III. Conflicts Of Interests & The Duty Of Loyalty
Quiz for Section III: Conflicts of Interests & the Duty of Loyalty
Questions and Answers
- 1.
While an assistant district attorney, Attorney Alpha was in charge of the presentation before a grand jury of evidence that led to an indictment charging thirty-two defendants with conspiracy to sell controlled drugs. Shortly after the grand jury returned the indictments, Alpha resigned as assistant district attorney and became an associate in the law office of Attorney Beta, a sole practitioner. At the time of such association, Beta was the attorney for Deft, one of the indicted co-defendants. Is it proper for Attorney Beta to continue to represent Deft?
- A.
Yes, if Alpha does not reveal to Beta any confidence or secret learned while an assistant district attorney.
- B.
Yes, because a public prosecutor must make timely disclosure to the defense attorney of any exculpatory evidence.
- C.
No, unless Alpha agrees not to participate in the representation of Deft.
- D.
No, because Alpha had substantial responsibility for the indictment of Deft.
Correct Answer
D. No, because Alpha had substantial responsibility for the indictment of Deft.Explanation
A lawyer cannot represent a private party against a government agency in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while working for the government, unless the government agency gives its consent, in writing, to the representation [MR 1.11(c)]. As a general rule, when one attorney is disqualified, the whole firm is also disqualified. This is called imputed disqualification [MR 1.10(a)]. Imputed disqualification is based on a presumption that all partners and associates in a firm know about all cases. As such, the knowledge of one lawyer working on a case is imputed to all the others while that lawyer is at the firm [MR 1.10, cmt. [3]].Rate this question:
-
- 2.
Attorney was formerly employed by Insurance Company as a lawyer solely to handle fire insurance claims. While so employed she investigated a fire loss claim of Claimant against Insurance Company. Attorney is now in private practice. Assume the claim has not been settled and Claimant consults Attorney and asks Attorney either to represent him or refer him to another lawyer for suit on the claim. Which of the following would be proper for Attorney to do? I. Refuse to discuss the matter with Claimant. II. Represent Claimant. III. Refer Claimant to an associate in her law firm, provided Attorney does not share in any fee. IV. Give Claimant a list of lawyers who Attorney knows are competent and specialize in such claims.
- A.
I only
- B.
I and II, but not III or IV
- C.
I and III, but not II or IV
- D.
I and IV, but not II or III
Correct Answer
D. I and IV, but not II or IIIExplanation
"A lawyer representing an organization represents the organization as an entity through its duly authorized constituents, but does not represent the individual employees. A lawyer must act in the best interests of the organization. A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter may not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents in writing after consultation [MR 1.9(a)]. As a general rule, when one attorney is disqualified from representing a client, the whole firm is disqualified. This is called imputed disqualification [MR 1.10(a)]. Imputed disqualification is based on the presumption all partners and associates in a firm know about all cases. The knowledge of one lawyer working on a case is imputed to all the others while that lawyer is at the firm [MR 1.10, cmt. [3]]. I and IV are proper because lawyers in the United States are generally free to refuse service to any person for any reason. A lawyer may refer clients to another lawyer. II is not proper because as a former employee of Insurance Company, Insurance Company was Attorney?s former client. While an employee of Insurance Company, Attorney worked on the same matter, which is not settled, and the subject of Claimant's suit. Attorney may not represent Claimant, who has interests adverse to Insurance Company, unless Insurance Company consents in writing after consultation.III is not proper because an associate in Attorney's firm is disqualified from representing Claimant based on imputed disqualification.
"Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Attorney was formerly employed by Insurance Company as a lawyer solely to handle fire insurance claims. While so employed she investigated a fire loss claim of Claimant against Insurance Company. Attorney is now in private practice. Assume that the original claim was settled. One year after Attorney left the employ of Insurance Company, Claimant slipped and fell in Insurance Company's office. Claimant now asks Attorney to represent him or refer him to another lawyer for suit on the \slip and fall\" claim. Which of the following would be proper for Attorney to do? I. Refuse to discuss the matter with Claimant. II. Represent Claimant. III. Give Claimant a list of lawyers who Attorney knows are competent and specialize in such claims."
