Conflicts of Interest Flashcards
1
Q
Yes, because ignorance caused by a failure to institute reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, will not excuse a lawyer’s violation of the Rules regarding conflicts of interest.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
2
Q
Yes, but the attorney must seek court approval where necessary and take steps to minimize harm to the clients, and he must continue to protect the confidences of the client from whose representation the lawyer has withdrawn.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
3
Q
No, because the representation involves the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
4
Q
Yes, because the mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
5
Q
The attorney would be subject to disqualification, but ordinarily the other lawyers in her firm would not be subject to disqualification.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
6
Q
No, because when a lawyer has discussions concerning potential employment with an opponent of the lawyer’s client, or with a law firm representing the opponent, such discussions could materially limit the lawyer’s representation of the client.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
7
Q
No, the situation is likely to limit materially the attorney’s ability to recommend or advocate all potential positions that each might take because of his duty of loyalty to the others; representing the group’s overall interests in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
8
Q
Yes, when undertaking representation of multiple clients in a single matter, the information must include the implications of the common representation, including potential effects on loyalty, confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege and the advantages and risks involved.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
9
Q
No, because the attorney cannot violate the duty of confidentiality to Husband, which would be necessary to obtain informed consent from Wife.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
10
Q
Yes, the attorney can potentially continue representing Shift Supervisor bit not Business Manager, give the nature of the conflict, the fact that Business Manager revoked consent because of a material change in circumstances, the expectations of Shift Supervisor, and so on.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
11
Q
Yes, if the client agrees to consent to a specific type of conflict with which the client is already familiar, then the consent ordinarily will be effective regarding that type of conflict.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
12
Q
No, because a lawyer seeking to represent an opponent in a class action does not typically need the consent of an unnamed member of the class whom the lawyer represents in an unrelated matter.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
13
Q
Yes, a conflict of interest exists if there if a significant risk that a lawyer’s action on behalf of one client in a different case, as when a decision favoring one client will create a precedent likely to seriously weaken the position taken on behalf of the other client.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
14
Q
Yes, attorneys can include waiver clauses for specific future conflicts in their contracts, if the clients are aware of the waiver, and if the contract delineates the types of future representations that may arise.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
15
Q
Yes, a lawyer who represents a corporation other organization does not, by virtue of that representation, necessarily represent any constituent or affiliated organization, such as a parent or subsidiary, and the lawyer for an organization may provide representation adverse to an affiliate in an unrelated matter.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
15
Q
Yes, a lawyer who represents a corporation other organization does not, by virtue of that representation, necessarily represent any constituent or affiliated organization, such as a parent or subsidiary, and the lawyer for an organization may provide representation adverse to an affiliate in an unrelated matter.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
16
Q
Yes, assuming both clients provide written informed consent, common representation is permissible where the clients’ interests mostly align, even though there is some difference in interest among them, so a lawyer may seek an agreement between them on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
17
Q
Yes, regarding the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between jointly represented clients, the privilege does not attach, and lawyers should assume that if litigation eventuates between the clients, the privilege will not protect any such communications.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
18
Q
Yes, in limited circumstances like this, it would be appropriate for the lawyer to proceed with the representation when the clients have agreed, after receiving adequate disclosures, that the lawyer will keep certain information confidential.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
19
Q
No, it was not feasible to obtain or transmit the writing at the time the client gives informed consent, so the lawyer could obtain or transmit it within a reasonable time thereafter.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
20
Q
The attorney must advise the other board members that in some circumstances, matters they discuss at board meetings while the attorney is there as a fellow director would not be protected by the attorney-client privilege in later litigation; and that conflict of interest considerations might require the attorney’s recusal as a director, or might require the attorney to decline representation of the corporation in a matter.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
21
Q
No, a lawyer may not represent multiple parties to a negotiation whose interests are fundamentally antagonistic to each other, even in a negotiation.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
22
Q
Yes, each client in the common representation has the right to discharge the lawyer as stated in Rules of Professional Conduct and the accompanying Comments.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
23
Q
Yes, common representation is permissible where the clients’ interests mostly align, even though there is some difference in interest among them, so the attorney may pursue an agreement on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis.
A
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
24
The attorney would have no obligation under the ethical rules to inform the citizens group about her representation of the school district, or the school district about her representation of the citizens group against the county planning commission in the road-widening dispute.
