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

For the past 40 years, solo practitioner Febell has practiced municipal bond law in State A. Because he is nearing retirement age, Febell takes in young attorney Spryte as a partner. Their partnership agreement provides that Febell will train Spryte in municipal bond law, that Febell will receive 75% of the partnership's net earnings during the first three years, and that Spryte will receive the remaining 25%. The agreement further provides that if Spryte leaves the partnership before the end of the first three years, he will remit to Febell 75% of all tees he earns thereafter from municipal bond work he does in State A. Finally, the agreement provides that if Febell and Spryte are still partners when Febell retires, Spryte will pay Febell retirement benefits of $3,000 per month until Febell's death; in return, upon his retirement, Febell will turn over to Spryte all of the partnership assets (including good will) and will not thereafter practice municipal bond law in State A. Are Febell and Spryte subject to discipline for entering into this partnership agreement?
1. No, because the agreement gives Febell retirement payments in return for the restriction on his right to practice.
2. No, because the agreement enables Febell to sell the partnership assets in return for the restriction on his right to practice.
3. Yes, because of the restriction on Spryte's right to practice if he leaves the partnership within the first three years.
4. Yes, because of the restriction on both Febell's and Spryte's right to practice.
Justice Jacobs was on the Supreme Court of State Beta. State Beta's Supreme Court Rules provide that in capital punishment cases, any one justice of the supreme court is empowered to grant a stay of execution pending appeal to the supreme court. Justice Jacobs granted such a stay in the case of People of State Beta v. Dillon, on the ground that Dillon had been denied the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. A few months later, Justice Jacobs retired from the supreme court and went back to private law practice. In due course, the supreme court heard the appeal in the Dillon case, rejected Dillon's effective assistance of counsel contention, and affirmed the death penalty. Acting as an indigent in propria persona, Dillon then commenced a federal habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of State Beta, and asked that court to appoint a private lawyer to represent him in the habeas corpus proceeding. The district court appointed Jacobs to represent Dillon. A key issue in the habeas corpus proceeding is whether Dillon was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. May Jacobs represent Dillon without getting the consent of all parties to the habeas corpus proceeding?
1. No, because there is reasonable ground to doubt Jacobs's impartiality in the matter.
2. No, because when Jacobs was a supreme court justice he granted a stay of execution to Dillon.
3. Yes, because the respondent in the habeas corpus case is the prison warden, not the People of State Beta.
4. Yes, because Jacobs was appointed by the district court, and his prior involvement in the matter is not sufficient grounds for refusing the appointment.
Farmer Farner asked attorney Anderson to represent him in an eminent domain proceeding in which the state sought to obtain a right-of way across Farner's farm. Anderson had not handled an eminent domain case before, but she planned to make herself competent through diligent research and study. As it turned out, Anderson did not have enough time to do what she had planned, so she associated an eminent domain specialist, lawyer Ling, as her cocounsel in the case. Anderson did not consult Farner about associating Ling. Ling did about 90% of the work in the case, and Anderson did the other 10%. Together they secured a very favorable result for Farner, and Anderson sent Farner a fee bill for a reasonable amount. Farner paid the bill, and Anderson remitted 90% of the proceeds to Ling. Is Anderson subject to discipline?
1. Yes, because she took on a case she was not competent to handle.
2. Yes, because she did not consult Farner about associating Ling.
3. No, because the fee split was in proportion to the work done by the two lawyers.
4. No. because she associated a co-counsel who was competent to handle the case.
Attorney Aoki is defending client Childs in a civil fraud case in which it is relevant to know what advice Childs received in confidence from an independent certified public accountant, Ben Counter. This jurisdiction has no evidentiary privilege for confidential communications between accountants and their clients. Counter telephoned Aoki and asked how he should respond to the plaintiff's lawyer's request to speak with him privately about the case. Reasonably believing that Counter would not be harmed by refusing to talk informally with the plaintiff's lawyer, Aoki responded: "If the plaintiff's lawyer subpoenas you to testify, then you must do so, but I encourage you not to talk to him about the case unless you are under subpoena." Was her advice to Counter proper?
1. Yes, because it was improper for the plaintiff's lawyer to seek a private discussion with Counter about the case.
2. Yes, because Counter acted as Childs's agent in rendering accounting advice to Childs.
3. No, because the advice Counter gave Childs was not protected by an evidentiary privilege.
4. No, because Aoki interfered with the plaintiff's access to evidence.
Solo practitioners Arias and Armer share office space. Each of them has organized her practice as a professional corporation. The sign on their office door reads: Arlene Arias, PC. Personal Injury Law/Alice Armer, PC General Practice. Arias and Armer frequently consult with each other about their respective cases, and they often refer clients to one another. Sometimes they work on cases together under a fee-sharing arrangement. When one of them is out of the office, the other responds to client inquiries to the extent that she is able; to facilitate that practice, each attorney has physical access to the other's client files. Plaintiff Puente hired Arias to sue McDougal's Bakery for personal injuries he sustained when he bit into a piece of' glass in a dinner roll baked by McDougal's. McDougal's liability insurance carrier, American Assurance Associates, asked Armer to serve as defense counsel in the case. May Armer take the case ?
1. No, unless Arias and Armer believe that they can effectively represent their respective clients.
2. Yes, but only if Arias and Armer believe that they can effectively represent their respective clients, and only if Puente, McDougal's, and American consent after full disclosure.
3. Yes, because the role of imputed disqualification does not apply to Arias and Armer.
4. No, even if Arias and Armer believe that they can effectively represent their respective clients, and even if Puente, McDougal's, and American consent after lull disclosure.
Client Crowell made a preliminary contact with lawyer Lear to see if she wanted to hire Lear to defend her in a tort case that had been assigned to Judge Johnson. Lear told her that the initial consultation was free of charge. After listening to Crowell's brief outline of the case, Lear told her: I know how to get a favorable decision from Judge Johnson. He will be running for reelection 18 months from now, and he will need money for his campaign. You should send him a $2,000 campaign contribution now, with a nice note wishing him well in his bid for reelection. Johnson's opponent in the election will be a local lawyer, Willard Wampler. Wampler is an honest fellow, but I know that his two brothers are associated with organized crime. I can write a guest editorial for the local paper, praising Johnson's .judicial record and implying that Wampler is a crook. With your contribution and my letter, I think we can count on Judge Johnson to reach a wise decision in your case. Crowell hired Lear and sent Judge Johnson the $2,000. Lear wrote the guest editorial, and it was published in the local paper. For which of the following is Lear subject to discipline? I. Saying that he knew how to get a favorable ruling from Judge Johnson. II. Advising Crowell to send Judge Johnson a campaign contribution. III. Writing the guest editorial. IV. Accepting the case following free legal advice.
