Pro Res Spring 2020 Flashcards
(31 cards)
Law firm places a high value on pro bono and encourages of all of its attorneys to provide pro bono services. To facilitate this work, the firm decides to create a special retainer to use in pro bono matters. The pro bono retainer for indigent clients will require clients to agree to waive malpractice liability in exchange for free legal services and the law firm paying for any litigation expenses. The retainer also provides clients with notice that they should contact independent counsel before agreeing to the malpractice waiver.
Which of the following is true?
A. These types of malpractice waivers are not permissible.
B. The malpractice waiver provisions are per se reasonable.
C. The malpractice waiver is effective only if the indigent client consults an independent attorney.
D. The malpractice waiver is effective because the indigent client has had an opportunity to consult an independent attorney.
C. The malpractice waiver is effective only if the indigent client consults an independent attorney.
- After taking Professional Responsibility, Law Student decides to embrace the Civics Teacher perspective when she becomes a lawyer. Law Student’s decision to become a Civics Teacher is:
A. consistent with professionalism
B. consistent with the dominant conception.
C. consistent with both the dominant conception and professionalism.
D. consistent with neither the dominant conception nor professionalism.
A. consistent with professionalism
- Former Client posts a nasty review of Attorney on Google. Former Client’s review states that Attorney is the worst lawyer in town, does not know the law, and is not reliable. Using as few facts as reasonably necessary to defend himself, Attorney posts a truthful response defending himself against Former Client’s claims. Attorneys uses only the facts from the representation that are necessary for his defense. Was the attorney’s conduct proper?
A. Yes because Attorney was truthful.
B. Yes because Attorney was defending himself against Former Client’s claims.
C. Yes because Attorney only used facts reasonably necessary to defend himself.
D. No because Attorney may not share confidential information without consent unless one of the exceptions to confidentiality apply.
D. No because Attorney may not share confidential information without consent unless one of the exceptions to confidentiality apply.
- Attorney works for a debt management company in the jurisdiction in which he is licensed. Attorney provides advice to customers; contacts banks and other creditors on behalf of the customers to negotiate payment terms; and counsels customers on their individual rights in litigation. Attorney reports to the company’s managing director, who is not a lawyer.
Is the attorney subject to discipline?
A. Yes, because the attorney is assisting in the unauthorized practice of law.
B. Yes, because the nonlawyer earns income from payments attributable to lawyer’s services.
C. No, because the attorney is not engaged in the practice of law.
D. No, because the company is not engaged in the practice of law.
A. Yes, because the attorney is assisting in the unauthorized practice of law.
- Supervising Attorney assigns Assistant Attorney General (AAG) to defend a government policy that ends all immigration to the United States during the current Coronavirus crisis. AAG believes that this policy is reprehensible. Which of the following is true?
A. All lawyers employing the Public Interest approach would refuse this case.
B. All lawyers employing the Ethical Approach would take this case.
C. No lawyer could take this case because it would require a lawyer to facilitate an illegal act.
D. Some Public Interest approach lawyers would take the case and others would not.
D. Some Public Interest approach lawyers would take the case and others would not.
- Moontech is suing Suntech for billions of dollars in an antitrust case. Suntech has hired Partner, one of the nation’s leading antitrust lawyers, to lead its defense. While a brilliant antitrust lawyer, Partner is not an expert on legal technology. Partner relies on colleagues with greater knowledge of technological tools, such as electronic discovery algorithms that rely on predictive coding. Suntech directs Partner to hire AlgorithmCo to manage millions of documents and to produce voluminous discovery. Partner retains AlgorithmCo for these purposes. Partner agrees with Suntech that Suntech will take full responsibility and Partner’s Firm will take no responsibility for monitoring AlgorithmCo’s work. Partner relies on Associate, who has expertise in predictive coding and document management to supervise AlgorithmCo’s work.