- A.
I only
- B.
I and II, but not III
- C.
I and III, but not II
- D.
I, II, and III
Correct Answer
D. I, II, and IIIExplanation
"Lawyers in the United States are generally free to refuse service to any person for any reason. A lawyer may refer clients to another lawyer. A lawyer representing an organization represents the organization as an entity through its duly authorized constituents, but does not represent the individual employees. A lawyer must act in the best interests of the organization. A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter may not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents in writing after consultation [MR 1.9(a)]. I is proper, but II and III are also proper, so answer choice A is not the best choice.II is proper because as a former employee of Insurance Company, Insurance Company was Attorney's former client. Attorney may not represent Claimant relating to the fire loss claim, which Attorney investigated, and where Claimant has interests adverse to Insurance Company, unless Insurance Company consents in writing after consultation. The fire loss claim, however, has been settled and Claimant is asking Attorney to represent Claimant in the "slip and fall" claim, not the same or a substantially related matter to any work Attorney did while employed by Insurance Company. Therefore, Attorney can represent Claimant.
"Rate this question:
-
- 4.
Attorney represented Husband and Wife in the purchase of a business financed by contributions from their respective separate funds. The business was jointly operated by Husband and Wife after acquisition. After several years, a dispute arose over the management of the business. Husband and Wife sought Attorney's advice, and the matter was settled on the basis of an agreement drawn by Attorney and signed by Husband and Wife. Later, Wife asked Attorney to represent her in litigation against Husband based on the claim that Husband was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in the negotiations for the prior settlement agreement. Is it proper for Attorney to represent Wife in this matter?
- A.
Yes, if all information relevant to the litigation was received by Attorney in the presence of both Husband and Wife.
- B.
Yes, if there is reason to believe Husband misled both Wife and Attorney at the time of the prior agreement.
- C.
No, because Attorney had previously acted for both parties in reaching the agreement now in dispute.
- D.
No, unless Husband is now represented by independent counsel.
Correct Answer
C. No, because Attorney had previously acted for both parties in reaching the agreement now in dispute.Explanation
"A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter may not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents in writing after consultation [MR 1.9(a)]. Husband and Wife are former clients of Attorney. Wife?s litigation relates to the same agreement Attorney drafted for Husband and Wife. Wife's interests are adverse to the interests of Husband. As such, Attorney may not represent Wife, unless Husband consents in writing after consultation.
"Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Alpha and Beta are members of the bar in the same community but have never practiced together. Beta is a candidate in a contested election for judicial office. Beta is opposed by Delta, another lawyer in the community. Alpha believes Beta is better qualified than Delta for the judiciary and is supporting Beta's candidacy. Which of the following would be proper for Alpha? I. Solicit public endorsements for Beta's candidacy by other attorneys in the community who know Beta, including those who are likely to appear before Beta if Beta becomes a judge. II. Solicit contributions to Beta's campaign committee from other attorneys in the community, including those who are likely to appear before Beta if Beta becomes a judge. III. Publicly oppose the candidacy of Delta.
- A.
I only
- B.
I and II, but not III
- C.
I and III, but not II
- D.
I, II, and III
Correct Answer
D. I, II, and IIIExplanation
To protect the integrity of the judiciary, a lawyer is specifically prohibited from making a statement s/he knows to be false, or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity, concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicative officer, public legal officer, or candidate for appointment to judicial or legal office [MR 8.2(a)]. A lawyer may not make a statement the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial office [MR 8.2]. A lawyer's assessment of judges and judicial candidates is relied on in evaluating such persons' professional or personal fitness for judicial or legal office. A false statement or opinion that is not candid can unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice [MR 8.2, cmt. [1]]. Under MR 8.4, it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. A judge or judicial candidate may not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions other than through a campaign committee as authorized under CJC 4.4. I is proper because the activities are not prejudicial to the administration of justice. II is proper because soliciting funds for Beta?s campaign is not prejudicial to the administration of justice. Beta may accept contributions through a campaign committee. III is proper because Alpha may publicly oppose Delta's candidacy as long as Alpha does not make any statement Alpha knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of Delta.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Attorney, who had represented Testator for many years, prepared Testator's will and acted as one of the two subscribing witnesses to its execution. The will gave 10% of Testator's estate to Testator's housekeeper, 10% to Testator's son and sole heir, Son, and the residue to charity. Upon Testator's death one year later, Executor, the executor named in the will, asked Attorney to represent him in probating the will and administering the estate. At that time Executor informed Attorney that Son had notified him that he would contest the probate of the will on the grounds that Testator lacked the required mental capacity at the time the will was executed. Attorney believes that Testator was fully competent at all times and will so testify, if called as a witness. The other subscribing witness to Testator's will predeceased Testator. Is it proper for Attorney to represent Executor in the probate of the will?