1. II. only.
2. I., II., and III. only.
3. I., ll., and IV. only.
4. I., II., III., and IV.
A series of brutal daylight muggings in downtown Sedatia brought fear to the citizens of that normally placid city. The police captured one Diablo, who was charged with the muggings and, in due course, was ordered to stand trial in Sedatia. Two days before the jury selection began, a local newspaper reporter cornered the prosecutor, District Attorney Axelrod, in the Sedatia Cafe and got her to make the following statement: I'm certain Diablo is the right man; among other things, we have discovered that he was previously convicted three times for brutal muggings in other states. Is Axelrod subject to discipline for making the statement to the reporter?
1. No, because a lawyer has a First Amendment right to inform the public about pending cases.
2. Yes, because she should have known that the statement would be quite likely to prejudice the trial.
3. Yes, because a prosecutor must not make public comment on a pending case.
4. No, because prior criminal convictions are a matter of public record.
Lawyer Lederlee was assigned by the court to defend an indigent person, former college English teacher Deniew, at her trial for the murder of her husband. The jury convicted Deniew, and she was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Lederlee's court appointment expired at the end of the trial, but he promised Deniew that he would represent her without cost in taking an appeal from her conviction. Lederlee advanced $350 on Deniew's behalf to cover the expenses of the appeal, knowing that Deniew would probably not be able to pay him back. While the appeal was pending, Deniew wrote the manuscript for a book about life in a women's prison. She hired Lederlee to negotiate a contract with a publisher to have the book published, and in return for the contract work, she promised to pay Lederlee 30% of the royalties from her book. Is Lederlee subject to discipline?
1. Yes, because he advanced appeal expenses for his client, knowing that she probably could not pay him back.
2. No, unless 30% of the book royalties is unreasonably high for the contract negotiation work.
3. No, even if 30% of the book royalties is unreasonably high for the contract negotiation work.
4. Yes, because he entered into a literary rights contract with his client while her appeal was still pending.
Probate attorney Adamson was representing the executor of decedent Denman's estate. The executor removed the contents of Denman's safe deposit box and brought them to Adamson to be inventoried and appraised. The items included Denman's collection of valuable antique gold coins. Adamson put the coin collection into a heavy brown envelope and labeled it as part of the Denman estate. Because he intended to start preparing the inventory immediately after lunch, Adamson put the brown envelope and Denman's other belongings into the file drawer of his desk; he then left for lunch without locking the file drawer. Adamson's secretary saw the coins and saw what Adamson did with them. During the lunch hour, the secretary took the envelope of coins and disappeared, never to be seen again. Is Adamson subject to discipline'?
1. No, because the loss was proximately caused by the secretary's dishonesty, not by his conduct.
2. Yes, because he is responsible for his employee's dishonest act.
3. No, because he took reasonable precautions to safeguard the coins in the circumstances.
4. Yes, because he did not put the coins in a sate place.
Paralegal Platen works for the law firm of Dahlers & Sentz. Her direct supervisor is partner Dahlers, whose practice is limited to international trade law. Partner Sentz is the firm's leading trial lawyer, both in commercial and personal injury cases. On her way to work one morning, Platten saw a pedestrian run down in a crosswalk by a speeding car. Platten rendered first aid, and while she was waiting with the pedestrian for the ambulance, Plattcn said: "Here, call the number on this card and talk to attorney Seymour Sentz; he's really good, and he can help you recover money for the injury you have suffered." When she got to work, she told partner Dahlers what she had done. Dahlers admonished Platten not to hand out the firm's cards in such situations, but he did not discuss the matter with partner Sentz. Is Dahlers subject to discipline?
1. No, because as a nonlawyer, Platten is free to recommend a lawyer to someone if she wishes.
2. Yes, because as Platten's supervisor, he is responsible for any unethical act she commits.
3. No, because Platen may not have been aware of the time that she did anything wrong.
4. Yes, because he failed to warn Sentz not to take the pedestrian's case.
For several years, attorney Aston worked at the United States Department of Labor as part of a small group of attorneys whose responsibilities included compiling certain corporate safety records and monitoring compliance with federal regulations. Under a federal statute, factories of a certain type and size must report all work related accidents to Aston's office. Aston's duties included compiling an annual report containing the accident statistics of all of the reporting companies. The report is used internally and in discussions with companies, but it is not distributed to the general public. A person may obtain a copy of the report, but must file a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act procedures adopted by the Labor Department. During the last three years, Chemco has bad more accidents than any of the other reporting companies. Six months ago, Aston left the Labor Department and took a job with a private law firm. Charles comes to Aston seeking representation in a suit against Chemco for injuries he sustained last month while working at one of Chemco's factories. Although unsure as to whether he should take the case, Aston, who is just starting out in private practice and cannot afford to turn clients away, agrees to represent Charles. Is Aston subject to discipline?
1. Yes, because he obtained relevant information on Chemco while working as a government attorney.
2. No, if Aston does not use the information obtained while employed as a government attorney to the material disadvantage of Chemco.
3. No, because the information is available by formal request under the Freedom of Information Act.
4. Yes, unless Aston obtains the consent of the Department of Labor.
Attorney Alexander and her client Cardone endured a stormy attorney-client relationship until Alexander finally withdrew due to Cardone's repeated refusals to pay Alexander's fee bills. At the end of the relationship, Cardone owed Alexander more than $10,000. Cardone said he would not pay because Alexander's legal services were "defective." In a final effort to avoid having to sue Cardone for the unpaid fees, Alexander proposed a settlement agreement to Cardone. Under the proposed agreement, Alexander would accept $4,000 as full payment, reserving the right to sue Cardone for the other $6,000 if Cardone filed a State Bar disciplinary complaint against Alexander or filed a legal malpractice action against Alexander. Cardone signed the settlement agreement without consulting outside counsel, and Alexander did not suggest that he should consult outside counsel before signing it. Is Alexander subject to discipline for entering into the settlement agreement with Cardone?
1. Yes, because Alexander compromised a potential malpractice claim by contract with her client.
2. Yes, because Alexander did not advise Cardone to seek outside counsel before entering into the settlement agreement.
3. No, because Alexander brought about an amicable settlement of the fee dispute with Cardone.
4. No, provided that there was a good faith dispute between Alexander and Cardone about the quality of Alexander's services and the amount of fees due.
Worker Workman sued his employer, Drexel Moving and Storage Co., claiming that he was permanently and totally disabled due to a back injury he suffered on the job. Lawyer Lenhart represented Drexel in the case. Lenhart strongly suspected, but had no proof, that Workman continued his hobby of skydiving after the alleged back injury. In due course, Lenhart met with Workman's lawyer for a settlement discussion. Lenhart told Workman's Lawyer: "We won't give you a dime on this claim; we've got movies of your guy jumping out of an airplane two weeks after his phoney injury." Workman's lawyer excused herself to make a telephone call to Workman. When she asked Workmail whether he had been skydiving after the accident, he admitted that he had. With the consent of their' respective clients, the two lawyers then settled the case for $400. Is Lenhart subject to discipline?
