Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
A few months after being elected Senator, Cliffton was charged by the federal government with tax evasion. The whole country focused in on the case talk shows featuring politicians enjoyed skyrocketing ratings, the kids on MTV felt the need to discuss the case in daily news briefings, and even the Animal Planet station rearranged its regular schedule to accommodate news from the Cliffton front. The federal prosecutor assigned to the case served a subpoena requiring Cliffton's attorney to turn over some records of Cliffton's savings accounts that Cliffton had delivered to her attorney. The attorney refused to turn over the records. The prosecutor tried to compel production. What will the court do?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct A defendant may not turn over documents to her attorney assuming that doing so will provide attorney-client privilege protection of the documents. The attorney-client privilege protects the communication of information, and not the information itself. The government has a right to subpoena pre-existing business records, and in doing so the government would not be violating the attorney-client privilege, or the right against self-incrimination (choice d). Choice (a) is incorrect because the bank records may still enjoy an element of confidentiality. For example, the bank where the savings are held would probably be required to keep the records out of the eyes of the public. Remember that 'confidentiality' is not the same as 'privileged,' however ' just because documents may enjoy confidential status with a bank does not mean that a defendant can invoke a privilege to keep bank records out of the government's hands. Here, choice (b) is correct-- there is no attorney-client privilege problem with turning over the bank records, and as such, the government may compel production.
Incorrect! A defendant may not turn over documents to her attorney assuming that doing so will provide attorney-client privilege protection of the documents. The attorney-client privilege protects the communication of information, and not the information itself. The government has a right to subpoena pre-existing business records, and in doing so the government would not be violating the attorney-client privilege, or the right against self-incrimination (choice d). Choice (a) is incorrect because the bank records may still enjoy an element of confidentiality. For example, the bank where the savings are held would probably be required to keep the records out of the eyes of the public. Remember that 'confidentiality' is not the same as 'privileged,' however ' just because documents may enjoy confidential status with a bank does not mean that a defendant can invoke a privilege to keep bank records out of the government's hands. Here, choice (b) is correct-- there is no attorney-client privilege problem with turning over the bank records, and as such, the government may compel production.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Russ Crewe, a big movie star, was walking on a sidewalk in New York City on the Upper West Side when he slipped on some ice outside The Bagel Shop, fell flat on his face and fractured his cranium, losing his front teeth in the process. Doctors also decided his nose had to be amputated when gangrene later got a hold of it. He sued The Bagel Shop's owner for negligence. The owner claimed that the ice had just formed an hour or so before Crewe slipped on it, and that he, the owner, had scraped the ice twice before on the day of Crewe's career-ending injury. Apparently the owner had sought legal advice and representation by one Attorney Atul before deciding on Attorney Beeg. Plaintiff Crewe's attorney found out about the owner's meeting with Atul and decided he'd put Atul on the stand and get him to tell the court what he knows about the owner's actions on the fateful day of the injury. Beeg objects to the testimony. How would the court rule on admissibility?
Correct Confidential communications made to an attorney in the course of seeking legal advice will be protected by the attorney-client privilege if disclosure by the attorney is requested. Choice (c) is wrong because the attorney need not actually represent the client for the client to be entitled to invoke the privilege. (d) is incorrect because Atul's testimony would still be relevant to the case ' though it is not here available if the owner invokes the privilege.
Incorrect! Confidential communications made to an attorney in the course of seeking legal advice will be protected by the attorney-client privilege if disclosure by the attorney is requested. Choice (c) is wrong because the attorney need not actually represent the client for the client to be entitled to invoke the privilege. (d) is incorrect because Atul's testimony would still be relevant to the case ' though it is not here available if the owner invokes the privilege.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Benny Hur sues Oliver Kromwhale in tort after Kromwhale, driving recklessly, slammed into Hur's car on the driver's side. Hur suffered a compound fracture of the left femur. Apparently, before the accident, Kromwhale was in a bloody rage because his wife refused to let him go to the Neil Diamond concert until Kromwhale did the dishes. Kromwhale refused to do the dishes and left for the concert without Mrs. Kromwhale's permission, hitting Hur along the way. Both Kromwhale and his wife met with his attorney at a big law office. The attorney's paralegal took notes about the accident and the surrounding circumstances. Oliver told the story about how uncontrollably angry he had been prior to the accident. During the interim between discovery and trial, the paralegal left the law firm. Hur's attorney calls the paralegal to the stand at trial to testify as to what Oliver said regarding his rage. Oliver's attorney objects. The court will hold:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct While confidentiality is essential to the attorney-client communication privilege, the presence of a third person such as a paralegal, who assists in the provision of legal advice, does not serve to destroy the privilege. In fact, the client has the right to invoke the attorney-client privilege if an adversary compels the testimony of a client's legal assistant. As such, (b) is correct and (c) is incorrect, because Oliver is entitled to assert the privilege notwithstanding the presence of the paralegal. (a) is incorrect because the testimony would not be unreliable just because the paralegal left the firm. (d) is incorrect because the testimony would be relevant if it were admissible.