- A.
Yes, because Attorney is the sole surviving witness to the execution of the will.
- B.
Yes, because Attorney's testimony will support the validity of the will.
- C.
No, because Attorney will be called to testify on a contested issue of fact.
- D.
No, because Attorney will be representing an interest adverse to Testator's heir at law.
Correct Answer
C. No, because Attorney will be called to testify on a contested issue of fact.Explanation
MR 3.7(a) states a lawyer may not serve as an advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness relating to a contested issue.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Attorney Alpha currently represents Builder, a building contractor who is the plaintiff in a suit to recover for breach of a contract to build a house. Builder also has pending before the zoning commission a petition to rezone property Builder owns. Builder is represented by Attorney Beta in the zoning matter. Neighbor, who owns property adjoining that of Builder, has asked Alpha to represent Neighbor in opposing Builder's petition for rezoning. Neighbor knows that Alpha represents Builder in the contract action. Is it proper for Alpha to represent Neighbor in the zoning matter?
- A.
Yes, if there is no common issue of law or fact between the two matters.
- B.
Yes, because one matter is a judicial proceeding and the other is an administrative proceeding.
- C.
No, because Alpha is currently representing Builder in the contract action.
- D.
No, if there is a possibility that both matters will be appealed to the same court.
Correct Answer
C. No, because Alpha is currently representing Builder in the contract action.Explanation
"Under MR 1.7, a lawyer must not represent a client if the representation is directly adverse to another client or materially limited by the responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third party, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless (1) the lawyer reasonably believes she will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client, (2) the representation is not prohibited by law, (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the same lawyer, and (4) each client gives informed consent in writing. As such, Alpha may not represent Neighbor because there is a conflict of interest. The representation of Neighbor involves an assertion of a claim by Neighbor against Builder, and Alpha does not have consent from Neighbor or Builder.
"Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Attorney was employed as a lawyer by the state Environmental Control Commission (ECC) for ten years. During the last two years of her employment, Attorney spent most of her time in the preparation, trial, and appeal of a case involving the discharge by Deftco of industrial effluent into a river in the state. The judgment in the case, which is now final, contained a finding of a continuing and knowing discharge of a dangerous substance into a major stream by Deftco and assessed a penalty of $25,000. The governing statute also provides for private actions for damages by persons injured by the discharge of the effluent. Attorney recently left the employment of ECC and went into private practice. Three landowners have brought private damage actions against Deftco. They claim their truck farms were contaminated because they irrigated them with water that contained effluent from dangerous chemicals discharged by Deftco. Deftco has asked Attorney to represent it in defense of the three pending actions. Is Attorney subject to discipline if she represents Deftco in these actions?
- A.
Yes, unless the judgment in the prior case is determinative of Deftco's liability.
- B.
Yes, because Attorney had substantial responsibility in the matter while employed by ECC.
- C.
No, because Attorney has acquired special competence in the matter.
- D.
No, if all information acquired by Attorney while representing ECC is now a matter of public record.