1. No, because Lenhart's bluff successfully unmasked a fraudulent claim.
2. Yes, because it was improper to pay $400 to settle a fraudulent claim.
3. No, because bluffing is an accepted tactic in settlement negotiations between lawyers.
4. Yes, because Lenhart lied about having movies.
Bar applicant Lingenfelter is applying to become a member of the Bar of State A. The application questionnaire asks whether she has ever used any narcotic in violation of State A law. When she was a high school student in State A, Lingenfelter occasionally smoked marijuana, which is a minor misdemeanor under State A law. The statute of limitations has long since run on those offenses. Lingenfelter is convinced that she could not validly be kept out of the State A bar for those offenses. She therefore believes that the question is irrelevant and an invasion of her privacy in violation of Stale A's Constitution. She fears, however, that challenging the question could brand her as a troublemaker and delay her admission to the bar. Which of the following would be proper? I. Answer the question in the negative, without saying more. II. Answer the question in the affirmative, but explain the circumstances. III. Decline to answer the question, citing the invasion of privacy provision of the State A Constitution. IV. Decline to answer the question, citing the federal constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
1. None of the above.
2. II., III., and IV. only.
3. I., II., III., and IV.
4. II. and III only.
Judge Jamagian sits on a State A trial court. Every six years, State A trial judges must stand as candidates in a public election to determine whether they will retain their positions. Judge Jamagian will be a retention candidate in the election to be held nine months from now. In that same election, her husband, attorney Ali, will be a candidate for Lieutenant Governor of State A. Which of the following may Judge Jamagian do? I. Establish a campaign committee that will immediately begin soliciting reasonable contributions for Judge Jamagian's campaign. II. Allow her name to be listed on Republican Party election materials, along with the name of her husband and other Republican candidates for elective offices. III. Publicly endorse her husband as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. IV. Attend political gatherings in the company of her husband, and speak on behalf of both herself and him. V. Personally solicit contributions to her own campaign. VI. Personally solicit contributions to her husband's campaign.
1. II., IV., V., and VI. only.
2. 1., II., and III. only.
3. I., II., and IV. only.
4. I. and II. only.
Continuously since 1910, the law firm of l-4ardwieke A, Chandler ha~ practiced under that name in State A. The founders of the firm, Horace Hardwicke and Carlisle Chandler, are long dead. No partner named Chandler now practices with the firm. Horace Hardwicke IV (the great-grandson of the founder) is presently the managing partner of the firm. Five years ago, Hanna Hardwicke, the daughter of Horace Hardwicke IV, became a partner in the firm. Hanna recently left law practice to take a life tenure appointment on the State A Supreme Court. May the firm continue to use the name Hardwicke & Chandler?
1. No, because Hanna ceased private practice to enter public service.
2. Yes, even if the firm name will mislead some prospective clients.
3. No, because no partner named Chandler now practices with the firm.
4. Yes, unless the firm name would be misleading.
From 1995 through 1998, attorney Arnett was a partner in the firm of Able & Aman. During that period, Amett represented client Cobb in obtaining a business loan from a bank. Cobb disclosed to Arnett a great deal of confidential information about his business and his personal assets. No other lawyer in Able & Aman gained access to that confidential information. In late 1998, Amett died. In 1999, Carlton asked attorney Able (the senior partner of Able & Amah) to represent him in a civil suit for serious personal injuries Carlton suffered when he was run over by a delivery track driven by one of Cobb's employees. Would it be proper for Able to represent Carlton?
1. No, unless Able gets Cobb's consent after full disclosure.
2. No, because the conflict created by Arnett's work for Cobb is imputed to Able.
3. Yes, because neither Able nor any other lawyer in Able &Aman gained access to Cobb's confidential information.
4. Yes, because the information obtained by Amett about Cobb's assets has no effect on liability in a personal injury suit.
Young associate Aster was assisting senior partner Parker in writing the reply brief in an appeal for one of Parker's clients. In doing the legal research, Aster discovered a recent case from the controlling jurisdiction that had not been cited in the adversary's brief. In Aster's opinion, the case was directly opposed to the position of Parker's client. Aster asked Parker about citing it in the reply brief, but Parker explained that, in his view, the case was not directly on point and did not have to be cited. Aster and Parker argued back and forth at some length and finally decided to submit the question to one of the other senior partners in the firm for a fresh view. That partner sided with Parker, and the reply brief was filed without mentioning the case. Should Aster write a short letter to the appellate court and the adversary lawyer, explaining his position and enclosing a copy of the case?
1. No, because Aster must not communicate with a court ex parte about the merits of a pending case.
2. Yes, because Aster must not allow another person to interfere with his professional judgment.
3. Yes, because Aster had a duty to call the case to the court's attention.
4. No, because Aster should abide by Parker's resolution of the matter.
L'Etoille Women's Wear, Inc. is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in State A, and it is represented by a lawyer who is licensed to practice in State A. L'Etoille owns the valuable, federally registered trademark L'Etoille for use on various items of women's wearing apparel, and it licenses the trademark to garment makers in various states for use on items of apparel that are manufactured in accordance with style and quality specifications set by L'Etoille. Lawyer Londrell is licensed to practice only in State B. She represents DonnaDell Clothing Co., which is incorporated in and has its sole place of business in State B. Londrell and the president of DonnaDell traveled to State A, where they negotiated with L'Etoille's lawyer for a license to use its trademark on apparel to be manufactured at DonnaDell's plant in State B. Londrell is not licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The license agreement between L'Etoille and DonnaDell provides that the agreement is to be construed in accordance with the law of State A, and that any disputes arising under the license will be arbitrated in State A. Is Londrell subject to discipline?
1. Yes, because she was not admitted to practice in State A.
2. Yes, because she was not admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
3. No, unless the licensing agreement was actually drafted by Londrell in State A.
4. No, because admission to practice in State A was not necessary to negotiate the trademark license there.
Attorney Abrahamson recently opened his solo law practice in Crystal Springs. His practice is fairly evenly divided between civil litigation and criminal defense. The Crystal Springs Superior Court has just appointed him to represent defendants Denton and Drews, who will be tried jointly for their alleged kidnapping and brutal murder of nine Crystal Springs school children. For which of the following reasons may Abrahamson decline the appointment? I. He believes that to represent Denton and Drews will take so much time away from his newly opened practice as to impose an unreasonable financial burden on him. 11. He believes that Denton coerced Drews into helping kidnap and kill the children. III. He believes many of his potential clients in Crystal Springs will be outraged if he defends Denton and Drews. IV. He believes that confidential information he received when representing one of the prosecution's key witnesses will be useful in impeaching that witness's credibility.