Incorrect! While confidentiality is essential to the attorney-client communication privilege, the presence of a third person such as a paralegal, who assists in the provision of legal advice, does not serve to destroy the privilege. In fact, the client has the right to invoke the attorney-client privilege if an adversary compels the testimony of a client's legal assistant. As such, (b) is correct and (c) is incorrect, because Oliver is entitled to assert the privilege notwithstanding the presence of the paralegal. (a) is incorrect because the testimony would not be unreliable just because the paralegal left the firm. (d) is incorrect because the testimony would be relevant if it were admissible.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
Mrs. Gruenbaum arrived at her lawyer's office about an hour before her scheduled appointment, hoping that Attorney Spielkiss would be free to meet with her earlier. Mrs. Gruenbaum was worried that she wouldn't get home in time to heat up her husband's meat sauce, which she prepares every Thursday her husband has no clue how to operate the stove or their microwave. As the hour passes, Mrs. Gruenbaum gets more and more fidgety. Other clients stream into the waiting room, and some are attended to before Mrs. Gruenbaum, even though she arrived first. Attorney Spielkiss comes out of his office about five minutes after his appointment with Mrs. Gruenbaum was scheduled, and Mrs. Gruenbaum is in a tizzy. She screams, in front of everyone in the office, "Spielkiss where've you been? I've been waitin' over an hour fer ya. We got a lot to tawk about. The @##!!***** government's on my back about payin' taxes on that sale I made to Sotheby's. Hah Hah! They'll never find out where I stashed the proceeds, the crooks! They think they can bankrupt me --- well, they're wrong, right? Right? Honey, you look like you need a vacation. I heard Boca's a beauty this time of the year. Did you eat any fruit today? You need vitamin C. What did your mother, may she rest in peace, say about your eating habits? She's probably having another fatal heart attack right now, watching you waste away from above." If a government attorney wanted to subpoena one of the witnesses to Mrs. Gruenbaum's fit in Spielkiss's office, would Mrs. Gruenbaum be entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct For a communication to enjoy an attorney-client privilege, it must have been made confidentially, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The presence of third parties is not necessarily fatal to the privilege, provided the third parties are assisting in the provision of the legal advice. This is why the presence of paralegals, clerks, and legal secretaries will not be fatal to the privilege ' they may be essential to the success of a law practice. However, the presence of numerous, obvious eavesdroppers will surely break the privilege. Mrs. Gruenbaum's communication with Attorney Spielkiss in the obvious presence of other clients in the office would thus not be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Therefore (b) is correct. (a) is incorrect because there was no confidentiality. (c) is incorrect because Mrs. Gruenbaum was seeking assistance with her tax problem. (d) is incorrect because Mrs. Gruenbaum would be the holder of the privilege if the communication were privileged.