Correct Answer
B. Yes, because Attorney had substantial responsibility in the matter while employed by ECC.Explanation
A former government lawyer can join a firm that has clients with direct conflicts with the government agency, and about which the attorney possesses protected information [MR 1.11(a)]. The lawyer is prohibited from representing a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer has personally and substantially participated as a public officer or employee [MR 1.11(a)]. Attorney worked for ECC for ten years, and for two years personally and substantially participated in the preparation, trial, and appeal of the Deftco case.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
Attorney Alpha has been employed as an assistant prosecutor in the district attorney's office during the time that an investigation of Deft was being conducted by that office. Alpha took no part in the investigation and had no knowledge of the facts other than those disclosed in the press. Two months ago, Alpha left the district attorney's office and formed a partnership with Attorney Beta. Last week, Deft was indicted for offenses allegedly disclosed by the prior investigation. Deft asked Alpha to represent him. Alpha declined to do so, but suggested Beta. Is Beta subject to discipline if Beta represents Deft?
- A.
Yes, because Alpha was employed in the district attorney's office while the investigation of Deft was being conducted.
- B.
Yes, unless the district attorney's office is promptly notified and consents to the representation.
- C.
No, unless Alpha participates in the representation or shares in the fee.
- D.
No, because Alpha had no responsibility for or knowledge of the facts of the investigation of Deft.
Correct Answer
D. No, because Alpha had no responsibility for or knowledge of the facts of the investigation of Deft.Explanation
A former government lawyer can join a firm that has clients with direct conflicts with the government agency, and about which the attorney possesses protected information [MR 1.11(a)]. The lawyer is prohibited from representing a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer has personally and substantially participated as a public officer or employee [MR 1.11(a)]. Other lawyers in the former government lawyer?s new firm may handle matters the former government lawyer participated in while in public service (1) if the former government lawyer is effectively screened from participation in the matter, (2) if the former government lawyer is not apportioned any part of the fee, and (3) written notice is promptly given to the government agency to enable it to ascertain compliance with MR 1.11. As such, Alpha is not disqualified from representing Deft because Alpha took no part in the investigation and had no knowledge of the facts other than those disclosed in the press.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Able, Baker, and Carter had been indicted for the armed robbery of the cashier of a grocery store. Together, Able and Baker met with Attorney and asked Attorney to represent them. Attorney then interviewed Able and Baker separately. Each told Attorney that the robbery had been committed by Carter while Able and Baker sat in Carter's car outside the store, that Carter had said he needed some cigarettes, and that each knew nothing of Carter's plan to rob the cashier. Attorney agreed to represent both Able and Baker. One week prior to the trial date, Able told Attorney that he wanted to plea bargain and that he was prepared to turn state's evidence and testify that Baker had loaned Carter the gun Carter used in the robbery. Able also said that he and Baker had shared in the proceeds of the robbery with Carter. It is proper for Attorney to:
- A.
Request court approval to withdraw as lawyer for both Able and Baker.
- B.
Continue to represent Baker and, with Able's consent and court approval, withdraw as Able's lawyer.
- C.
Continue to represent Able and, with Baker's consent and court approval, withdraw as Baker's lawyer.
- D.
Continue to represent Able and Baker, but not call Able as a witness.
Correct Answer
A. Request court approval to withdraw as lawyer for both Able and Baker.Explanation
Under MR 1.16(a)(1), an attorney must seek judicial permission to withdraw from the representation to avoid violating MR 1.7. In this case, Attorney has a conflict of interest under MR 1.7 and may not continue to represent both clients. If Attorney negotiates a plea bargain for Able, Attorney will be prejudicing Baker, whereas if Attorney fails to negotiate the plea bargain, she will be prejudicing Able.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Attorney represents Bank in its commercial loan transactions. Corp has applied to Bank for a loan of $900,000 to be secured by a lien on Corp's inventory. The inventory, consisting of small items, constantly turns over. The security documents are complex and if improperly drawn could result in an invalid lien. Bank has approved the loan on the condition that Attorney prepare the necessary security instruments and that Corp pay Attorney's fees. This arrangement is customary in the city in which Attorney's law office and Bank are located. It is obvious to Attorney that he can adequately represent the interests of both Corp and Bank. After Corp and Bank consulted with other lawyers, each consented in writing to the representation. Is it proper for Attorney to prepare the security documents under these circumstances?
- A.
Yes, because Bank and Corp have given their informed consent to the arrangement.
- B.
Yes, because the arrangement is customary in the community.
- C.
No, because Attorney's fees are being paid by Corp not Bank.