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
25
No, not unless the attorney first obtains effective informed consent of the management of Giant Company, as well as that of Conglomerate, because the ownership of Conglomerate and Giant is not identical, and their interests materially differ in the proposed transaction.
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
26
Yes, the likelihood of conflicting positions in such matters as plea bargaining requires the attorney to obtain the informed consent of both clients before proceeding with the representation.
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
27
No, the attorney may purchase litigation cost protection insurance so long as she does not allow the terms of the coverage to adversely affect her independent professional judgement, the client-lawyer relationship, or the client's continuing best interests.
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
28
Yes, if the amount charged to the client is fair and reasonable, and the lawyer fully explains to the client when litigation cost protection insurance is, why the lawyer believes a litigation cost protection policy will serve the client's best interests, that the client should get the advice of independent legal counsel regarding the arrangement, that other lawyers may advance the client's costs without charging the client the cost of a litigation cost protection policy; and the client gives informed consent in writing, while the lawyer maintains independent professional judgment.
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
29
Neither the attorney's earlier advice nor the lawsuit itself creates a conflict of interest that would prevent the attorney from defending against the suit
Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
30
Yes, because a lawyer must meet the written notice requirements of Model 1.8 when the lawyer accepts an interest in the client's business or other nonmonetary property as payment of all or part of a fee.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
31
Yes, this is a standard commercial transaction between the attorney and the client for a service that the client normally would market to others.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
32
The attorney must withdraw from representing the venture capitalist and the developer on the other matters, at least until the process of forming the corporation is complete, to avoid conflicts of interest.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
33
Yes, because the attorney complied with the requirements of the Model Rules for this type of transaction with a client.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
34
No, because Rule 1.8 does not apply to ordinary fee arrangements between client and lawyer.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
35
No, attorneys can enter into fair and reasonable business transactions with clients assuming the client receives an advisory in writing of the benefit of seeking advice from independent counsel and gives informed consent, in writing and signed by the client, of the transaction details.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
36
Yes, because the client had representation by another lawyer in the transaction.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
37
No, because the transaction was objectively unfair.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
38
The attorney has a common-law fiduciary duty to profit from using client information even if the use complies with the lawyer's ethical obligations, without accounting to the client for any profits made.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
39
Yes, the attorney may accept payment by Asylum Now and may agree to make contentions that Asylum Now wishes to have tested by the litigation.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
40
Yes, without specific authorization from the employee-client, the attorney may not disclose to Conglomerate how to employee intends to testify.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
41
No, because the attorney should not have prepared the will if the document made a significant bequest to the attorney.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
42
No, attorneys may permissibly include gifts to themselves in a will prepared by an attorney, even if the gift is substantial.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
43
Yes, a lawyer may accept a simple gift such as a present given at a holiday or as a token of appreciation.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
44
Yes, because a prohibition on conduct by an individual lawyer under the conflicts of interest rules would automatically apply to all lawyers associated in a law firm with the personally prohibited lawyer, even if the first lawyer is not personally involved in the representation of the client.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
45
Yes, a lawyer may make an agreement with the client to arbitrate legal malpractice claims, provided such agreements are enforceable and the lawyer fully informs the client of the scope and effect of the agreement.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
46
Yes, the attorney is making an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability to a client for malpractice, and the client does not have independent representation in making the agreement.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
47
Yes, because the attorney is making an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability to a client for malpractice and the client does not have independent representation in making the agreement.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
48
Yes, the attorney made an agreement with an otherwise unrepresented client that prospectively limited his liability for malpractice.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
49
No, the plaintiff already had independent legal counsel in connection to the malpractice waiver.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
50
No, a lawyer may acquire an act upon a lien authorized by law to secure the lawyer's fee or expenses.