Incorrect! For a communication to enjoy an attorney-client privilege, it must have been made confidentially, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The presence of third parties is not necessarily fatal to the privilege, provided the third parties are assisting in the provision of the legal advice. This is why the presence of paralegals, clerks, and legal secretaries will not be fatal to the privilege ' they may be essential to the success of a law practice. However, the presence of numerous, obvious eavesdroppers will surely break the privilege. Mrs. Gruenbaum's communication with Attorney Spielkiss in the obvious presence of other clients in the office would thus not be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Therefore (b) is correct. (a) is incorrect because there was no confidentiality. (c) is incorrect because Mrs. Gruenbaum was seeking assistance with her tax problem. (d) is incorrect because Mrs. Gruenbaum would be the holder of the privilege if the communication were privileged.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
Mrs. O'Leary met with her attorney, Bessie Cowherd, regarding her insurance policy. The O'Leary home was set ablaze the prior week when Mrs. O'Leary fell asleep with a lighted Cuban cigar dangling from her mouth. Dropping the cigar from her mouth while dreaming of hot apple pie a la mode, Mrs. O'Leary accidentally set the bedroom curtains on fire. The curtains then set the carpeting on fire, at which point the fire spread and the whole house started to burn. Fortunately, everyone in the house escaped safely. However, the O'Leary family lost many precious belongings. Mrs. O'Leary asked Attorney Cowherd what strategy to use to make the insurance company believe her belongings were worth millions, even though the bluebook value of the house's contents was about $10,000. Attorney Cowherd would not answer Mrs. O'Leary's question, and instead tried to change the topic to hot apple pie a la mode, on which Mrs. O'Leary gladly focused her attention. Mrs. O'Leary was later prosecuted for insurance fraud. Could Attorney Cowherd be required by the government to answer a question regarding Mrs. O'Leary's quest for advice on how to obtain millions in insurance proceeds?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Communications not for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, but for the purpose of obtaining 'illegal' advice, are excepted from the realm of attorney-client privilege. This is known as the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. The reason we have an attorney-client privilege is to encourage people to have discussions with attorneys so that they will obtain legal advice. If the client is trying to obtain advice on how to commit illegalities, protection is not warranted. Therefore, (c) is correct. Choice (a) is incorrect because Mrs. O'Leary was not seeking legal advice in asking Attorney Cowherd how to commit a crime. Choice (b) is incorrect because an attorney who does not represent a client would still be under an ethical obligation to protect the confidences of a prospective client, if that client had come to the attorney seeking legal advice. Choice (d) is incorrect, because the judge would be ruling in this circumstance on the privilege issue, and not on Mrs. O'Leary's suspected guilt or innocence.
Incorrect! Communications not for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, but for the purpose of obtaining 'illegal' advice, are excepted from the realm of attorney-client privilege. This is known as the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. The reason we have an attorney-client privilege is to encourage people to have discussions with attorneys so that they will obtain legal advice. If the client is trying to obtain advice on how to commit illegalities, protection is not warranted. Therefore, (c) is correct. Choice (a) is incorrect because Mrs. O'Leary was not seeking legal advice in asking Attorney Cowherd how to commit a crime. Choice (b) is incorrect because an attorney who does not represent a client would still be under an ethical obligation to protect the confidences of a prospective client, if that client had come to the attorney seeking legal advice. Choice (d) is incorrect, because the judge would be ruling in this circumstance on the privilege issue, and not on Mrs. O'Leary's suspected guilt or innocence.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 6
Kat Lincoln met with an attorney she had never worked with before, Neuman Fisch, regarding an estate plan. Kat wanted to minimize her estate tax liability with irrevocable trusts, and Neuman was reputed to be one of the best planners in the county. He had apparently done some estate planning for members of the Gates family, heirs to Bill Gates's Microsoft billions, and obviously knew what he was doing. A few months after their meeting, and after Neuman had diligently prepared a foolproof estate plan, Kat's legal bill came due. She figured it wouldn't matter if she paid later. So Kat sat on it for a while, though Neuman kept sending past due notices. Soon a collection agency started calling at dinnertime about the legal bill. Kat figured she'd pay sometime down the road, but not yet. So Neuman decided to sue. Kat's new attorney, on behalf of Kat, invoked the attorney-client privilege when Neuman tried to introduce testimony about the Kat-Neuman attorney-client relationship. What will a court hold? .
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct When a dispute involving a client and attorney develops, a client is not entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege to prevent against testifying as to the nature of a communication with that attorney. In order to resolve a fee dispute between the attorney and client, the court will probably have to understand not only why advice was sought, but what advice was rendered. Therefore (b) is correct. (a) is incorrect because the privilege may not be invoked in disputes between the attorney and the client. Choice (c) is incorrect because the testimony is relevant to resolving the dispute.
