would be proper for Lawrence to join the board of directors, and it would be proper for her to participate in the decision about the Case Intake Guidelines.
Twelve-year-old Jimmy was badly injured when he was struck by a dump truck owned by Damassa Construction Corp. and driven by Damassa's employee Edmonds. Jimmy and his parents sued Damassa and Edmonds. The first count of their complaint alleges that Edmonds drove negligently while acting within the scope of his duties for Damassa, and that Damassa is therefore liable for Jimmy's injuries. The second count alleges that Edmonds drove negligently while on a frolic of his own, and that Edmonds is therefore liable for Jimmy's injuries. Damassa hired lawyer Lazarro to defend both Damassa and Edmonds. Lazarro conducted a careful investigation of the facts and concluded that Edmonds was in no way negligent; he was driving slowly and carefully when Jimmy suddenly ran out into traffic from between two parked cars. Lazarro further concluded that Edmonds was acting within the scope of his duties when the accident happened. Lazarro concluded that he could win the case because of the lack of negligence, and that he could effectively represent both Edmonds and Damassa. He then carefully explained the potential conflicts of interest to both of them and obtained their written consent to the joint representation. After exhaustive discovery proceedings, Lazarro remained convinced that Edmonds was not negligent, but he nonetheless explained the potential conflicts to Edmonds and Damassa a second time and again obtained their written consent to the joint representation. Three weeks before the case was scheduled for trial, counsel for the plaintiffs moved to disqualify Lazarro due to a conflict of interest between Edmonds and Damassa. Should the trial judge disqualify Lazarro?
1. No, because there is no actual or potential conflict between Edmonds and Damassa,
2. Yes, because the potential conflict creates an appearance of impropriety.
3. No, because Edmonds and Damassa consented to the joint representation after full disclosure.
4. Yes, even though Edmonds and Damassa consented to the joint representation after full disclosure.
Client Carlin hired attorney Adler to put together a complex real estate syndicate. In connection with that work, Carlin disclosed to Adler a great deal of confidential information about Carfin's financial affairs. When the task was about half completed, Adler's wife was killed in a car accident, and his family's house burned down, all in the same week. Adler was so emotionally and physically drained that he felt he could not competently continue with the work for Carlin. Carlin refused to allow Adler to withdraw, stating: "Listen, Adler, you are the only person I trust to handle this matter. I know you are distraught, but hard work may help take your mind off the disasters that have befallen you." Adler begged Carlin to allow him to turn the files over to Adler's law partner, Pamer, an excellent real estate lawyer who was completely trustworthy and perfectly competent to handle the matter. Carlin refused to allow his files to be turned over to any other lawyer and insisted that Adler himself promptly complete the work. What should Adler do?
1. Turn the files over to Pamer, and remain available to assist Parner to the extent possible.
2. Continue with the matter and do the best that he can in the circumstances.
3. Withdraw, turn Carlin's files over to Carlin, and offer to help Carlin find a new lawyer.
4. Set Carlin's work aside until he recovers from the ills that have befallen him.
Lawyer Lubner is defending client Marine Supply, Inc. ii1 a civil action brought by the State Attorney General under the State Corrupt Practices Act of 1931. That statute makes it a civil offense for any person or business entity to bribe or give a kickback to a state official. The statute authorizes fines of up to $100,000 per transaction for any violation. Marine Supply has a strict corporate policy that prohibits its employees from bribing or giving kickbacks to anyone. Employees who violate the policy are subject to immediate discharge and are required to indemnify Marine Supply for any loss it suffers as a consequence of the violation. The Attorney General has noticed the depositions of dozens of Marine Supply employees, including one Dan Dowling. Prior to his recent retirement, Dowling was the sales manager of Marine Supply. Lubner met with Dowling to prepare him for his deposition. At the outset of the interview, Lubner agreed to represent Dowling without charge, and Lubner told Dowling that anything said between them would be confidential. During the interview, Lubner asked Dowling whether he had ever bribed any State A officials. Dowling responded: "Certainly. All our competitors were doing it too, and l had to do it to sell anything to the state." What course of action should Lubner pursue at this point?
1. Continue in the case, inform Marine Supply what Dowling said, and advise Marine Supply to seek prompt settlement.
2. Withdraw from the case and keep Dowling's statement in confidence.
3. Withdraw from representing Dowling and inform Marine Supply what Dowling said.
4. Withdraw from the case and inform the Attorney General what Dowling said.
Criminal defendant DeVries exercised his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and elected not to testify on his own behalf at his trial. Prosecutor Prichard presented compelling evidence of DeVries's guilt. In her closing argument to the jury, Prichard made the following statements: I. DeVries knows where he was on that fatal night. I have presented the testimony of three witnesses that he was with the victim. Did DeVries deny it? No! He sat there saying nothing. II. What are you to make of defense witness Fergus Grutz? You heard evidence that Grutz has twice been convicted of perjury. Could there be better proof that Grutz is a liar'? III. You may wonder why I cross-examined defense witness Emma Schlarp so vigorously. When you've been a prosecutor as long as I have, you can tell who is truthful and who is not. Was Emma Schlarp telling you the truth? I don't think so, do you? IV. Is DeVries guilty? That's what you have to decide, but I hope you will conclude that the evidence points only one way: guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Which of Prichard's statements were proper?