During Moontech v. Suntech, AlgorithmCo makes a number of significant errors both in producing harmful documents that were arguably privileged and in failing to identify documents that would have been helpful to Suntech’s case. Associate worked closely and diligently with AlgorithmCo throughout and had failed to catch these mistakes. Partner, who did not understand the technology underlying Algorithm Co’s work, had not bothered to supervise Associate.
Suntech does not discover AlgorithmCo’s mistakes until after it loses at a trial where Moontech obtains a $3 billion verdict. After Suntech discovers the mistakes, it sues Associate, Partner, and Firm for malpractice, and also files disciplinary complaints against each of them.
Associate is:
A. Not subject to discipline because Associate was a subordinate lawyer.
B. Not subject to discipline because Associate worked closely and diligently with AlgorithmCo.
C. Subject to discipline because Associate should have caught AlgorithmCo’s mistakes.
D. Not subject to discipline because the Firm had no responsibility for evaluating and supervising AlgorithmCo’s work.
B. Not subject to discipline because Associate worked closely and diligently with AlgorithmCo.
- Moontech is suing Suntech for billions of dollars in an antitrust case. Suntech has hired Partner, one of the nation’s leading antitrust lawyers, to lead its defense. While a brilliant antitrust lawyer, Partner is not an expert on legal technology. Partner relies on colleagues with greater knowledge of technological tools, such as electronic discovery algorithms that rely on predictive coding. Suntech directs Partner to hire AlgorithmCo to manage millions of documents and to produce voluminous discovery. Partner retains AlgorithmCo for these purposes. Partner agrees with Suntech that Suntech will take full responsibility and Partner’s Firm will take no responsibility for monitoring AlgorithmCo’s work. Partner relies on Associate, who has expertise in predictive coding and document management to supervise AlgorithmCo’s work.
During Moontech v. Suntech, AlgorithmCo makes a number of significant errors both in producing harmful documents that were arguably privileged and in failing to identify documents that would have been helpful to Suntech’s case. Associate worked closely and diligently with AlgorithmCo throughout and had failed to catch these mistakes. Partner, who did not understand the technology underlying Algorithm Co’s work, had not bothered to supervise Associate.
Suntech does not discover AlgorithmCo’s mistakes until after it loses at a trial where Moontech obtains a $3 billion verdict. After Suntech discovers the mistakes, it sues Associate, Partner, and Firm for malpractice, and also files disciplinary complaints against each of them.
In the malpractice action, Suntech will recover against:
A. Associate, Partner, and Firm.
B. Partner and Firm.
C. Partner only.
D. Associate only.
E. Neither Associate, Partner, nor Firm.
E. Neither Associate, Partner, nor Firm.
- Moontech is suing Suntech for billions of dollars in an antitrust case. Suntech has hired Partner, one of the nation’s leading antitrust lawyers, to lead its defense. While a brilliant antitrust lawyer, Partner is not an expert on legal technology. Partner relies on colleagues with greater knowledge of technological tools, such as electronic discovery algorithms that rely on predictive coding. Suntech directs Partner to hire AlgorithmCo to manage millions of documents and to produce voluminous discovery. Partner retains AlgorithmCo for these purposes. Partner agrees with Suntech that Suntech will take full responsibility and Partner’s Firm will take no responsibility for monitoring AlgorithmCo’s work. Partner relies on Associate, who has expertise in predictive coding and document management to supervise AlgorithmCo’s work.
During Moontech v. Suntech, AlgorithmCo makes a number of significant errors both in producing harmful documents that were arguably privileged and in failing to identify documents that would have been helpful to Suntech’s case. Associate worked closely and diligently with AlgorithmCo throughout and had failed to catch these mistakes. Partner, who did not understand the technology underlying Algorithm Co’s work, had not bothered to supervise Associate.
Suntech does not discover AlgorithmCo’s mistakes until after it loses at a trial where Moontech obtains a $3 billion verdict. After Suntech discovers the mistakes, it sues Associate, Partner, and Firm for malpractice, and also files disciplinary complaints against each of them.