Incorrect! When a dispute involving a client and attorney develops, a client is not entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege to prevent against testifying as to the nature of a communication with that attorney. In order to resolve a fee dispute between the attorney and client, the court will probably have to understand not only why advice was sought, but what advice was rendered. Therefore (b) is correct. (a) is incorrect because the privilege may not be invoked in disputes between the attorney and the client. Choice (c) is incorrect because the testimony is relevant to resolving the dispute.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 7
Moses Pipik sought the assistance of Sarah Adveisberg on an initial public offering for his company, which specialized in the sale of freeze-dried cat food for astronauts who want to take their pets on trips to the International Space Station. Pipik found Wall Street to be very receptive to his idea. He got his feet off the ground with a fabulous amount of venture capital, and is sure the public would invest in his firm given its chance of success. So he hoped Sarah could help. Unfortunately, Sarah never did any initial public offerings, and only had experience in corporate document production for large litigation projects. So Pipik took his business elsewhere. If Sarah is compelled to divulge details about her meeting with Pipik, must she answer?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The attorney-client privilege protects against the required disclosure of confidential communications between a client and his attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. It does not matter if the client actually retains the attorney in a matter ' so long as the disclosure is made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, the client may protect against disclosure. Therefore, choice (a) is incorrect. Choice (b) is incorrect because the communication was made in confidence and the public was not included. Were the details of the discussion disclosed to the public, a waiver of the attorney-client privilege would probably result. But there is no evidence of such waiver on the facts. Choice (c) is correct because Pipik may invoke the attorney-client privilege and protect against Sarah's disclosure.
Incorrect! The attorney-client privilege protects against the required disclosure of confidential communications between a client and his attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. It does not matter if the client actually retains the attorney in a matter ' so long as the disclosure is made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, the client may protect against disclosure. Therefore, choice (a) is incorrect. Choice (b) is incorrect because the communication was made in confidence and the public was not included. Were the details of the discussion disclosed to the public, a waiver of the attorney-client privilege would probably result. But there is no evidence of such waiver on the facts. Choice (c) is correct because Pipik may invoke the attorney-client privilege and protect against Sarah's disclosure.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 8
Danny Marino, a quarterback on the Clarksburg Huns, decided (perhaps thoughtlessly) to play catch with a friend in a moving car opposite his, while the cars were speeding at 80 m.p.h. on the Jersey Turnpike. Danny tossed his football as hard as he could, hoping to hit his friend on the numbers. Unfortunately, Peter Boulez, driving his wife Dotty to a glockenspiel and marimba lesson, was caught in between and the football smashed into the passenger side window. Dotty suffered cuts and bruises to her face that required some plastic surgery to fix. Later in life, Dotty considered the accident a blessing, because the plastic surgeon made her look twenty years younger. But right after the accident she was in emotional and physical pain and sought to sue Danny and friend for all they had (which wasn't much). Peter and Dotty went to a lawyer to discuss how to pursue a personal injury suit against Danny and Danny's friend. They discussed, among other things, Dotty's physical condition. At trial, Danny's attorney calls Dotty's lawyer to testify to Dotty's physical condition during the time of their initial attorney-client meeting. The lawyer's testimony is:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Confidential communications between an attorney and client for the purpose of providing or offering legal advice will be protected by the attorney-client privilege if disclosure is sought. Therefore, choice (c) is correct. Choice (a) is incorrect because the presence of a third party spouse who has an interest in assisting in the representation and in maintaining attorney-client confidentiality will not serve to destroy the privilege. Choice (b) would be correct if Dotty were suing the attorney and not Danny for physical injuries ' but not in this case.
Incorrect! Confidential communications between an attorney and client for the purpose of providing or offering legal advice will be protected by the attorney-client privilege if disclosure is sought. Therefore, choice (c) is correct. Choice (a) is incorrect because the presence of a third party spouse who has an interest in assisting in the representation and in maintaining attorney-client confidentiality will not serve to destroy the privilege. Choice (b) would be correct if Dotty were suing the attorney and not Danny for physical injuries ' but not in this case.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 9
Hilda Panth was on trial for tax evasion. She hired Lawra Seisin to represent her. While preparing for the case, Lawra hired an accountant to put together a financial statement for Lawra's use during Hilda's trial. The government sought this accountant's testimony regarding Hilda's finances. Hilda asks Lawra to object. What is the outcome?