Rule 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Rules
51
Yes, Attorney Stevenson cannot seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on behalf of the former client.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
52
No, the matters are not related enough, because they do not involve the same transaction or legal dispute, and any confidential information learned while obtaining the construction permits prior would be unimportant for the nonpayment of rent by a tenant sometime later.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
53
The court should deny it because the government has not met its burden of showing that the attorney would be a necessary witness in the case, or that the possessed confidential information about the other doctor who will serve as a hostile witness in the case.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
54
Yes, because they obtained confidential information during the negotiations in the same matter, or a matter with significant overlap.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
55
No, matters are "substantially related" if there is a substantial risk that confidential information from the prior representation would materially advance the client's position in the subsequent matter, such as personal financial information.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
56
No, there is no doctrine of double-imputation that would impute a purely imputed conflict from the attorney onto the other lawyers in the new firm.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
57
No, because the subsequent representation would require the attorney to attack the same work the attorney performed for the former client.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
58
No, there is a substantial relationship between the matters, so the attorney may not represent Conglomerate in the matter without effective consent from both Conglomerate and Giant gas.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
59
Yes, the breadth of confidential client information of Conglomerate previously accessible to the attorney during the prior representation, and the breadth of issues open in Giant Company's contemplate lawsuit, creates a substantial risk that the information would materially prejudice Conglomerate in the upcoming litigation.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
60
No, the attorney's knowledge of marketability of other tracts is not necessarily relevant to litigation involving the marketability of title to the new parcel, so the attorney may represent the new client without informed consent of the home builder.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
61
No, because the limitation on the representation removes any substantial relationship between the two matters or concerns about confidential information from a former client giving a strategic advantage to the new client.
Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
62
Yes, because separate firms that publicly identify themselves as "affiliated", even if they are located several states away from each other, count as the same firm for purposes of imputed conflicts of interest under Rule 1.10.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
63
No, because under the legal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, the appeal would potentially require the attorney to disparage the representation of his own colleague as being unreasonably poor.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
64
The court should grant the motion, because the lawyers have some ongoing duties of confidentiality toward prospective clients, even after declining the representation, and the other lawyer has a conflict of interest by imputation.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
65
Yes, because the partner's conflict of interest would impute to all the other lawyers in the firm, especially if the managing partner has the conflict and associates are handling the representation with his permission
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
66
No, because a conflict arising from a lawyer's marriage to another lawyer at an opposing law firm is not necessarily imputed to all other lawyers in the firm.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
67
No, because the fact that Xavier Firm and Yankee firm represent opposing clients in a different, unrelated matter would not prevent their affiliation in the patent matter.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
68
Neither Attorney Ames nor any other member of Company's corporate legal office may represent Company without obtaining Stevenson's informed consent.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
69
The office must either hire a special prosecutor for the case, borrow a prosecutor from a neighboring jurisdiction, or implement effective screening measures to exclude the new attorney from the prosecution.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
70
Yes, give Lawyer Best's departure and the fact that nobody else at the firm learned confidential information about Conglomerate Corporation, there is no remaining imputation of Best's conflict of interest.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
71
At most, Boutique Firm would need to screen the attorney from the matter and have other lawyers represent the Developer, but even this may be unnecessary, because the attorney learned no confidential information about Big Bank at his previous firm.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
72
Yes, a client's informed consent to a conflict can be qualified or conditional, as here, and Big Firm violated the client's condition, so it did not have the valid consent to the conflict.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
73
The other lawyer at Boutique Firm can represent the defendant in the matter if the first attorney has not disclosed any confidential information to others in the firm, and the firm carefully screens the attorney completely from the matter and provides written notice to the other party.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
74
Boutique Firm cannot represent the defendant in the case because an attorney there learned confidential information from the opposing party as a prospective client during an initial consultation two months ago, unless Boutique Firm obtained informed consent in writing from both the defendant and the opposing party, who was a prospective client during a one-time consultation.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
75
It should reverse the disqualification order because the imputed conflict of interest disappeared when the attorney left Big Firm to work for Region Cancer Center, given that the attorney knew no confidential information about MindGames.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
76
No, because the firm avoided imputation of the conflict by implementing effective screening measures, and the fact that the lawyer was geographically in another office, and has already departed to work elsewhere, also support denying the motion.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
77
No, due to imputation of the chairperson's conflict of interest to her law firm partner.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
78
Yes, because even though Attorney McCorvey could not effectively represent the client due to her political beliefs, this would not materially limit the representation by the associate at the firm.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
79
The court will disqualify the attorney from serving as defense counsel because she had participated in the matter personally and in a substantial way as a prosecutor.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
80
No, after obtaining the necessary written consent, the attorney may represent both the private party and a government agency.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
81
Yes, when a lawyer is employed by a city and subsequently is employed by a federal agency, the latter agency does not have to screen the lawyer.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
82
Yes, the attorney had access to confidential government information from his time working for the state.
Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
83
No, because the attorney would be representing a party in seeking enforcement of his own order from his time on the bench.
Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral
84
No, a law clerk to a judge may negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer, even of the prospective employer is involved in a matter in which the clerk is participating personally, after the lawyer has notified the judge.
Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral
85
Yes, the fact that the judge did not have notice of where the clerk applied, or which firms were interviewing the clerk.
Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral
86
Yes, as it appears all parties to the proceeding gave informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral
87
Yes, under the Model Rules, a lawyer shall not negotiate for employment with any person who is involved as a party or as a lawyer for a party in a manner in which the lawyer is participating as a judge personally and in a substantial way.
Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral
88
No, a lawyer who served as a judge may not represent a client in a matter in which the lawyer had personal and substantial involvement.
Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral
89
The court should grant the motion as the matters related to each other, and the moving party did not have adequate notice about the conflict to give informed consent.
Rule 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator Or Other Neutral Third-Party Neutral
90
No, the lawyer is reviewing court documents and providing legal advice about pending legal proceedings, which constitutes the practice of law by the lawyer, even if the representation has a limited scope.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
91
Yes, because a lawyer may take whatever actions the client has impliedly authorized as part of the representation.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
92
Yes, because a lawyer's representation of a client does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
93
yes, because the client has previously indicated that the proposal will be unacceptable and has authorized the lawyer to reject the offer.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
94
Yes, because a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to how to pursue these ends.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
95
Yes, because a lawyer shall not assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, such as destroying evidence when there is a pending criminal investigation.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
96
Yes, because given the complexity of the subject and the uncertainty about this certain point of law, two hours was not a reasonable amount of time to yield advice upon which the client could rely.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
97
Yes, because the client's objective is no more than securing general information about the law the client needs to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem, so the lawyer and the client may agree that the lawyer's services will be no more than a brief telephone consultation.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
98
Yes, the terms of the representation agreement may exclude specific means that might otherwise serve used to accomplish the client's objectives, such as actions that the lawyer regards as repugnant or imprudent.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
99
Yes, because a lawyer must avoid assisting a client in fraudulent or criminal activity, which includes suggesting how to conceal the wrongdoing.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
100
No, because the fact that a client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent of itself does not make a lawyer a party to the course of action.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
101
Yes, because a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
102
No, because an attorney does not have to decline or withdraw from cases unless the client demands that the attorney engage in illegal conduct.
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation & Allocation of Authority Between Client & Lawyer
103
No, a defense lawyer who receives a profferred plea bargain in a criminal case must promptly inform the client of its substance, unless the client has previously told the lawyer to accept or to reject the offer.
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client
104
No, because even when an immediate decision is necessary during trial, and the exigency of the situation may require the lawyer to act without prior consultation, the lawyer must tell the client about it as soon as possible.
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client
105
Yes, when there is time to explain a proposal made in a negotiation, the lawyer should review all important provisions with the client before proceeding to an agreement, and the facts suggest that the attorney did not necessarily explain all the concessions that the client would have to make.
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client
106
Yes, because during a trial, when an immediate decision becomes necessary, the exigency of the situation may require the lawyer to act without prior consultation, assuming the lawyer promptly informs the client of actions the lawyer has taken on the client's behalf.
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client
107
Yes, a lawyer may delay transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication, including a psychiatric diagnosis of a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client.
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client
108
Yes, because Rule 1.4 requires that lawyers disclose material errors made during the representation to current clients, whenever the error would predictably cause a client to consider terminating the representation even in the absence of harm or prejudice.
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Cli
109
Yes, because Rule 1.4 requires that lawyers disclose material errors made during the representation to current clients, whenever the error would predictably cause a client to consider terminating the representation even in the absence of harm or prejudice.
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client
110
No, when a data breach occurs involving, or having a substantial likelihood of involving, material client confidential information a lawyer has a duty to notify the client of the breach.
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client
111
No, because the Model Rules do not require disclosure of material errors to former clients after the representation has ended.
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client
112
Yes, because Rule 1.4 requires that lawyers disclose material errors made during the representation to current clients, and the attorney's ongoing representation on other matters means a client-lawyer relationship still exists.