1. II. only.
2. I., II., III., and IV.
3. II. and IV. only.
4. I., II., and IV. only.
Attorney Adams has been offered a job on the legal staff of the Tenant's Protection Foundation ("TPF"), a nonprofit organization that was formed and is financed by a group of well meaning citizens. TPF's aim is to help tenants who are the victims of slum landlords. TPF is run by a board of directors that is composed of people from all walks of life. The board of directors decides what types of cases TPF lawyers will handle, sets the salaries of TPF lawyers, and formulates other general office policies. Tenants who believe they need legal assistance come to the TPF office, where they receive free legal advice from TPF lawyers. If the matter involves litigation and is of the type the board has approved, the lawyer will represent the tenant in the ordinary manner. TPF advances the litigation expenses and requires the tenants to pay back the advances. The tenant pays nothing for legal fees. Would it be proper for Adams to participate in this arrangement?
1. Yes, because the conflict of interest rules do not apply to nonprofit, public interest legal organizations.
2. Yes, but only if TPF's board of directors does not interfere with the judgment of TPF lawyers about how to handle a tenant's legal problem.
3. No, unless all members of TPF's board of directors are lawyers.
4. No, because TPF stirs up and finances litigation.
Lawyer Loomis is the head of the in-house law department of Darlington KiddieWear Corp., which has its principal place of business in State A. Under the law of State A, it is a felony to manufacture or sell children's sleepwear that is not fire retardant. The president of Darlington informed Loomis in confidence that Darlington is stuck with a whole warehouse full of children's pajama fabric that does not meet State A's fire standards, and that to avoid financial disaster Darlington will use the fabric to make children's sleepwear and take its chances on legal liability. Loomis was unable to convince the president to change his mind; she then raised the issue with Darlington's board of directors, which ratified the president's decision. Will Loomis be subject to discipline if she resigns as house counsel and reports the matter to the appropriate State A law enforcement authorities?
1. Yes, because there is no adequate reason for permissive withdrawal on these facts.
2. No, because she is entitled to reveal this type of confidential information.
3. Yes, because she is required to preserve the corporation's confidential information even after she resigns.
4. No, because her duty to preserve confidential information ceases with her resignation as house counsel.
Attorney Amsterdam represented her client Curran in a civil action against State A. Amsterdam recovered a judgment in favor of Curran for $500,000. Curran later sued Amsterdam for legal malpractice, alleging that if Amsterdam had done proper legal research, she would have discovered a new court decision that would have increased Curran's award from $500,000 to $1.5 million. When Amsterdam did the legal research, she consulted the relevant hardbound volumes and the currant pocket parts to those volumes, but the new decision was not mentioned in either of those places. However, Amsterdam would have found the new decision if she had gone to the nearby public law library and paid the standard fee to use the library computer to do research on either Westlaw or Lexis. Is Amsterdam subject to liability Jot malpractice?
1. No, because a lawyer is not a guarantor of the total accuracy of her legal research.
2. Yes, because a lawyer is expected to use all legal research tools that are readily available, including computer databases.
3. Yes, but only if a reasonably prudent lawyer would have consulted Westlaw or Lexis.
4. No, because she consulted the relevant hardbound volumes and their pocket parts.
Lawyer Locaro represents patent owner ProData Corp. as plaintiff in a multimillion dollar patent infringement action against defendant Datatec, Inc. In searching ProData's files for documents responsive to a Datatec demand for production of documents, Locaro found some old invoices that are clearly called for in Datatec's demand. The invoices are ambiguous. By one interpretation, they are totally irrelevant to the case. By another interpretation, they will prove that ProData's patent is invalid and unenforceable. Like all well-run organizations, ProData has a routine "File Maintenance Program," which calls for throwing away outdated documents. But for a clerical error by a lazy employee, the old invoices would have been tossed out years ago. When Locaro found the invoices, he told ProData's chief executive officer what he had found. The CEO said: "Throw them away." What should Locaro do?
1. Throw away the invoices. The law regards as done that which ought to have been done. But for the lazy employee's error, the invoices would have been thrown away long ago; thus, Locaro should do what ought to have been done.
2. Either throw away the invoices or withdraw. As an advocate, Locaro should abide by the decisions of his client on all matters that affect the merits of the case. Here, the client speaks through its CEO. Locaro should either follow the CEO's instructions or withdraw.
3. Throw away the invoices. As an advocate, Locaro should resolve factual ambiguities in favor of his client. By the interpretation that favors his client, the invoices are irrelevant and do not have to be produced.
4. Either produce the invoices or withdraw. If the CEO refuses to produce the invoices, Locaro should raise the matter with ProData's board of directors; if they too refuse, Locaro should withdraw.
Lawyers Abner, Baker and Clark formed a law partnership; each contributed $100,000 in capital to get the firm started. Their partnership agreement provided that when a partner dies, the firm will make certain payments to the dead partner's named beneficiary. Sometime later, Clark died, leaving his daughter Clara, a doctor, as his sole beneficiary. Under the partnership agreement, the firm plans to make the following payments to Clara: $100,000, which represents Clark's share of the firm's assets, as measured by his capital contribution; $45,000, which represents Clark's share of fees that had been earned but not collected from clients at Clark's death; and a $125,000 death benefit, representing a percentage of Clark's earnings the year prior to his death and payable in monthly installments. Which of the following payments may the firm make to Clara?
1. $100,000 for Clark's share of the firm's assets.
2. $270,000, which includes Clark's share of the firm's assets, Clark's share of uncollected fees, and the death benefit.
3. $145,000 for Clark's share of the firm's assets and Clark's share of uncollected fees.
4. $170,000, which represents the death benefit and Clark's share of uncollected fees.
Client Chandler, a concerned environmentalist, hired lawyer Lipscomb to obtain preliminary and permanent injunctions against a highway construction project that would require draining and filling certain wetlands inhabited by migratory waterfowl. Lipscomb is the nation's leading expert in wetland preservation law, and he charges $400 per hour for his services. Chandler agreed to pay him at that rate. She gave him a $40,000 advance on attorney fees and a $5,000 advance to cover future litigation expenses. Lipscomb deposited the entire $45,000 in his client trust account. Lipscomb then spent 80 hours preparing and filing a complaint and preparing and arguing a motion for a preliminary injunction. He paid a court filing fee of $50, plus $1,950 in witness fees to wetlands experts who testified at the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion. The judge denied the preliminary injunction motion. Lipscomb sent Chandler a bill for $32,000 in attorney fees and $2,000 in litigation expenses, and he told her he would deduct those sums from the advances she had given him unless he heard from her to the contrary within 15 days. In light of the loss of the preliminary injunction motion, Chandler was outraged at the size of Lipscomb's fee; she immediately fired him and demanded the prompt refund of her entire $45,000. Which of the following amounts must Lipscomb promptly refund to Chandler?