Correct If an attorney hires an assistant to help in the preparation of a case, the attorney-client privilege will also protect against disclosure by the assistant. Similarly, if a paralegal assists in preparations for a case, the adversary may not call the paralegal to the stand if the attorney-client privilege is invoked. In this case, the accountant would not be entitled to testify if Hilda invokes her privilege, so choice (a) is correct. Choice (b) is incorrect because the government's access to financial records says nothing about their right to call the accountant to the stand. Choice (c) is incorrect because the testimony is relevant to the subject matter of the case.
Incorrect! If an attorney hires an assistant to help in the preparation of a case, the attorney-client privilege will also protect against disclosure by the assistant. Similarly, if a paralegal assists in preparations for a case, the adversary may not call the paralegal to the stand if the attorney-client privilege is invoked. In this case, the accountant would not be entitled to testify if Hilda invokes her privilege, so choice (a) is correct. Choice (b) is incorrect because the government's access to financial records says nothing about their right to call the accountant to the stand. Choice (c) is incorrect because the testimony is relevant to the subject matter of the case.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 10
Bunny and Clythe were sitting on the grass by an access ramp off the parkway smoking a big fat joint that Clythe scored off of a friend named Reaper behind his college's handball court. Bunny and Clythe were at the beginning of a beautiful friendship and they were enjoying a moment they would never forget not because of their nice little marijuana picnic, but because suddenly an old Mercury Grand Marquis driven by Stan deManne sped up the access ramp and smacked into Clythe like a hockey player checking an opponent. Clythe writhed in pain, gasping for breath while Bunny sat and thought about the horror of it all in the hazy abstract. Stan deManne the next day retained (of all the lawyers in the county) the next-door neighbor of Bunny. Not knowing this, Bunny later went to her lawyer-next-door and asked him how she could avoid having to testify about smoking pot at the time Clythe was hit. May the lawyer call Bunny to the stand to testify about what she asked him?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct As we have seen, the attorney-client privilege may not be invoked by a client who was seeking to use an attorney to aid in committing a crime or fraud. Therefore, choice (c) is the best answer. Choice (a) is incorrect because if Bunny and Clyde were smoking pot, perhaps the accident and injuries would not have happened.
Incorrect! As we have seen, the attorney-client privilege may not be invoked by a client who was seeking to use an attorney to aid in committing a crime or fraud. Therefore, choice (c) is the best answer. Choice (a) is incorrect because if Bunny and Clyde were smoking pot, perhaps the accident and injuries would not have happened.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 11
Ben Frankland suffered injuries when he slipped on slimy eggs that had cracked open onto a supermarket floor. He accidentally wore his reading glasses instead of his bifocals, and couldn't see properly. Frankland sued the supermarket to recover for his injuries and time away from his work as a diplomat, scientist, postmaster general, and celebrated internet smut magazine publisher. Frankland's attorney hired a physician to examine Frankland in order to help the attorney prepare the personal injury case. The adversary wants to call the physician to the stand at trial in order to ask about statements Frankland made to the physician about his injuries, which the physician in turn reported to Frankland's attorney. The physician's testimony is:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct If an attorney hires an assistant to help with the preparation of a case, the client may invoke the attorney-client privilege if the assistant is called to the stand to testify as to confidential communications with the client. Here, (b) is correct because Frankland would thus be entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege when it comes to the physician's testimony. Choice (a) is not correct because there is no indication Frankland waived any rights. Choice (c) is incorrect because there is no indication Frankland made admissions of fault to the doctor.
Incorrect! If an attorney hires an assistant to help with the preparation of a case, the client may invoke the attorney-client privilege if the assistant is called to the stand to testify as to confidential communications with the client. Here, (b) is correct because Frankland would thus be entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege when it comes to the physician's testimony. Choice (a) is not correct because there is no indication Frankland waived any rights. Choice (c) is incorrect because there is no indication Frankland made admissions of fault to the doctor.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 12
Successful corporate lawyer Mumford Karl was sued by the IRS for nonpayment of taxes. The IRS demanded that Mumford turn over papers relating to his client's billings. The IRS asserted that they needed to study the documents to determine Mumford's income. Mumford refused to hand over the documents. The documents will be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Attorney-client privilege may only be invoked for confidential communications related to the provision of legal advice. The billing documents would not be considered as such, so (b) is incorrect. Choice (a) is incorrect because the work product doctrine protects against the disclosure of documents prepared by an attorney in preparation for litigation. The billing documents do not qualify as work product. Therefore, choice (c) is the best answer.