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client
113
Yes, because Rule 1.4 requires that lawyers disclose material errors made during the representation to current clients, even though the error does not furnish the basis for a valid malpractice claim
Rule 1.4 Communications with the Client
114
Yes, because the client did not sign the fee agreement.
Rule 1.5 Fees
115
No, a lawyer may seek reimbursement form the cost of services performed in-house, such as copying, or for other expenses incurred in-house, such as telephone charges, either by charging a reasonable amount to which the client has agreed in advance or by charging an amount that reasonably reflects the cost incurred by the lawyer.
Rule 1.5 Fees
116
No, the attorney may not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect any fee in a domestic relations matters, the payment or amount of which is contingent upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of alimony or support, or property settlement in lieu thereof
Rule 1.5 Fees
117
The attorney is subject to discipline for charging a contingent fee in a criminal matter.
Rule 1.5 Fees
118
Yes, periodic, incremental increases in a lawyer's regular hourly billing rates are permissible if understands and accepts such practice at the commencement of the client-lawyer relationship, and he periodic increases are reasonable under the circumstances.
Rule 1.5 Fees
119
Yes, because state rules about legal fees are subject to limitations by applicable law, such as government regulations regarding fees in certain tax matters.
Rule 1.5 Fees
120
No, the attorney must inform the client of the basis or rate of the fee and expenses before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.
Rule 1.5 Fees
121
It is proper to charge a plaintiff in a personal injury case a flat fee regardless of he case outcome, and it is permissible to charge the seller a contingent fee in a real estate transaction.
Rule 1.5 Fees
122
No, if the attorney flies for six hours for one client, while working for five hours on behalf of another, she has not earned eleven billable hours.
Rule 1.5 Fees
123
No, the attorneys who reuse old work product have not re-earned the hours previously billed and compensated when they first generated that work product.
Rule 1.5 Fees
124
No, it would be reasonable for the attorney to charge twenty thousand dollars for doing so little.
Rule 1.5 Fees
125
The attorney should receive $300,000 when Conglomerate's million-dollar lump sum payment arrives, and $300 of each subsequent disbursement from the annuity, when the disbursements occur, until the client's death.
Rule 1.5 Fees
126
No, because under the fee agreement, the client had to repay the attorney only if they won the case.
Rule 1.5 Fees
127
Yes, because a lawyer may not charge a client for overhead expenses normally associated with properly maintaining, staffing, and equipping an office.
Rule 1.5 Fees
128
No, a lawyer may charge the client no more than the actual cost of making a copy on the photocopy machine plus a reasonable allocation of overhead expenses directly associated with the provision of the service, such as the salary of a full-time photocopy machine operator.
Rule 1.5 Fees
129
No, it is not reasonable for the attorney to charge over three hundred thousand dollars in fees for making one phone call at the end of the first consultation with the client.
Rule 1.5 Fees
130
It is impermissible for the attorney to represent the seller in a commercial real estate transaction on a contingent fee basis without a written fee agreement, signed by the client, stating the method of determining the fee.
Rule 1.5 Fees
131
Yes, lawyers should not exploit fee arrangements based primarily on hourly charges by using wasteful procedures.
Rule 1.5 Fees
132
Yes, given that the attorney advertised for that amount and the client had seen the ad, the parties have an implicit contract under which the attorney must write the will in exchange for $500.
Rule 1.5 Fees
133
Yes, the fee change was reasonable under these circumstances, and the attorney followed the notice requirements of the Model Rules.
Rule 1.5 Fees
134
No, the representation of one client is not directly adverse to another client, and there is not a significant risk that the referral of Susan will be materially limited by attorney' s responsibility to the cupcake shop.
Rule 1.5 Fees
135
Yes, if the attorney obtains the informed consent, confirmed in writing, of both the cupcake shop and Susan as potential co-defendant, and otherwise meets the requirements of Model Rule 1.7(b).
Rule 1.5 Fees
136
Yes, if the attorney obtains the informed consent, confirmed in writing, of both the cupcake shop and Susan as potential co-defendants, and otherwise meets the requirements of Model Rule 1.7)b).
Rule 1.5 Fees
137
No, because a physical or mental condition currently materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client.
Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation
138
A general assessment of the municipality or the municipality's matter.
Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation
139
Yes, if representation has begun, the attorney must withdraw from the case and take reasonable steps to mitigate consequences to client if discharged by client.
Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation
140
Yes, because withdrawal is permissible if the client misused the attorney's services in the past, even if the withdrawal would materially prejudice the client.
Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation
141
No, because the attorney must withdraw from the representation of the judge under these circumstances.
Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation
142
The attorney must withdraw from representing the clients mentioned.
Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation
143
No, the attorney may ask for permission to withdraw as counsel, or to serve merely as standby counsel in this scenario.
Rule 6.2 Accepting/Declining Court Appointments
144
Yes, an attorney can seek withdrawal for good cause, suck as lack of competence to handle certain specialized legal matters.
Rule 6.2 Accepting/Declining Court Appointments
145
No, because lack of malpractice insurance is not good cause for withdrawal.
Rule 6.2 Accepting/Declining Court Appointments
146
No, giving money to the attorney did not create any attorney-client relationship.
Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients
147
Yes, because the individual who sent the original email was not a prospective client for purposes of the Model Rules, and the attorney had no duty to keep the information confidential.
Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients
148
Yes, because this is dishonest, interferes with the administration of justice, and has no purposes other than to interference with the opposing party's ability to form a client-lawyer relationship.
Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients
149
Yes, the person was not genuinely seeking legal representation, so the lawyer would have no duty to protect the confidentiality of the information disclosed and no conflict of interest.
Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients
150
No, because the information learned from the first consultation with the other party would be so helpful to the new client, and so harmful to the individual the attorney declined to represent.
Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients
151
The attorney may not disclose to the client that the opposing part consulted with another lawyer in the firm but may continue to represent the client if the attorney does not use any information gleaned from the other party's consultation against the other party.
Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Clients
152
Yes, because the client's defense has some basis in fact and law, even if it seems improbably in both regards.
Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims & Contentions
153
Yes, it was impermissible for the attorney to bring the action for executing the judgement, and to appeal the dismissal, as there was basis in law or fact for doing so.
Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims & Contentions
154
No, because a lawyer must prepare a brief referring to anything in the record that might potentially support the appeal and leave it to the appellate court to decide whether the appeal is truly frivolous.
Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims & Contentions
155
Yes, a federal statute authorizes federal courts to require a laywer to pay all the excess costs, expenses, and legal fees incurred because of the lawyer "unreasonably and vexatiously" multiplying the proceedings.
Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims & Contentions
156
No, because a lawyer has a duty to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation
157
Yes, because even if the statements were not materials facts, lawyers mist make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation
158
Yes, even with the consent of the attorney's clients, this is an impermissible dilatory litigation tactic with no substantial purpose other than to delay or prolong the proceeding.
Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation
159
No, given that the issue was not pending before any appellate courts at the time, it was improper for the attorney to request these extensions.
Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation
160
No, the attorney's failure to file the papers was not a legitimate litigation strategy to prevent or delay the deportation.
Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation
161
Yes, filing petitions and appeals on behalf of someone no longer legally one's client imposes unnecessary delays in court proceedings.
Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation
162
Yes, the attorney did not make reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation
163
No, because a lawyer need not have personal knowledge of matters asserted in pleadings, for litigation documents ordinarily present assertions by the client, and not assertions by the lawyer.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
164
No, because the prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false, and a lawyer's belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
165
Yes, because in a criminal case, a lawyer cannon refuse to offer the testimony of a client where the lawyer believes, but does not know, that the testimony will be false; unless the lawyer knows that the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the client's decision to testify.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
166
Yes, because the attorney does not know with certainty that they are lying, he must allow the client to testify, and it is permissible to call the girlfriend a witness as well.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
167
No, the attorney must either disclose the contemplated perjury to the tribunal, or refuse to call the witness, or withdraw from the representation.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
168
Yes, because a lawyer's duty to tale remedial measures after perjury occurs continue only to the conclusion of the proceeding.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
169
No, the case is not controlling authority in that jurisdiction.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
170
Yes, the Model Rules require a lawyer to take remedial measures when a client offers false statements even during a deposition.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
171
No, because a lawyer must correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
172
Yes, because this is a circumstance where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
173
No, the duty of candor in Mode; Rule 3.3 is inapplicable to mediation; nevertheless, other rules such as Rule 4.1 may apply to the lawyer's untruthfulness here.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
174
No, because lawyers may not pay a witness to attend and testify at a hearing or trial.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
175
Yes, because the attorney concealed or obstructed the police's access to potential evidence by discarding the gun, and he counseled the client to destroy the evidence on his clothes.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
176
No, because a lawyer may disobey an order from a tribunal when the lawyer has made an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
177
Yes, it is impermissible for a lawyer to pay an eyewitness to attend and testify at a hearing or trial.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
178
No, the Mode Rules do not forbid a lawyer from asking a family member to refrain from giving information to the other party.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
179
Yes, the Model Rules do not permit lawyers to offer witnesses money to refrain from testifying or providing information about the matter, with exceptions that do not apply here.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
180
Yes, it was not reasonable for the general counsel to believe that refraining from giving such information would not impinge on the employee's interests.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
181
Yes, because a lawyer may take measures to eliminate metadata from documents that could later fall into the hands of an opposing party.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
182
No, because the main reason for scrubbing metadata is to conceal information that might be useful to an opposing party or tribunal in the present litigation.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
183
Yes, the lawyer was attempting to communicate with the judges and potential jurors through public commentary.
Rule 3.5 Impartiality And Decorum of the Tribunal
184
Yes, regardless of the attorney's intentions, the conversation violated the prohibition on ex parte communication with jurors.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
185
Yes, because a lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, or even a prospective juror.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
186
Yes, because a lawyer may stand firm against abuse by a judge but should avoid reciprocation; the judge's default is no justification for similar dereliction by an advocate.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
187
No, because he communicated with a juror about a pending case.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
188
No, a lawyer may not send an access request to a juror to review of the juror's electronic social media.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
189
No, a lawyer may not send an access request to a juror to review of the juror's electronic social media, even vicariously through an intern.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
190
It is permissible for a lawyer to review a juror's Internet presence, which may include postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of and during a trial.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
191
Yes, the attorney had an impermissible ex-parte communication with the judge presiding over the attorney's case.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
192
The fact that a juror or a potential juror may become aware that the lawyer is reviewing his Internet presence when a social media network setting notifies the juror of such review does not constitute a communication from the lawyer in violation of Rule 3.5 (b).
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
193
No, even though a colleague of the prosecutor was handling the trial in which the cousin was a juror, the prosecutor's conversation violated the ethical prohibitions on ex parte communication with jurors.
Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
194
No, because there is a presumption of prejudicial effect on the proceedings when a lawyer comments publicly about the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal of failure of a person to submit to an examination or test.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
195
No, because there is a presumption of prejudicial effect on the proceedings when a lawyer comments publicly about the possibility of a guilty plea, or a party's refusal to confess to a crime.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
196
No, because the official Comment to the Model Rules says that expressing an opinion about a party's guilt or innocence, or about the criminal record of a party or witness, is more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceedings when a lawyer comments publicly about the possibility of a guilty plea, or a party's refusal to confess to a crime.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
197
No, because the official Comment to the Model Rules says that expressing an opinion about a party's guilt or innocence, or about the criminal record of a party or witness, is more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
198
Yes, because a lawyer should not make extrajudicial comments about the criminal record of a party during a criminal matter.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
199
No, because in a criminal matter, there is a presumption of prejudice when a lawyer makes extrajudicial statements about the expected testimony of a party or witness.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
200
Yes, because a lawyer in a criminal case may state the fact, time, and place of arrest.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
201
No, because in a criminal case, there is a presumption of prejudice when a prosecutor states publicly that a defendant is the subject of criminal charges, unless he includes a s statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant still has a presumption of innocence.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
202
No, because a lawyer in a criminal case may state the identity, residence, occupation, and family status of the accused.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
203
No, because a lawyer should not publicly express any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
204
No, the attorney is a material witness for the seller in the upcommg trial.
Rule 3.7 Lawyer As Witness
205
No, a lawyer serving in a capacity other than that of a courtroom advocate may serve as a witness for the lawyer's client.
Rule 3.7 Lawyer As Witness
206
Yes, a lawyer who testifies before a judicial officer concerning only a preliminary motion may still serve serving as advocate at a subsequent trial before a jury.
Rule 3.7 Lawyer As Witness