1. $43,000
2. $0
3. $13,000
4. $11,000
Attorney Ambrose is admitted to practice only in State A, where he specializes in securities and real estate finance law. In that role, Ambrose advised his client, Corbuster, that the law of State B did not require Corbuster to include information about certain mineral rights in a disclosure statement that Corbuster had to file in State B in order to sell some real estate limited partnership interests to State B citizens. Acting on Ambrose's advice, Corbuster did not disclose the information and did sell partnership interests to State B citizens. Later, Ambrose became a full-time trial court judge in State A Later still, State B brought a criminal action against Corbuster for failing to disclose the mineral rights information in his State B disclosure statement. One of Corbuster's defenses is that he lacked the necessary criminal intent because he was acting in good faith based on the advice of his counsel, Ambrose. Corbuster needs Ambrose's testimony to prove that Ambrose did indeed advise him that he was not required to disclose the mineral rights information. Ambrose, in State A, is beyond the subpoena power of the State B court. May Ambrose voluntarily testify on behalf of Corbuster?
1. No, because judges are disqualified from serving as witnesses in criminal cases.
2. Yes, because a judge may testify as a witness, except in his own court or one under its appellate jurisdiction.
3. Yes, because his testimony would concern the giving of the advice, not his client's character.
4. No, because he is not admitted to practice in State B, and his testimony about State B law would be inadmissible.
Client Cristin sought the advice of lawyer Leona on a difficult and sensitive family problem. Cristin suspected that her husband had been molesting Daisy, Cristin's 12-year-old daughter by a prior marriage. Cristin asked Leona what she should do. Leona advised Cristin that all three members of the family should consult Frances, a licensed family counselor who specializes in precisely this sort of problem. Fearing that if Cristin were aware of the law she would not seek counseling, Leona purposely failed to tell Cristin that a new state statute requires family counselors to report to the district attorney all instances of suspected child abuse. Cristin and her family consulted Frances, and Frances reported the matter to the district attorney, as she was required to do by law. The district attorney commenced criminal proceedings against Cristin's husband, much against the wishes of both Cristin and Daisy. Were Leona's actions proper?
1. No, unless Leona believed in good faith that the daughter had actually been molested.
2. No, because a lawyer should fully advise a client of relevant information.
3. Yes, because it is the policy of the state that all instances of child abuse be reported to the appropriate authorities.
4. Yes, if Leona believed in good faith that Cristin would not seek counseling if she knew about the statute.
When lawyer Locke was an associate in the firm of Bliss & Buford, she did the legal work for one of the firm's clients, Cannon, on a land sale transaction that earned Cannon millions of dollars. In gratitude, Cannon asked Locke whether she had any unfulfilled wishes. Locke told him that she wished she had enough money to start her own solo ]aw practice. Cannon then told her that he would lend her $100,000 to set up her new practice. In return, she would thereafter do all of his legal work at a 5% discount from her normal hourly fee, and she would pay Cannon 10% of the legal fees she earned in solo practice until the $100,000 loan was fully repaid. Locke was delighted. She drafted a complete, detailed agreement between herself and Cannon, and she insisted that he get outside legal advice before signing the agreement. Cannon got the outside advice and signed the agreement, and Locke set up her solo practice accordingly. Is Locke subject to discipline?
1. Yes, unless Bliss & Buford consented to the loss of Cannon as a firm client.
2. No, unless she allows Cannon to interfere with her professional judgment in handling work for other clients.
3. No, unless the terms of the transaction were unfair to Cannon.
4. Yes, unless Cannon is a lawyer.
Lawyer Li represented Weaver in a court proceeding to raise the alimony and child support payments set in the decree that divorced Weaver from her ex-husband, Hyde. Hyde stubbornly refused to get a lawyer in the marten The evening before the court hearing, Hyde telephoned Li at home and asked Li to explain the legal standard the judge would apply to Weaver's request for increased payments. Li responded: Mr. Hyde, I am not your lawyer, and I cannot give you legal advice. I think that you ought to get a lawyer in this matter, and if you need time to do that, I will ask the judge to postpone the hearing for a couple of weeks. Hyde said he didn't want a lawyer, and then asked Li whether Weaver and the children really needed more money to live on. Li responded: Mr. Hyde, I have no personal interest to serve here--I am simply trying to do what is best for you, and your ex-wile, and your kids. Now if you really want my opinion, I'd say yes, you should pay the extra money because they do need it to live on. Hyde thanked Li and hung up. Was Li's handling of the matter proper?
1. No, because as Weaver's lawyer, Li should not have communicated directly with Hyde at all.
2. Yes, because Li only stated his opinion and did not purport to give Hyde advice.
3. Yes, because Li advised Hyde that Li was not his lawyer, that Hyde should retain one, and that Li could not give him legal advice.
4. No, because Li pretended to be disinterested and advised Hyde to pay the extra money.
Lawyer Lockwood represents defendant Downs in a drug smuggling case. Downs is in pretrial custody in a distant city and cannot be reached by telephone. One key issue in Downs's case is on the cutting edge of search and seizure law, and Lockwood believes that he needs help to deal with the issue competently. Lockwood's former law professor is a nationally known expert on search and seizure law. Lockwood calls his professor to ask lot his help, and also asks that the professor keep this information confidential. To frame the issue accurately, Lockwood tells the law professor some information that Downs revealed to Lockwood in confidence. Lockwood does not tell the professor tile name of his client. Is Lockwood subject to discipline r0r disclosing Downs's confidential information to the professor?
1. Yes, unless Downs had specifically authorized Lockwood to make such a disclosure.
2. No, because the disclosure was necessary to effectively carry out the representation.
3. No, because Lockwood did not reveal his client's name.
4. Yes, if the professor was not licensed to practice in that jurisdiction.
For many years, tax attorney Aguere has handled all of the tax work for client Carrara, a famous post-modem sculptor Carrara's large sculptures cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each and are sold mostly to wealthy collectors and museums. Carrara also, however, produces the occasional small, modestly priced work. Aguero greatly admires Carrara's talent and yearns for one of the small sculptures to display in his office. One evening Carrara invited Aguere to his studio to discuss some tax returns that had to be filed the next day. In the studio, Aguere saw a small sculpture that would be perfect for his office. At the close of their tax discussion, Aguere told Carrara how much he admired the small sculpture and offered to buy it for $10,000, its approximate fair market value. Carrara told Aguere that it was not for sale. In due course, Aguere sent Cartara a $750 fee bill for the tax work. A few days later, the small sculpture was delivered to Aguero's office with the following note from Carrara: My dear Aguere: I hope this small piece of my work will satisfy your recent lee bill. I want you to have it as a token of my gratitude for the excellent tax advice you have given me all these years. I hope you will enjoy having it in your office. Your friend, Carrara. May Aguere accept the small sculpture from Carrara?