Incorrect! Attorney-client privilege may only be invoked for confidential communications related to the provision of legal advice. The billing documents would not be considered as such, so (b) is incorrect. Choice (a) is incorrect because the work product doctrine protects against the disclosure of documents prepared by an attorney in preparation for litigation. The billing documents do not qualify as work product. Therefore, choice (c) is the best answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 13
Perry worked in the county courthouse for years. Everyone he knew called him "Perry Mason," just like the famous television lawyer. Perry was a wise old man, and used to "hold court" (as he liked to call it) on his porch late at night for friends and neighbors who wanted company, good cheer and some cold beer. One night, a neighbor named Bucky came by and told Perry in confidence, "Counselor, I could use some counseling. I was in a drunken daze and I did something stupid. I robbed the corner 7-11. There was a heck of a lot of cash in the register! I went and used it to buy a used car I had my eye on for some time. What should I do?" Perry was able to avoid the topic, and the other neighbors came streaming in as usual. A week later a federal prosecutor called Perry and asked questions about what Bucky had told him. Bucky didn't realize it, but Perry was not a lawyer Bucky and most everyone on the block assumed Perry was a lawyer, after all his years in the courthouse but he wasn't. Nonetheless, may Bucky assert the attorney-client privilege in trying to suppress Perry's future testimony?
Correct This was a tough question. Generally, the law holds that 'attorney' for purposes of the attorney-client privilege is someone authorized to provide legal advice. However, there is a frequent addition to the definition whereby 'attorney' can also mean someone who is 'reasonably believed' to be an admitted attorney who is authorized to provide advice. Therefore, Bucky would be entitled to assert the privilege if he reasonably believed Perry was an attorney. Choice (b) is not the best answer, because Bucky can have discussions with anyone in confidence ' that would not suffice to trigger a privilege to suppress the disclosure of the confidential information. Choice (c) is incorrect for the abovementioned reason, that is, a reasonable belief that someone is an attorney will serve to protect the privilege.
Incorrect! This was a tough question. Generally, the law holds that 'attorney' for purposes of the attorney-client privilege is someone authorized to provide legal advice. However, there is a frequent addition to the definition whereby 'attorney' can also mean someone who is 'reasonably believed' to be an admitted attorney who is authorized to provide advice. Therefore, Bucky would be entitled to assert the privilege if he reasonably believed Perry was an attorney. Choice (b) is not the best answer, because Bucky can have discussions with anyone in confidence ' that would not suffice to trigger a privilege to suppress the disclosure of the confidential information. Choice (c) is incorrect for the abovementioned reason, that is, a reasonable belief that someone is an attorney will serve to protect the privilege.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 14
At a lavish dinner party for B-movie personalities, TV commercial actors, and local-station sports broadcasters, Oren Thall, with tears in his eyes, opens up to the stranger next to him and admits, "I killed my wife!! I strangled her with minty dental floss and then hacked her with a steak knife!! I feel really bad about that." It just so happens that the stranger was a lawyer. At Thall's murder trial, the state calls the stranger to testify as to Thall's admission. Thall asserts the attorney-client privilege. What would a judge hold?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct A defendant who admits his crime to a lawyer may not necessarily invoke the attorney-client privilege when it comes to the lawyer testifying against the defendant. The lawyer must have been the defendant's lawyer, or someone the defendant reasonably assumed was a lawyer, and the defendant must have made his assertion in order to obtain legal advice. Here, an attorney-client relationship did not exist at the time of the communication, and therefore, the privilege is inapplicable. Choice (c) is therefore correct.