Partner is:
A. subject to discipline for failing to supervise Associate.
B. subject to discipline for failing to understand relevant technology.
C. not subject to discipline because Partner relied on Associate to work with AlgorithmCo.
D. not subject to discipline because Suntech agreed to take responsibility for monitoring AlgorithmCo.
C. not subject to discipline because Partner relied on Associate to work with AlgorithmCo.
- Moontech is suing Suntech for billions of dollars in an antitrust case. Suntech has hired Partner, one of the nation’s leading antitrust lawyers, to lead its defense. While a brilliant antitrust lawyer, Partner is not an expert on legal technology. Partner relies on colleagues with greater knowledge of technological tools, such as electronic discovery algorithms that rely on predictive coding. Suntech directs Partner to hire AlgorithmCo to manage millions of documents and to produce voluminous discovery. Partner retains AlgorithmCo for these purposes. Partner agrees with Suntech that Suntech will take full responsibility and Partner’s Firm will take no responsibility for monitoring AlgorithmCo’s work. Partner relies on Associate, who has expertise in predictive coding and document management to supervise AlgorithmCo’s work.
During Moontech v. Suntech, AlgorithmCo makes a number of significant errors both in producing harmful documents that were arguably privileged and in failing to identify documents that would have been helpful to Suntech’s case. Associate worked closely and diligently with AlgorithmCo throughout and had failed to catch these mistakes. Partner, who did not understand the technology underlying Algorithm Co’s work, had not bothered to supervise Associate.
Suntech does not discover AlgorithmCo’s mistakes until after it loses at a trial where Moontech obtains a $3 billion verdict. After Suntech discovers the mistakes, it sues Associate, Partner, and Firm for malpractice, and also files disciplinary complaints against each of them.
Firm is:
A. subject to discipline if Associate and Partner were negligent.
B. subject to discipline if Associate was negligent.
C. subject to discipline if Partner was negligent.
D. not subject to discipline because Suntech agreed to responsibility for monitoring AlgorithmCo.
E. not subject to discipline even if Partner and Associate were negligent.
E. not subject to discipline even if Partner and Associate were negligent.
- Bank is seeking to foreclose on Client’s home. Client retains Fordham Legal Services for representation in preventing the foreclosure. Staff Attorney reasonably believes, but is not certain, that Client has diminished capacity. Staff Attorney worries that Client’s diminished capacity may result in poor financial decisions that will lead to Client losing Client’s home. Attorney asks Client for permission to tell Client’s adult children. Client refuses. Attorney decides that the best way to proceed is to inform the children and suggest that they seek a guardian for Client. Attorney is:
A. subject to discipline for disclosing Client’s confidences.
B. not subject to discipline because Attorney has diminished capacity.
C. subject to discipline because Attorney reasonably believes, but is not certain, that Client has diminished capacity.
D. not subject to discipline because Attorney may disclose Client’s confidences to Client’s children.
D. not subject to discipline because Attorney may disclose Client’s confidences to Client’s children.
- Before a forthcoming jury trial, Attorney hires a famous jury Expert to help Attorney prepare for voir dire. Expert searches Facebook, Instagram, and other social media sites for publicly available information about the potential jurors. When Expert finds any information warranting further investigation on these sites, Expert asks to friend or follow the potential juror in order to gain access to private information. Occasionally, Expert exchanges a brief message with the potential juror. Expert never mentions, or otherwise discusses, the pending trial. Expert also does not reveal that Expert works for Attorney. Is Attorney subject to discipline?
A. Yes because Expert did not reveal that Expert works for Attorney.
B. Yes because Expert should not have communicated with potential jurors.
C. No because Expert was careful not to discuss the pending case.
D. No because Expert, and not Attorney, conducted the investigation of potential jurors.
B. Yes because Expert should not have communicated with potential jurors.
- Swoosh is a website that answers legal questions and prepares legal documents through online, interactive software. After a few months, Swoosh realizes that some consumers want to ask a lawyer for additional help, either because the matter is complicated or the consumer wants to be careful. Swoosh creates a panel of outside lawyers. In doing so, it carefully screens all the lawyers, making sure that each is an expert. Before Swoosh refers a consumer to a lawyer, Swoosh asks the consumer to subscribe to a plan to pay a set amount each month for the opportunity to have two lawyer consultations each month. The consumer can cancel this payment plan at any time.