1. No, because the value of the sculpture is far out of proportion to the $750 worth of work Aguere did for Carrara.
2. No, because the gift is of significant monetary value.
3. Yes, unless $10,000 would be an unreasonably high legal fee for the work Agucro did for Carrara.
4. Yes, because the gift did not require Aguere to draft an instrument.
Public defender Purdum was assigned to represent defendant Dewitt at Dewitt's preliminary hearing on a charge of kidnapping for ransom. Against Purdum's advice, Dewitt testified on his own behalf at the preliminary hearing. Dewitt was bound over for trial. At that point, Dewitt's elder brother provided money to hire a private lawyer to defend Dewitt, and public defender Purdum was discharged. Dewitt testified on his own behalf at the trial, and the jury acquitted him. Later, in connection with his work on another matter, Purdum read the transcript of Dewitt's trial. Based on information Purdum learned while representing Dewitt, Purdum concluded that Dewitt had committed perjury, both at the preliminary hearing and at the trial. May Purdum reveal Dewitt's perjury?
1. No, unless Purdum believes Dewitt is dangerous.
2. Yes, Purdum may reveal both instances of perjury if Dewitt refuses to recant.
3. No, because disclosure would violate Purdum's duty of confidentiality.
4. Yes, but only with respect to the perjury at Dewitt's preliminary hearing.
United Consumers Bank operates a "Professional Referral Hotline" for its depositors. Any United depositor who needs to find a physician, lawyer, accountant, dentist, or the like, can telephone the hotline and obtain a free referral from lists of professionals compiled by United. The lists are limited to professionals who maintain an average balance of at least $10,000 in a time deposit account at United, but the professional does not pay a fee to United for receiving a particular referral. Lawyer Lomax keeps $10,000 on deposit with United for the express purpose of being included on its lawyer referral list. Is this arrangement proper?
1. Yes, because United is functioning in the role of a lawyer referral service.
2. No, because this arrangement constitutes an association with a nonlawyer for the practice of law.
3. No, because Lomax is required to keep $10,000 on deposit to be included on the list.
4. Yes, because neither United's depositors nor the professionals pay a fee for referrals.
Inventor Inovacio asked patent lawyer Patton to represent him in obtaining a U.S. patent on a new computer technique for predicting the growth patterns of tumors in the human body. Patton informed Inovacio that he had never worked on that kind of patent application before, and that he would have to do extensive background research on the patentability of computer techniques. Patton will be able to use the knowledge that he gains through the research to serve other clients who wish to obtain patents for all manner of other computer techniques. Patton offered to do the work for Inovacio for his standard hourly rate, but Inovacio proposed instead to assign Patton a 10% interest in the patent, if and when it was issued. Patton agreed to do the work on that basis, and he and Inovacio entered into an appropriate written fee agreement. Patton did the work; the patent was ultimately issued and proved so valuable that Patton was able to sell his 10% interest for $9.7 million. Is Patton subject to discipline?
1. Yes, because he acquired a proprietary interest in the subject of the representation.
2. Yes, because it is unreasonable to charge one client for background research that will be used to earn fees from other clients.
3. No, unless $9.7 million is an unreasonably high tee for the work that Patton did.
4. No, because Inovacio agreed to the fee arrangement.
Lawyer LeBrille is admitted to practice in State A. One of her regular clients is Chatsworth Inc., which is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in State A. The president of Chatsworth went to France to negotiate a business contract for Chatsworth that would be governed, in part, by the law of the European Community ("EC"). The president telephoned LeBrille to ask whether a particular provision of the proposed contract would be lawful under EC law. The president needed a quick answer because he had to resume the contract negotiation a few minutes later. LeBrille had studied EC law, but she was not admitted to practice in any nation that is a member of the EC. LeBrille warned the president about the danger of relying on off-the-cuff, unresearched legal advice, but he asked her to do the best she could. She then advised him that the contract provision would be lawful under EC law. The president thanked her, continued the contract negotiation, and signed a contract for Chatsworth that included the questioned provision. As it turned out, LeBrille's advice was mistaken: the provision violated EC law and rendered the contract unenforceable. Is LeBrille subject to discipline ?
1. Yes, because she gave legal advice without adequate research.
2. No, because a State A lawyer is not expect-ed to be competent in EC law.
3. No, because she did the best she could in an emergency situation.
4. Yes, because she is not licensed to practice EC law.
Entertainment lawyer Labrte has for many years represented country music star Spangles Tinhart. One evening, Labrte and Truhart were having a quiet business dinner together at a well-known restaurant. A brutish drunk, Duke Sirosis, lurched up to their table and in a loud voice began a vulgar and defamatory tirade against Trnhart. Everyone in the restaurant heard the vile names Sirosis called Truhart. While all of the defamatory comments about Truhart involved her personal life, about which Labrte had no real knowledge, he felt that they could not possibly be true. At Truhart's request, Labrte commenced a slander suit against Sirosis. In his answer to the complaint, Sirosis admitted making the allegedly slanderous statements, and as an affirmative defense, he alleged that the statements were entirely truthful. When the case comes to trial, would it be proper for Labrte to act as Truhart's trial counsel?
1. No, unless he associates and prepares cocounsel to take over in the event he is called as a witness.
2. Yes, because Labrte is not a necessary witness.
3. No, because there is a possibility that Labrte may be called as a witness.
4. Yes, but only if Truhart consents after full disclosure.
Lawyer Lacey is on the in-house legal staff of Transcorp, Inc. In that capacity, she works daily with Transcorp's top executive officers. She was assigned to defend Transcorp in a lawsuit brought by West America Bank to collect a $750,000 promissory note. The note was signed on behalf' of Transcorp by Willard Westerman, Transcorp's treasurer and chief financial officer. Transcorp's defense is that Westerman had no authority to sign the note and that the bank knew it. Transcorp has advised Westernlan that it may seek indemnification from him if it is held liable to the bank. Westerman is not represented by counsel. Shortly before Westerman was to have his deposition taken by the bank, Westerman called Lacey and asked her what to expect at the deposition and how to respond to the bank's questions. What should Lacey do'?
1. Tell Westerman that she cannot discuss the matter with him unless he wants her to represent him at the deposition.
2. Advise Westerman that his own interests will be best served by answering truthfully and demonstrating, if he can, that he had authority to sign the note.