Incorrect! A defendant who admits his crime to a lawyer may not necessarily invoke the attorney-client privilege when it comes to the lawyer testifying against the defendant. The lawyer must have been the defendant's lawyer, or someone the defendant reasonably assumed was a lawyer, and the defendant must have made his assertion in order to obtain legal advice. Here, an attorney-client relationship did not exist at the time of the communication, and therefore, the privilege is inapplicable. Choice (c) is therefore correct.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 15
A group of paparazzi hide in bushes, stalking TV action hero Soup Nuss. Two of the cameramen among the group hear Nuss talking to his lawyer about Nuss's upcoming criminal trial defense on insurance fraud charges. The cameramen hear everything Nuss says to the attorney. At Nuss's trial the cameramen are called to testify to the conversation. Nuss objects. What does the judge hold?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Most courts will allow 'unknown interceptors' such as eavesdroppers to testify as to overheard conversations between attorneys and clients. Therefore (b) is the correct choice. It does not matter that the presence of the camermen was unknown to Nuss and his attorney, therefore (c) is incorrect.
Incorrect! Most courts will allow 'unknown interceptors' such as eavesdroppers to testify as to overheard conversations between attorneys and clients. Therefore (b) is the correct choice. It does not matter that the presence of the camermen was unknown to Nuss and his attorney, therefore (c) is incorrect.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 16
A group of paparazzi hide in bushes, stalking TV action hero Soup Nuss. Two of the cameramen among the group hear Nuss talking to his lawyer about Nuss's upcoming criminal trial defense on insurance fraud charges. The cameramen hear everything Nuss says to the attorney. At Nuss's trial, knowing that the cameramen heard everything and would be entitled to testify as to what they heard anyway, the prosecutor calls Nuss's attorney to the stand to describe what Nuss told him the night the paparazzi were hiding in the bushes. Nuss objects. What does the court hold?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Here, even though the paparazzi might be entitled to testify as to what they heard, that does not mean that the privilege is broken when it comes to Nuss's attorney. This is why choice (a) is incorrect. Nuss is entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege if his attorney's testimony is compelled, so (b) is correct. Choice (c) is incorrect because Nuss, and not the attorney, is the holder of the privilege. Therefore the attorney may not testify if Nuss objects.
Incorrect! Here, even though the paparazzi might be entitled to testify as to what they heard, that does not mean that the privilege is broken when it comes to Nuss's attorney. This is why choice (a) is incorrect. Nuss is entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege if his attorney's testimony is compelled, so (b) is correct. Choice (c) is incorrect because Nuss, and not the attorney, is the holder of the privilege. Therefore the attorney may not testify if Nuss objects.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 17
Johnny drove a truck for the Cash Money company. One day, Johnny was a bit drunk at work, and smashed into an SUV while stopping off at Dunkin' Donuts for some black coffee. The SUV owner sued Johnny and Cash Money, who were jointly represented by Attorney Claire Tin. Claire Tin's paralegal was integral to the representation, and even though Johnny and Cash Money lost at trial, they put up a good fight. Cash Money then sues Johnny for indemnity to cover the amounts recovered by the SUV owner. If Cash Money calls Claire Tin's paralegal to testify as to some of Johnny's admissions during their preparation for the case against the SUV owner, will the attorney-client privilege apply?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The attorney-client privilege is not applicable to parties who first engaged in joint consultations with the same attorney, and then sued one another. Any admissions made to an attorney representing the two parties would be discoverable if the parties later sue one another, as in this case between Johnny and the Cash Money Company. This is why it is best for parties involved in such cases to try and retain their own representation. It is important to guard against the possibility of having admissions used against you down the road. Therefore, (c) is correct. Choices (a) and (b) are incorrect, because since the parties were jointly represented by Claire and assisted by the paralegal, both Claire and the paralegal could later be called upon to testify in a suit between the parties.
Incorrect! The attorney-client privilege is not applicable to parties who first engaged in joint consultations with the same attorney, and then sued one another. Any admissions made to an attorney representing the two parties would be discoverable if the parties later sue one another, as in this case between Johnny and the Cash Money Company. This is why it is best for parties involved in such cases to try and retain their own representation. It is important to guard against the possibility of having admissions used against you down the road. Therefore, (c) is correct. Choices (a) and (b) are incorrect, because since the parties were jointly represented by Claire and assisted by the paralegal, both Claire and the paralegal could later be called upon to testify in a suit between the parties.