- D.
No, because Corp and Bank have differing interests.
Correct Answer
A. Yes, because Bank and Corp have given their informed consent to the arrangement.Explanation
"A lawyer must not represent a client if the representation is directly adverse to another client or materially limited by the responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third party, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless (1) the lawyer reasonably believes she will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client, (2) the representation is not prohibited by law, (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the same lawyer, and (4) each client gives informed consent in writing [MR 1.7]. Here, Attorney has a conflict of interest under MR 1.7(a) arising out of the representation of two clients in the same transaction—Bank, the lender, and Corp, the borrower. MR 1.7(b) allows Attorney to represent both clients with informed consent, confirmed in writing, because Attorney reasonably believes he can competently and diligently represent both.
"Rate this question:
-
- 12.
Attorney in his capacity as part-time assistant county attorney represented County in a criminal non-support proceeding against Husband. This proceeding concluded with an order directing Husband to pay or be jailed. Husband refused to pay. Attorney, pursuant to applicable rules, is permitted to maintain a private law practice. Wife has discovered some assets of Husband. Attorney now has accepted employment from Wife to maintain a civil action against Husband to recover out of those assets arrearages due to Wife under Wife's support decree. Attorney did not obtain consent from the county attorney or from Husband to represent Wife in the civil action. Is Attorney subject to discipline for accepting employment in Wife's civil action against Husband?
- A.
Yes, because Attorney did not obtain Husband's consent to the representation.
- B.
Yes, because Attorney had personal and substantial responsibility in the first proceeding.
- C.
No, because Attorney's responsibility in his public employment has terminated.
- D.
No, because Attorney is representing Wife's interest in both the criminal and the civil proceedings.
Correct Answer
B. Yes, because Attorney had personal and substantial responsibility in the first proceeding.Explanation
"A former government lawyer is prohibited from representing a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer has personally and substantially participated as a public officer or employee [MR 1.11(a)]. A lawyer who had personal involvement will be disqualified even if the new representation is not adverse to the government. Here, Attorney was a former government lawyer because Attorney worked as a part–time assistant county attorney. Attorney represented County in a criminal non–support proceeding against Husband. The civil action between Wife and Husband was related to the criminal case in which Attorney personally and substantially participated so Attorney would be subject to discipline for accepting employment in Wife's civil action against Husband.
"Rate this question:
-
- 13.
Attorney is representing Plaintiff in a paternity suit against Defendant. Both Plaintiff and Defendant are well-known public figures, and the suit has attracted much publicity. Attorney has been billing Plaintiff at an agreed hourly fee for his services. Recently, Plaintiff told Attorney, "I'm going broke paying you. Why don't you let me assign you all media rights to books, movies, or television programs based on my suit as full payment for all services you will render me between now and the conclusion of the suit?" Attorney replied, "I'll consider it, but first you should seek independent advice about whether such an arrangement is in your own best interests. Why don't you do so and call me next week." Is Attorney subject to discipline if he agrees to Plaintiff's offer?
- A.
Yes, because the amount received by Attorney would be contingent on the receipts from the sale of media rights.
- B.
Yes, because Attorney has not concluded the representation of Plaintiff.
- C.
No, because the paternity suit is a civil and not a criminal matter.
- D.
No, if Plaintiff received independent advice before entering into the agreement.
Correct Answer
B. Yes, because Attorney has not concluded the representation of Plaintiff.Explanation
"A lawyer may not obtain or negotiate literary or media rights to a portrayal or account regarding a pending representation prior to the conclusion of the representation [MR 1.8(d)]. However, it is permissible to obtain as a fee a percentage of independent literary material that is the subject of the representation. In this case, Attorney may not agree to Plaintiff's offer because the paternity suit is still pending.
"Rate this question:
-
- 14.