3. Not discuss the matter with Westerman, and, if appropriate, advise him to hire a lawyer to represent him at the deposition.
4. Advise Westerman to tell the truth, to answer fully all questions that are asked, and to pause before each answer to give her time to object to the bank's questions.
Attorney Anderson is licensed to practice in State Red, but he is not engaged in the active practice of law. Anderson and Benson, a nonattorney partner, operate a temporary placement service lot legal secretaries in State Green, which borders State Red. Anderson is not licensed to practice law in State Green, nor does he hold himself out to be so licensed. An investigation by State Green authorities results in the discovery that Anderson and his partner have intentionally filed improper state business tax returns. Is Anderson subject to discipline in State Red?
1. Yes, if he supervises the temporary service business from State Red.
2. No, because Anderson is not licensed to practice law in State Green.
3. No, because this situation does not involve the practice of law.
4. Yes, because his actions in State Green constitute fraud.
Client Carson, a self-employed furnace repairman with no assets, was run over in a pedestrian crosswalk by a moving van driven by an employee of Deluxe Transport and Storage Corporation. Carson's injuries were so severe that he could not work, or even seek work, for a period of 18 months after the accident. Carson asked lawyer Lucas to represent him in a personal injury action against Deluxe. At Carson's request, Lucas agreed to represent Carson on a contingent fee basis. Carson requested that Lucas provide him with certain financial assistance during the pendency of the lawsuit. Which of the following may Lucas do? I. Lend Carson $5,000, pursuant to an agreement reviewed by independent counsel, to be used to support Carson's family during the pendency of the suit. II. Lend Carson $10,500, pursuant to an agreement reviewed by independent counsel, to pay for Carson's medical treatment. III. Advance Carson $1250 for court-filing~ fees and deposition-reporter fees, subject to repayment by Carson when the case is concluded. IV. Advance Carson $2,000 to pay the expert witness fee of Dr. Stromberg, a medical expert consulted solely for testimony and not for treatment. Carson promises to repay the money when the case is concluded.
1. III. and IV. only.
2. II. and Iii. only.
3. I., II., and III. only.
4. II., III., and IV. only.
In an effort to prevent homosexual persons tom moving to Elmville, the Elmville City Council passed a zoning ordinance that prohibits the use of any dwelling house as a residence for two or more adults of the same sex unless they are related to each other. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor and carries a fine of $10,000. Carlo owns several rental houses in Elmville, and he was outraged when the City Council passed the ordinance. He sought the legal advice of attorney Ahmad. Ahmad advised him that the ordinance could probably be overturned as a violation of rights guaranteed by the state constitution, but that one would have to obtain legal standing to challenge the ordinance. Ahmad advised that one way to obtain legal standing would be for a landlord to bring an appropriate action for declaratory judgment, and another way would be to simply violate the ordinance and raise the constitutional challenge as a defense to its enforcement. After receiving this advice, Carlo promptly rented one of his houses to two gay men. Carlo was cited for violation of the ordinance. Was Ahmad's conduct proper?
1. No, because Ahmad counseled and assisted Carlo in conduct Ahmad knew was illegal.
2. No, because Ahmad did not advise against renting houses to unrelated adults of the same sex.
3. Yes, if the ordinance is ultimately held unconstitutional.
4. Yes, because violating the ordinance was one of the few ways to gain legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law.
Attorney Aronson has just opened an office in a town where he does not know many people and has few contacts. Aronson is attempting to build up a clientele for his general civil and criminal law practice. Aronson has just heard on the radio that a group of several hundred townspeople have been arrested and are being held at the county jail for conducting a noisy demonstration outside the local high school to protest an impending strike by the teachers. The radio reports that the townspeople are charged with unlawful assembly, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. Aronson believes that the arrests of these demonstrators is a politically motivated trick, and that the demonstrators have been deprived of their freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment. Aronson goes down to the county jail and offers his legal services, free of charge, to any of the arrested demonstrators who want legal assistance. Are Aronson's actions proper?
1. No, unless he has previously represented some of the arrested demonstrators on other legal matters.
2. Yes, unless he is motivated in any way by a desire to obtain publicity for his law practice.
3. Yes, because Aronson was offering his services free of charge.
4. No, because to do so would involve in-person solicitation of legal business.
Judge Jardon is a full-time trial judge in State A. State A has a statute that prohibits employment discrimination against gays and lesbians. In addition to her judicial work, Judge Jardon is the chief executive officer of a corporation that is closely held by Judge Jardon and her three brothers. The corporation owns and operates a nursing home in State A. Because of strong anti-homosexual religious beliefs on the part of residents, the nursing home does not employ gays and lesbians. Is it proper for Judge Jardon to continue as chief executive officer of the corporation?
1. Yes, because a judge is prohibited from association with an organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin only.
2. Yes, unless the management of the family owned business takes so much time that it interferes with the judge's judicial duties.
3. No, because a judge is not allowed to serve as an officer, director, manager, general partner, advisor, or employee of a business entity.
4. No, because the nursing home practices employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Attorney Angstrom was appointed by the court to defend client Cheever at Cheever's criminal trial for second degree murder. Angstrom started interviewing potential witnesses. When she interviewed Cheever's landlord, the landlord said that on the night of the murder, Cheever came home very late and was wearing a shirt covered with blood. The landlord died before trial without speaking to state authorities. Which of the following best states what Angstrom should do with respect to the information she has learned from the landlord?
1. Angstrom should use her own best judgment about how to treat the information; it is neither privileged nor confidential since it was not given to her by her client or by an agent of her client.
2. Angstrom should urge Cheever to allow her to reveal the information to the prosecutor, and if Cheever refuses, Angstrom should withdraw.
3. Angstrom should voluntarily reveal the information to the prosecutor prior to trial since the death of the landlord has made it impossible for the prosecutor to obtain the information in any other way.
4. Angstrom should keep the information in confidence unless Cheever authorizes her to reveal it, even though the death of the landlord has made it impossible for the prosecutor to obtain the information other than from Angstrom.
Attorney Alpha is a candidate in a contested partisan election to fill a vacancy on the district court bench. Attorney Beta has known Alpha since law school days, and the two attorneys often appear in the same court. Beta thinks that Alpha is an intelligent and competent attorney. However, Beta also believes that Alpha has always been "an arrogant hothead," and that a person with that kind of personality lacks the temperament to serve on the bench, where Alpha's tendencies toward arrogance might grow even worse. Newsmann, a reporter for The Daily News, a local general circulation newspaper, stood outside the courthouse one afternoon asking attorneys for their opinions of various candidates for the bench. When Beta was questioned, he told the reporter, "I'm supporting attorney Gamma for the district court vacancy, because I think that Gamma's opponent, Alpha, lacks the proper judicial temperament." Beta's comments were published the next day in The Daily News. Was Beta's conduct proper?