Is Swoosh subject to discipline?
A. No because Swoosh is neither a lawyer nor law firm.
B. No because Swoosh has carefully vetted the lawyers in the plan.
C. Yes because Swoosh is neither a lawyer nor a law firm.
D. Yes because Swoosh lacks the expertise to adequately police the work of the lawyers in the plan.
A. No because Swoosh is neither a lawyer nor law firm.
- Swoosh is a website that answers legal questions and prepares legal documents through online, interactive software. After a few months, Swoosh realizes that some consumers want to ask a lawyer additional help, either because the matter is complicated or the consumer wants to be careful. Swoosh creates a panel of outside lawyers. In doing so, it carefully screens all the lawyers, making sure that each is an expert. Before Swoosh refers a consumer to a lawyer, Swoosh asks the consumer to subscribe to a plan to pay a set amount each month for the opportunity to have two lawyer consultations each month. The consumer can cancel this payment plan at any time.
Are the lawyers who participate in Swoosh’s plan subject to discipline?
A. No if they provide competent services to their clients.
B. No because the clients pay for their services through a monthly payment plan.
C. Yes but only if they are employees of Swoosh.
D. Yes because Swoosh is soliciting clients on their behalf.
B. No because the clients pay for their services through a monthly payment plan.
- Grapefruit, an App developer, sues Orange, the owner of a popular App store, alleging that Orange has engaged in anti-competitive practices in the way it administers its App store. Lincoln & Center represents Orange. After three years of litigation, the court grants Orange’s motion to dismiss and Grapefruit appeals.
Associate is in the Lincoln & Center antitrust department during Grapefruit v. Orange. Associate does not work on the case but does attend antitrust department luncheons where colleagues occasionally discuss strategy in the case. Soon after the motion to dismiss was granted, Associate left Lincoln & Center to join Antitrust Litigators. On behalf of BrooklynTech, Antitrust Litigators begins a plaintiffs’ antitrust case against Orange based on the allegations similar to those in Grapefruit v. Orange. Which of the following is true?
A. Antitrust Litigators has a conflict only if Associate knows material information regarding Grapefruit v. Orange.
B. Antitrust Litigators has a conflict unless Orange consents.
C. Antitrust Litigators does not have a conflict because Associate did not work on the case.
D. Antitrust Litigators does not have a conflict because Associate was only an associate at Lincoln & Center.
A. Antitrust Litigators has a conflict only if Associate knows material information regarding Grapefruit v. Orange.
- Grapefruit, an App developer, sues Orange, the owner of a popular App store, alleging that Orange has engaged in anti-competitive practices in the way it administers its App store. Lincoln & Center represents Orange. After three years of litigation, the court grants Orange’s motion to dismiss and Grapefruit appeals. Partner and the entire team of lawyers that represents Orange leaves Lincoln & Center to join Fordham Associates and takes the Orange appeal with it. ABC seeks to retain Lincoln & Center to sue Orange on legal claims related to Orange’s App Store. Lincoln & Center:
A. is barred from representing ABC because the matter is substantially related to the earlier representation of Orange.
B. is permitted to represent ABC because Partner and her team are no longer part of the firm.
C. is barred from representing ABC under any circumstances.
D. is permitted to represent ABC only if no lawyer remaining in the firm has material information related to the matter.
D. is permitted to represent ABC only if no lawyer remaining in the firm has material information related to the matter.
. Grapefruit, an App developer, sues Orange, the owner of a popular App store, alleging that Orange has engaged in anti-competitive practices in the way it administers its App store. Lincoln & Center represents Orange. After three years of litigation, the court grants Orange’s motion to dismiss and Grapefruit appeals. Partner and the entire team of lawyers that represents Orange leaves Lincoln & Center to join Fordham Associates. Lincoln & Center retains the Orange appeal. XYZ approaches Fordham Associates to sue Orange for patent infringement related to Orange’s App store. Many of the facts that Partner and her team learned in their representation of Orange are relevant to the patent infringement case. Fordham Associates:
A. is permitted to represent XYZ because the legal claims are not the same or substantially related.
B. is permitted to represent XYZ because the firm did not represent Orange before Partner and her team joined the firm.
C. is barred from representing XYZ unless Orange consents.
D. is permitted to represent XYZ if the firm timely screens Partner and her team.
E. is barred from representing XYZ because the conflict of Partner and her team is imputed to the firm.
D. is permitted to represent XYZ if the firm timely screens Partner and her team.
- A trial judge appointed an attorney to represent a criminal defendant who was a member of a racist organization and charged with a felony for inciting violence. The attorney found the individual’s beliefs and conduct repugnant. The attorney also considers herself a neutral partisan who could competently and diligently represent any client. The attorney asks the court to be excused from the representation because the attorney found the client’s beliefs and conduct to be repugnant.
Is the attorney subject to discipline?
A. No, because the attorney found the individual’s beliefs and conduct repugnant.
B. No, because an attorney may refuse to take a representation for any reason.
C. Yes, because an attorney should not seek to avoid an appointment under these circumstances.
D. Yes, because an attorney should never refuse to represent a defendant when appointed by a court.
C. Yes, because an attorney should not seek to avoid an appointment under these circumstances.
- An attorney represented a house of worship in challenging a property tax assessment. Several months after the conclusion of the tax assessment representation, a local roofing business hired the attorney to bring an action against the church for failure to pay its bill for services. Prior to beginning the representation on behalf of the roofing business, the attorney contacted the only employee at the house of worship. The attorney explained that she was being asked to represent the local roofing company against the house of worship for unpaid bills. The attorney asked the employee if the house of worship had any objection to the attorney’s representation of the roofing business. The employee agreed to the attorney’s representation of the roofing business, realizing that there were very few attorneys in the area and that the house of worship had no money to pay the attorney to assist it with the collection action.
Which of the following is true?
A. The First Amendment prohibits the attorney from disclosing to the roofing company any information about the representation of the house of the worship.
B. The rules require the attorney to also inform the roofing business of the previous representation of the house of worship in the tax assessment matter.
C. The attorney is prohibited from representing the roofing company under these facts, even with the employee’s consent.
D. The attorney was not required to get consent from the house of worship to take the roofing case against the house of worship.
D. The attorney was not required to get consent from the house of worship to take the roofing case against the house of worship.
- Attorney received a call from a long-time Client who wished to update her will because the Client had contracted a Virus during a world-wide pandemic. Attorney visited Client, who was competent, at the hospital to revise the will. One week later, Attorney’s Spouse became seriously ill with symptoms that the Virus could have caused but which also could have resulted from a different disease. Spouse’s condition deteriorated and Attorney took spouse to the emergency room at their local hospital. The hospital staff asked Attorney whether Spouse or Attorney had contact with anyone with the Virus during the past month. Attorney answered yes, and provided Client’s name and hospital. Is the Attorney subject to discipline?
A. No because Attorney properly disclosed the information.
B. No because Attorney only disclosed Client’s name and their current location.
C. Yes because the information pertaining to Client was confidential.
D. Yes unless Attorney first asked for Client’s permission.
A. No because Attorney properly disclosed the information.
- A corporate employee was asked by his supervisor to engage in certain illegal activity. The employee met with corporation’s in-house counsel and reported the supervisor’s request. During the meeting, the employee acknowledged previously having committed certain illegal actions at the supervisor’s request. Which is the best course of action for the in-house counsel to take upon receiving this information?
