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
You represent Robin Williams in a copyright violation action against Jim Carrey. Robin claims that Carrey called himself Mork from Ork onstage, without permission, and that Carrey charged a hefty price for admission. Robin hates it when people steal his gags, and wants a jury to recognize that his rights were violated. The judge on the case is one of your brothers in the Freemasons. During the trial, you and he attend a meeting together regarding some charity work upstate, and you discuss a strategy for fundraising. Are you subject to discipline for engaging in contact with the presiding judge on your case?
Correct A number of Model Rules discuss improprieties related to impermissible contact with a judge, but none of them hold that a lawyer is never entitled to have discussions with a presiding judge on a case when those discussions have nothing to do with the subject of the representation. As long as you and the judge do not create an appearance of impropriety, as the rules hold, you will not be disciplined for having a discussion with the judge. Therefore, choice (a) is the best answer. See Model Rules 8.4 and 3.5.
Incorrect! A number of Model Rules discuss improprieties related to impermissible contact with a judge, but none of them hold that a lawyer is never entitled to have discussions with a presiding judge on a case when those discussions have nothing to do with the subject of the representation. As long as you and the judge do not create an appearance of impropriety, as the rules hold, you will not be disciplined for having a discussion with the judge. Therefore, choice (a) is the best answer. See Model Rules 8.4 and 3.5.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
You represent Robin Williams in a copyright violation action against Jim Carrey. You are one of the most respected intellectual property lawyers in the country, and your advice is sought by the rich, famous, and important. The judge on the case is one of your brothers in the Freemasons. During the trial, you and he attend a meeting together regarding some charity. The judge asks you prior to the meeting for some recommendations for readings on copyright law particularly, he wants to know if one author's book is worth reading. Are you subject to discipline for engaging in contact with the presiding judge on your case?
Correct Ordinarily, it is unethical for a lawyer on a case to conduct ex parte discussions with a presiding judge on that case, without giving the opposition a chance to respond. It is especially important not to engage in discussions related to the subject of the representation. Here, your conversation is related to the subject of the representation, which regards the laws of copyright. Even if you do not discuss any facts about the case, your book recommendations could still carry an influence over the judge's handling of the trial. Therefore, without allowing the adversary to respond, your conversation may impact on the trial's outcome. Choice (a) as such is the best answer. Choice (b) is an incorrect statement of the rule ' there are times when an ex parte discussion may be allowed, however, on these facts, an ex parte discussion related to the representation would be unethical. Choice (c) is incorrect because the question related to the subject of the representation.
Incorrect! Ordinarily, it is unethical for a lawyer on a case to conduct ex parte discussions with a presiding judge on that case, without giving the opposition a chance to respond. It is especially important not to engage in discussions related to the subject of the representation. Here, your conversation is related to the subject of the representation, which regards the laws of copyright. Even if you do not discuss any facts about the case, your book recommendations could still carry an influence over the judge's handling of the trial. Therefore, without allowing the adversary to respond, your conversation may impact on the trial's outcome. Choice (a) as such is the best answer. Choice (b) is an incorrect statement of the rule ' there are times when an ex parte discussion may be allowed, however, on these facts, an ex parte discussion related to the representation would be unethical. Choice (c) is incorrect because the question related to the subject of the representation.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Upon the invitation of some college buddies, Honorable Judge Reinhold joined an exclusive country club and resort around Miami, called Snootsville. He only plans to attend the club when he is on vacation from his bench in New York. Snootsville recently atoned for years of discrimination by allowing for an influx of Azerbaijanis and Khazakhis. Prior to this, Snootsville refused to admit any members who were residents of these former Soviet lands. Some of Judge Reinhold's enemies in particular, a lawyer whom the Judge beat out for a seat on the bench have brought an ethics complaint with the state board, claiming that Judge Reinhold is a member of a discriminating club. Is Judge Reinhold subject to discipline?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct If the current practices of an organization involve discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin, then a judge should avoid an association with the organization to avoid the appearance of impropriety. See Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. On the facts, since Snootsville has reformed, Judge Reinhold is not in violation of the ethical rules. Therefore, choice (b) is the best answer. Choice (a) and choice (c) are incorrect because if an organization has made amends for discriminatory practices, then association with the organization is not prohibited by the ethical rules.
Incorrect! If the current practices of an organization involve discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin, then a judge should avoid an association with the organization to avoid the appearance of impropriety. See Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. On the facts, since Snootsville has reformed, Judge Reinhold is not in violation of the ethical rules. Therefore, choice (b) is the best answer. Choice (a) and choice (c) are incorrect because if an organization has made amends for discriminatory practices, then association with the organization is not prohibited by the ethical rules.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
Your friend and law school colleague, Judge Chava Choize, is running for re-election to the bench. Both she and you are rabid Republicans, and you want to make your support for her and the party clear. You subsequently make a nice contribution to Judge Choize's campaign fund. Are you subject to discipline for, essentially, bribing a judge?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 5(c)(2), holds that campaign contributions must be reasonable and may not serve as 'camouflage' for illegal gifts or bribes. Some commentators have made the argument that lawyer contributions should be prohibited or banned entirely so as to prevent any undue influence on the conduct of judges. Nonetheless, contributions will be deemed ethical provided they are reasonable and could not be considered as bribes. Therefore, choice (b) is the best answer. Choice (a) is not a correct statement, in that a lawyer's contribution is not necessarily an unethical gesture. Choice (c) is incorrect because even if the judge were not an old friend, a reasonable contribution to her campaign would probably be acceptable.