1. No, because his comments might tend to bring the judiciary into disrepute.
2. No, because attorneys should not comment on the qualifications of judicial candidates.
3. Yes, because Beta honestly believes that Alpha lacks judicial temperament.
4. Yes, because Beta is not a candidate for judicial office.
Stork, Inc. is a large private adoption agency that handles over 65% of all private adoptions in State Blue. Stork provides each set of adoptive parents with a list entitled "Approved List of Lawyers Handling Private Adoptions." Stork's representatives tell prospective adoptive parents that it is in their best interest to obtain counsel who has experience in adoptions. Stork has checked out every lawyer on its list to make sure that the lawyer had experience in private adoptions as well as a reputation for honesty and ethical behavior. Because of Stork's volume of business, State Blue attorneys recognize the advantages of being placed on the "Approved List." After an attorney desiring placement on the list has been screened by Stork, the attorney is required by Stork to sign a form agreement before the lawyer's name is placed on the list. To assure the adoptive parents that any lawyer on the list would follow through with the adoption to its conclusion, the required form agreement contains the statement, "1 agree that under no circumstances will 1 withdraw from any case where I have been retained by parents adopting through Stork." Attorney Ash has handled many private adoptions and is highly regarded as an honest and competent attorney. He would like to be placed on Stork's list. Would it be proper for Ash to have himself included in the list?
1. Yes, because the Approved List is a valuable service, and people often do not know where to find a lawyer qualified to handle a matter such as a private adoption.
2. Yes, provided Ash does not give anything of value to Stork in exchange for being placed on the list.
3. No, because Stork is acting as Ash's agent, and a lawyer may not use an agent to contact prospective clients in a manner that would be unethical solicitation if done by the lawyer.
4. No, because the form agreement allows a third party to exercise influence over the lawyer-client relationship.
Attorneys Agnes and Barnaby have been law partners for six years. They share a suite of offices in a large downtown office building and use the same secretarial staff. Unfortunately, Barnaby had difficulties with the Internal Revenue Service, and was found guilty of intentionally understating his income for one tax year. Barnaby paid the taxes due, plus interest, penalties, and a $5,000 fine. He did not receive a prison sentence. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Association suspended Barnaby from the practice of law for one year. Agnes took over Barnaby's clients when his suspension went into effect. Shortly before his suspension, Barnaby had negotiated a $30,000 personal injury settlement on behalf of his client, Charlotte. Two weeks after the settlement was reached, the defendant's insurer sent a $30,000 check to the law offices. By this time Barnaby's suspension had gone into effect. Agnes placed the check in the proper account and confirmed the amount of the fee with Charlotte. Agnes then promptly forwarded a $20,000 check to Charlotte and a $10,000 check to Barnaby, the latter check representing Barnaby's one third contingent fee. Is Agnes subject to discipline?
1. Yes, because a lawyer is prohibited from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.
2. No, because the $10,000 belonged to Agnes's firm, and she could do anything she wished with it, including sending it to Barnaby as a gift.
3. No, because Barnaby earned the fee prior to his suspension.
4. Yes, because she should have held the $10,000 in the client trust account until Bamaby's suspension had ended.
Judge Junks is a loyal member of the alumni association of Heathmoor, the women's college from which she was graduated. The 25th reunion of her graduating class is coming up next June, and she has been asked to participate in some activities designed to raise money for a gift from the class to the college scholarship fund. Which of tile following activities would be proper for Judge Jones to do? I. Make a substantial personal donation to the class gift fund. II. Telephone other members of her graduating class and urge them to make a donation to the class gift fund. III. Serve on the scholarship fund committee, which devises the various fund-raising strategies. IV. Be the guest of honor at a dinner to raise funds for the class sift. V. Attend a fund-raising dinner for the class gift.
1. 1., 11., IV., and V. only.
2. I., III., and V. only.
3. I., IV., and V. only.
4. I. and V. only.
Defendant Dennis asked lawyer Liston to defend him in a criminal case in which Dennis was charged with running a gambling operation. Dennis was known in the community as a wealthy person, but one who seldom kept his word and seldom paid his bills. Liston agreed to do the necessary work for a fiat fee of $5,000, which was reasonable in light of the difficulty of the case and the number of hours required. However, Liston required that Dennis pay $3,000 in advance. When Dennis protested that he did not have that amount available in ready cash, Liston accepted Dennis's full-length fur coat in lieu of the cash advance. The fair market value of the coat is $3,000, and Liston agreed to return it upon payment of his fee. Their agreement was reduced to writing and signed by both parties. After Liston had put in considerable time in preparing the case for trial, Dennis fired Liston for no good reason and refused to pay him anything for the work already done. Assuming the reasonable value of Liston's services to date is $4,000, which of the following statements is correct? I. Liston is subject to discipline for demanding that Dennis pay $3,000 in advance, before any legal services had been rendered. II. Liston is subject to discipline for taking the coat in lieu of cash as an advance on legal fees. III. Liston must promptly return the coat to Dennis upon termination of their relationship, and submit a bill for his services. IV. If Liston returns the coat and sues Dennis to collect his fee, Liston will be entitled to recover the full contract price ($5,000) because Dennis terminated the contract without good cause.
1. I., II., and III. only.
2. I., III., and IV. only.
3. IV. only.
4. None of the above.
Lawyer Leroy is interested in obtaining legal business from the United Smelter and Mining Employees Union ("USMEU"), which has many organized workers in the state. As a result of a recent mine fire and explosion in which several miners were killed, USMEU has succeeded in persuading the appropriate state agency to bring an administrative action against the mining company for failing to install smoke detectors, which might have saved some lives in the mine disaster. Although Leroy is in no way involved in the case, he sees this as an opportunity to get future business from the union by showing USMEU that he is strongly on their side in the mine disaster case. Leroy telephones a popular call-in radio show, and makes the following statement: My name is Leroy and I am an attorney. I'd just like to say that I am shocked and appalled at the callousness of the mining company that caused the recent disaster in which so many miners were killed. From what I have read, it appears to me that the mining company was willful and wanton in its failure to install smoke detectors. I am behind the union 100%; I hope the company will not be allowed to escape the consequences of this despicable conduct. Without Leroy's knowledge or consent, his statement was later printed in several newspapers in the state. Is Leroy subject to discipline for his conduct?
1. No, because the statement was printed in the newspapers without his knowledge or consent.
2. Yes, because lawyers must not make public comments concerning pending litigation.
3. No, because he did not make any false or misleading claims about himself or his services.
4. Yes, because he was substantially motivated by his desire to attract fee-paying business.

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.