1. 1., 11., and IV. only.
2. II. and IV. only.
3. None of the above.
4. 1., II., and II1. only.
Casper, a Hollywood movie producer who was charged under a criminal statute for unfair trade practices, now faces a civil claim under the same statute. Casper retains attorney Adams to represent him in both suits. Adams is a nationally known defense attorney who has represented many famous people. Most recently, he defended a celebrity in a notorious murder case that held the country rapt for several weeks. Adams explains to Casper that the representation is very complex and would take a majority of his time for several months. Given Adams' s steep hourly rate, Casper's legal fees would likely be around $1 million. Casper is short on cash and makes the following proposal: If Adams will represent him in both the civil and criminal suits, Casper will produce a movie based on Adams's most famous past cases, told from the lawyer's viewpoint. Adams would have complete creative control and would be entitled to all of the movie's profits, which could be anything from $0 to $100 million dollars. Casper had his personal attorney draw up a proposal to this effect, and Casper submitted it to Adams. Assuming that Adams receives any consent necessary from his former clients who might be portrayed in the movie, is this proposed arrangement proper?
1. No, because any amount over $1 million is clearly excessive, and this arrangement could be worth $100 million.
2. No, because a lawyer must not acquire media rights to a story concerning the lawyer's representation of a client.
3. Yes, but only if the ultimate amount paid to Adams is not excessive in light of the work done.
4. Yes, but only if the payment from the movie profits is for the civil suit only.
When Slocum was a third-year law student, she worked as an extern for the State Commission on Energy Resources, an administrative agency that regulates gas and electric utilities throughout the state. As an extern, she worked personally and substantially on the application of Geron Gas, Inc., for a certificate of convenience and necessity that would allow Geron to build a gas pipeline from the northern to the southern part of the state. Three months after Slocum's externship ended, the Commission denied Geron's application. After Slocum graduated from law school, she became an associate in the private firm of Lewis & Levy. Geron asked partner Levy to represent it in taking a court appeal from the Commission's denial of its application. Must Levy decline the case?
1. Yes, because Slocum worked on the case personally and substantially.
2. No, provided that Slocum does not herself assist him on the case.
3. Yes, unless Slocum is screened from the case, shares no part of the fee, and the Commission is notified in writing.
4. No, because the Commission denied the application after Slocum's externship ended.
Lawyer Liu limits her practice to tax law in State A. State A has no program for certifying specialists in any field of law. Liu has, however, been certified as a specialist in tax by the American College of Tax Counsel, a private organization that has high, rigorously enforced certification standards. Liu purchased time on local radio stations for the following advertisement: Why pay the government more than you should? I can save you at least 10% on your federal and State A income tax this year! Call Laura Liu, your hometown tax law specialist. State A has no procedure for certifying legal specialists, but I have been certified by the American College of Tax Counsel. Don't wait--call today. Laura Liu, 978-9982. Lawyer Lex believes the advertisement violates ethical standards and complains to the appropriate disciplinary authority. If the advertisement is found to be improper, it will be because:
1. State A does not recognize certified specialists in any field of taw.
2. The promise of 10% tax savings is likely to create unjustified expectations about the results Liu can achieve.
3. Liu's advertisement is undignified and may cause listeners to lose respect for the legal profession.
4. Liu's explanation of her certification is insufficient.
Police officer Owens was charged with murder. He is alleged to have savagely beaten and ultimately killed a teenage gang member in the course of an arrest. Neither the police department nor officer Owens's union was willing to provide legal counsel for his defense, and Owens himself lacked funds to hire private counsel. The public defender's office could not represent him due to a conflict of interest from a related case. The trial court therefore appointed lawyer Lee to defend Owens. Lee is only three years out of law school. Lee practices criminal defense, but he has never handled a murder case before. For which of the following reasons may Lee decline the court appointment'? I. Based on what he has read in the newspapers, he sincerely believes that Owens is guilty. II. He has no experience in the defense of a murder case. III. He is of the same race as the teenage victim, and he is in sympathy with the plight of young gang members. IV. Many of his clients are of the same race as the teenage victim, and they will be irate if he defends Owens.
1. I. and I1. only.
2. II. only.
3. None of the above.
4. III. and IV. only.

Copyright (C) 2004 by
For similar quizzes, visit HTML-Only Self-Study Quizzes which is part of Activities for ESL Students, a project by The Internet TESL Journal.