Incorrect! The Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 5(c)(2), holds that campaign contributions must be reasonable and may not serve as 'camouflage' for illegal gifts or bribes. Some commentators have made the argument that lawyer contributions should be prohibited or banned entirely so as to prevent any undue influence on the conduct of judges. Nonetheless, contributions will be deemed ethical provided they are reasonable and could not be considered as bribes. Therefore, choice (b) is the best answer. Choice (a) is not a correct statement, in that a lawyer's contribution is not necessarily an unethical gesture. Choice (c) is incorrect because even if the judge were not an old friend, a reasonable contribution to her campaign would probably be acceptable.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
You, a prominent county attorney, appear before Judge Flatul every once in a while in domestic relations cases. You know Flatul to be a wise and kind old man with an astute business sense. One day, at a local bar association meeting, Judge Flatul says to you, "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse... How about going in with me on this great oil drilling project? You got money to invest? We'll make a killing!" Are you subject to discipline?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct According to Canon 4(d) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge may not be involved in frequent transactions with lawyers 'likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.' The problem with the oil drilling arrangement is that it sounds like the judge is proposing a partnership. If you are to appear before the judge, your partnership will bring about the appearance of impropriety. Therefore, choice (c) is the best answer ' you might be subject to discipline for these business dealings. Choice (a) is incorrect because it is not the subject of the partnership that is troublesome ' it is the fact of the partnership that could arouse suspicion. Choice (b) is an inaccurate statement ' there is no per se prohibition against lawyers making business deals with a judge.
Incorrect! According to Canon 4(d) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge may not be involved in frequent transactions with lawyers 'likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.' The problem with the oil drilling arrangement is that it sounds like the judge is proposing a partnership. If you are to appear before the judge, your partnership will bring about the appearance of impropriety. Therefore, choice (c) is the best answer ' you might be subject to discipline for these business dealings. Choice (a) is incorrect because it is not the subject of the partnership that is troublesome ' it is the fact of the partnership that could arouse suspicion. Choice (b) is an inaccurate statement ' there is no per se prohibition against lawyers making business deals with a judge.
Question 6
Georgina Morone, the wife of your friend, Judge Okasionil Morone, is having a surprise fiftieth birthday party. Just yesterday, when you appeared before him as counsel in a personal injury matter, Judge Morone told you to be at his estate by 2:00 P.M. on Sunday. You arrive with a beautiful faux fur as a gift for Georgina. Are you subject to discipline for giving the wife of the judge a gift?
Correct For the most part, gifts to judges or their families are prohibited, because the public may construe them as attempts to buy influence. Certain exceptions exist, according to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 4(D)(5), including gifts to family members that could not be perceived as attempts to buy influence (if the gift would have been given whether or not the recipient were a judge), and reasonable gifts from a relative or friend in connection with a special occasion (birthday, anniversary, etc.). The public would probably not construe the gift of the faux fur as a bribe. And the gift probably would have been given even if the Judge did not hold such an honorable title. Therefore, choice (a) is the best answer.
Incorrect! For the most part, gifts to judges or their families are prohibited, because the public may construe them as attempts to buy influence. Certain exceptions exist, according to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 4(D)(5), including gifts to family members that could not be perceived as attempts to buy influence (if the gift would have been given whether or not the recipient were a judge), and reasonable gifts from a relative or friend in connection with a special occasion (birthday, anniversary, etc.). The public would probably not construe the gift of the faux fur as a bribe. And the gift probably would have been given even if the Judge did not hold such an honorable title. Therefore, choice (a) is the best answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 7
You represent Darren Boysenberry, the defendant in a cocaine possession case. After a burst of inspiration while tossing and turning at night, you realize a piece of the prosecution's evidence should have been excluded during the trial. You quickly write a letter to the judge on the case and put it in your mailbox. Court is not in session for another week. Are you subject to discipline for initiating an ex parte communication with the judge?
Correct Model Rule 3.5(b) holds that a lawyer may not commence ex parte communications about the subject of representation with a judge, as such communications can improperly influence the proceeding. In order to avoid violating the ethical rules, you must send a copy of the letter to the prosecutor so that he has a chance to rebut. Therefore, choice (a) is the best answer. Choice (b) is incorrect, because sending a letter does constitute an ex parte communication ' one side is initiating contact. Choice (c) is not the best answer, because between the time you sent the letter and the time of the next court session, you may have improperly influenced the proceeding.
Incorrect! Model Rule 3.5(b) holds that a lawyer may not commence ex parte communications about the subject of representation with a judge, as such communications can improperly influence the proceeding. In order to avoid violating the ethical rules, you must send a copy of the letter to the prosecutor so that he has a chance to rebut. Therefore, choice (a) is the best answer. Choice (b) is incorrect, because sending a letter does constitute an ex parte communication ' one side is initiating contact. Choice (c) is not the best answer, because between the time you sent the letter and the time of the next court session, you may have improperly influenced the proceeding.