A. Ask the employee to become an informant to determine how high up the chain of command the illegal activity goes.
B. Agree to represent the employee during the investigation.
C. Explain to the employee that the attorney represents the corporation and is not the employee’s lawyer.
D. Notify the corporation that he is no longer their attorney but is now representing the employee.
E. Tell the employee that he will be immune from prosecution for his past illegal activities since he was simply following orders from his supervisor.
C. Explain to the employee that the attorney represents the corporation and is not the employee’s lawyer.
- Attorney Center and Lawyer Lincoln are good friends at law school. Attorney Center was at the top of her law school class and served on the law review. Lawyer Lincoln attended the same school and was in the bottom quarter of the class and was not on any journal. At the time of graduation, Attorney and Lawyer have the same student loan debt. Attorney obtains her dream job – a high paying job at a large law firm. She works long hours, finds her work intellectually stimulating, and gets great reviews from senior lawyers. While she generally enjoys her work, the anxiety of her day-to-day interactions sometimes lead her to question her ability – and the long hours put a damper on her social life. Lawyer is unable to find a job by graduation and only obtains employment nine months later. Her dream job was a large corporate law firm and she is disappointed that her employment is with a small prosecutor’s office in a suburb. She works hard, enjoys being a prosecutor, and finds time to keep up with friends. She is more confident in her ability than she was at law school but is still unsure that she wants to work as a prosecutor for her entire career. She is disappointed by her salary which is approximately one-fourth of Attorney’s. Lawyer finds that she must be very frugal in order to pay for student loans each month. Based on what we reviewed in class, which of the following is true?
A. Lawyer is likely to find greater long-term career satisfaction than Attorney.
B. Because Attorney got significantly better grades than Lawyer, she is less likely to have developed substance abuse or mental illness in law school.
C. Attorney’s law review experience will be an important long run contributor to her well-being as a lawyer.
D. Attorney and Lawyer can do little outside of the office to significantly improve their job satisfaction.
E. All of the above.
F. None of the above.
A. Lawyer is likely to find greater long-term career satisfaction than Attorney.
- Attorney is admitted to the bar in the District of Columbia and works for the Civil Division of the Justice Department. Attorney hates having to defend the policies of a President whose policies she disdains. Attorney is able to transfer to the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Fordham where she will have a wider variety of cases. When Attorney appears in court, she makes sure to get admitted pro hac vice. Has Attorney committed unauthorized practice of law?
A. No because she continues to work for the United States Department of Justice.
B. No because she only appears in court when she is admitted pro hac vice.
C. No because lawyers for the federal government are not subject to state regulation.
D. Yes because she let her personal feelings interfere with her work as a lawyer.
E. Yes because she was not admitted to the bar in Fordham.
E. Yes because she was not admitted to the bar in Fordham.
- An attorney represents a client in a personal injury lawsuit against a driver of a truck that collided with the client’s car. In preparation for a deposition, the attorney interviewed the client about the collision. Client stated that the truck had collided with her car because the truck driver had failed to stop at a stop sign and that the client had obeyed all traffic laws. However, as the interview progressed, the attorney noticed a number of inconsistencies in the client’s story. The attorney now reasonably believes, but is uncertain, that the client is lying about the accident. The deposition is scheduled for tomorrow, and the client intends to testify to her version of the story.
May the attorney refuse to allow the client to testify at the deposition?
A. No, because the duty not to offer false evidence does not apply to depositions.
B. No, because the attorney is not certain that her client intends to provide false testimony.
C. Yes, because the attorney is prohibited from offering false evidence in a proceeding.
D. Yes, because the attorney reasonably believes that client will give false testimony at the deposition.
D. Yes, because the attorney reasonably believes that client will give false testimony at the deposition.
- Which of the following is true of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s view of moral responsibility?
A. It is consistent with professionalism.
B. It is consistent with the dominant conception.
C. It is consistent with both professionalism and the dominant conception.
D. It is inconsistent with both professionalism and the dominant conception.
D. It is inconsistent with both professionalism and the dominant conception.