Four years ago, Attorney represented Husband and Wife, both high school teachers, in the purchase of a new home. Since then, Attorney prepared their tax returns and drafted their wills. Recently, Husband called Attorney and told her that he and Wife had decided to divorce, but wanted the matter to be resolved amicably. Husband stated that they were planning to file and process their own divorce case, utilizing the state's new streamlined divorce procedure, applicable in "no-fault" cases where there are no minor children. Husband asked if Attorney would agree to work with them to prepare a financial settlement agreement that could be presented to the divorce court, reminding Attorney that the couple's assets were modest and that they wanted to "split it all down the middle." After considering the risks of a conflict of interest arising in this limited representation, Attorney wrote to the couple separately, and advised each that he or she might be better off with separate lawyers, but that Attorney would assist with the financial settlement agreement, charging an hourly fee of $140 per hour, provided that they were in complete agreement and remained so. Attorney advised that if a conflict developed, or if either party was dissatisfied or uncomfortable about continuing with the joint representation, Attorney would withdraw and would not represent either party from that point forward, forcing them to start all over again with separate lawyers. Finally, Attorney cautioned Husband and Wife that Attorney would be representing both of them equally, would not and could not favor one or the other, and that their separate communications to her could not be kept confidential from the other party. Both Husband and Wife signed their individual copy of the letter, consenting to the joint representation, and returned them to Attorney. Was it proper for Attorney to accept the representation on these terms?
- A.
Yes, because there was little risk that the interests of either Husband or Wife would be materially prejudiced if no settlement was reached.
- B.
Yes, because Attorney had previously represented Husband and Wife in their joint affairs.
- C.
No, because Attorney conditioned representation upon receiving a waiver of client confidentiality.
- D.
No, unless Attorney advised both Husband and Wife, in writing, that they should seek independent counsel before agreeing to enter into the financial settlement on the terms proposed.
Correct Answer
A. Yes, because there was little risk that the interests of either Husband or Wife would be materially prejudiced if no settlement was reached.Explanation
"Under MR 1.7, a lawyer must not represent a client if the representation is directly adverse to another client or materially limited by the responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third party, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless (1) the lawyer reasonably believes she will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client, (2) the representation is not prohibited by law, (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the same lawyer, and (4) each client gives informed consent in writing. A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances, and if the client gives informed consent [MR 1.2(c), cmt. [7]]. Here, the representation was proper because it was reasonable for Attorney to believe Attorney was able to provide competent and diligent representation to both Husband and Wife. The representation did not involve the assertion of a claim by Husband against Wife because the parties used the state's divorce procedure applicable to "no–fault" cases, wanted to resolve the matter amicably, and wanted to "split it all down the middle." They engaged Attorney to assist with a financial settlement agreement, not litigation. The clients' consent was informed and in writing.
"Rate this question:
-
- 15.
Attorney represents ten plaintiffs who were injured when a train operated by Railroad was derailed. Railroad has offered Attorney a $500,000 lump sum settlement for the ten plaintiffs. Attorney has determined a division of the $500,000 among the ten plaintiffs with the amount paid each plaintiff dependent on the nature and extent of that person's injuries. Attorney believes the division is fair to each plaintiff. Railroad will not settle any of the claims unless all are settled. Attorney has told each plaintiff the total amount Railroad is prepared to pay, the amount that the individual will receive, and the basis on which that amount was calculated. Attorney has not told any plaintiff the amount to be received by any other plaintiff. Attorney believes that if Attorney reveals to each plaintiff the amount of each settlement, there is danger that some plaintiffs will think that they are not getting enough in relation to the amounts others will receive and the entire settlement will be upset. Each of the plaintiffs has agreed to his or her settlement. Is Attorney subject to discipline if Attorney effects such a settlement?
- A.
Yes, because Attorney is aiding the lawyer for Railroad in making a lump sum settlement.
- B.
Yes, because no individual plaintiff knows the amount to be received by any other plaintiff.
- C.
No, if to disclose all settlements to each plaintiff might jeopardize the entire settlement.
- D.
No, if the amount received by each plaintiff is fair and each plaintiff is satisfied.
Correct Answer
B. Yes, because no individual plaintiff knows the amount to be received by any other plaintiff.Explanation
"Before any settlement offer or plea bargain is made or accepted on behalf of multiple clients, the lawyer must inform each client about all the material terms of the settlement, including what the other clients will receive or pay if the settlement or plea offer is accepted [MR 1.8(g)]. Here, the facts provide an aggregate settlement of the clients' claims. MR 1.8(g) requires Attorney to obtain the clients' informed consent, after disclosing "the existence and nature of all the claims" and "the participation of each person in the settlement."
"Rate this question:
-
- 16.
Four years ago, Alpha was a judge in a state court of general jurisdiction and heard the civil case of Plaintiff against Defendant in which Plaintiff prevailed and secured a judgment for $50,000 which was sustained on appeal. Since then Alpha has resigned from the bench and returned to private practice. Defendant has filed suit to enjoin enforcement of the judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud in its procurement. Plaintiff has now asked Alpha to represent Plaintiff in defending the suit to enjoin enforcement. Is it proper for Alpha to accept the representation of Plaintiff in this matter?
- A.
Yes, because Alpha would be upholding the decision of the court.
- B.
Yes, if Alpha's conduct of the first trial will not be in issue.
- C.
No, unless Alpha believes the present suit is brought in bad faith.
- D.
No, because Alpha had acted in a judicial capacity on the merits of the original case.
Correct Answer
D. No, because Alpha had acted in a judicial capacity on the merits of the original case.Explanation
"A lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer or law clerk to such a person or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral, unless all parties to the proceeding give informed consent, confirmed in writing [MR 1.12(a)]. Here, Alpha may not represent Plaintiff in a suit to enjoin enforcement of a judgment Alpha participated personally and substantially as a judge.
"Rate this question:
-
- 17.
Two years ago, Attorney was employed by State's Department of Transportation (DOT) to search title to several tracts of land. Attorney has not been employed by DOT during the last year. Recently, DOT instituted proceedings to condemn a tract, owned by Owner, for a new highway route. Owner asked Attorney to represent her in obtaining the highest amount of compensation for the condemnation. Owner's tract is one of the tracts on which Attorney searched title two years ago. Attorney remembers that Engineer, a DOT engineer, once drafted a confidential memorandum advising against running a new highway across Owner's land because of potential adverse environmental impact. Because of this information, Attorney believes it is possible to prevent the condemnation of Owner's land or to increase the settlement amount. It is proper for Attorney to:
- A.
Represent Owner on the issue of damages only and not disclose the information that might prevent the condemnation.
- B.
Represent Owner and attempt to prevent the condemnation by using the information about the adverse environmental impact.
- C.
Refuse to represent Owner but disclose to Owner the information about the adverse environmental impact.
- D.
Refuse to represent Owner and not disclose the information about the adverse environmental impact.
Correct Answer
D. Refuse to represent Owner and not disclose the information about the adverse environmental impact.Explanation
MR 1.11(a)(1) provides that a lawyer who was formerly employed by a government agency may not later represent a client "in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially" as a public employee, unless the government agency consents. Having participated personally and substantially in an early stage of the condemnation matter by conducting a title search on Owner's property, Attorney may not now represent Owner in opposing or seeking additional damages for the condemnation. Under MR 1.11(a)(2) and MR 1.9(c), a lawyer who was formerly employed by the government must not reveal information relating to a former representation. Attorney may not disclose the information learned while working at the DOT about the adverse environmental impact.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Judge Alpha has recently resigned from the state trial court bench. While she was a judge and supervising activity in cases pending before Judge Beta, who was on vacation, Alpha entered an administrative order changing the courtroom in which the case of Able v. Baker was to be tried. After trial and appeal, the case was remanded for a new trial. The plaintiff in Able v. Baker has now decided to change lawyers and has asked Alpha to try the case. Will Alpha be subject to discipline if she tries this case on behalf of the plaintiff?
- A.
Yes, because Alpha acted officially as a judge with respect to an aspect of the case.
- B.
Yes, because Alpha would try the case before a judge of the court on which Alpha previously sat.
- C.
No, because Alpha did not act as a judge with respect to a substantial matter or on the merits of the case.
- D.
No, because any information that Alpha learned about the case while acting as a judge was a matter of public record.
Correct Answer
C. No, because Alpha did not act as a judge with respect to a substantial matter or on the merits of the case.Explanation
Under MR 1.12(a), except as stated in MR 1.12(d), a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer or law clerk to such a person or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral, unless all parties to the proceeding give informed consent, confirmed in writing. Alpha may represent the plaintiff under MR 1.12(a) because Alpha did not participate substantially in the matter while an acting judge. Alpha merely entered an incidental administrative order unrelated to the merits of the lawsuit.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
Attorney was retained by Defendant to represent him in a paternity suit. Aunt, Defendant's aunt, believed the suit was unfounded and motivated by malice. Aunt sent Attorney a check for $1,000 and asked Attorney to apply it to the payment of Defendant's fee. Aunt told Attorney not to tell Defendant of the payment because "Defendant is too proud to accept gifts, but I know he really needs the money." Is it proper for Attorney to accept Aunt's check?
- A.
Yes, if Aunt does not attempt to influence Attorney's conduct of the case.
- B.
Yes, if Attorney's charges to Defendant are reduced accordingly.
- C.
No, because Aunt is attempting to finance litigation to which she is not a party.
- D.
No, unless Attorney first informs Defendant and obtains Defendant's consent to retain the payment.
Correct Answer
D. No, unless Attorney first informs Defendant and obtains Defendant's consent to retain the payment.Explanation
Under MR 1.8(f), a third party may pay for a client's representation only if: (1) the client gives informed consent, (2) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship, and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by MR 1.6. Here, Aunt is a third party payor. Attorney may accept Aunt's check if Attorney first informs Defendant and obtains Defendant's consent.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
Five years ago, an attorney represented a seller in the sale of the seller's home. The attorney has not represented the seller since that time. Recently the attorney was approached by the seller's partner in a venture capital company formed two years ago. The partner and the seller have agreed to dissolve their partnership but cannot agree on the terms of the dissolution. The partner asked the attorney to sue the seller for an accounting of partnership assets. If the attorney accepts the representation, is the attorney subject to disqualification?
- A.
Yes, because the representation is directly adverse to the seller.
- B.
Yes, unless at the time of the sale of the seller's home, the seller agreed that the attorney would not subsequently be precluded from representing other clients in suits against the seller.
- C.
No, because the partnership dissolution is unrelated to the sale of the seller's home.
- D.
No, unless the seller sold the home while in the partnership with the partner.
Correct Answer
C. No, because the partnership dissolution is unrelated to the sale of the seller's home.Explanation
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter may not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents in writing after consultation [MR 1.9(a)]. The attorney may represent the seller's partner because the partnership dissolution is unrelated to the sale of the seller's home.
"Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Apr 07, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Mar 25, 2014Quiz Created by
TestMax
- Adult Quizzes
- Age Quizzes
- Antisocial Quizzes
- Boy Quizzes
- Bullying Quizzes
- Clan Quizzes
- Communism Quizzes
- Community Quizzes
- Crime Quizzes
- Cultural Assimilation Quizzes
- Death Quizzes
- Destiny Quizzes
- Dictator Quizzes
- Disability Quizzes
- Environment Quizzes
- Ethnicity Quizzes
- Etiquette Quizzes
- Event Quizzes
- Feminism Quizzes
- Festival Quizzes
- Fraternity Quizzes
- Future Quizzes
- Gay Quizzes
- Generation Quizzes
- Girl Quizzes
- Goth Quizzes
- Homelessness Quizzes
- Human Rights Quizzes
- Humanity Quizzes
- Kid Quizzes
- Labor Quizzes
- Law Quizzes
- Lesbian Quizzes
- LGBT Quizzes
- Lifestyle Quizzes
- Man Quizzes
- Mature Quizzes
- Military Quizzes
- Morality Quizzes
- Movement Quizzes
- Museum Quizzes
- Mythology Quizzes
- Paranormal Quizzes
- Peer Pressure Quizzes
- People Quizzes
- Politics Quizzes
- POSH Quizzes
- Religion Quizzes
- Romanticism Quizzes
- Security Quizzes
- Social Quizzes
- Social Science Quizzes
- Spirituality Quizzes
- Tribe Quizzes
- Wedding Quizzes
- Work Quizzes
- Youth Quizzes
Back to top