Say your client, Kerry Fried Chicken, is suing a meat distributor for a breach of contract. The parties had reached an agreement regarding the sale of a number of tons of chicken meat. Your client is unhappy with the meat delivered. He wants you to argue that the meat delivered was clearly for boiling and stewing chickens, not for frying, and that the defendant breached the contract knowing that the chickens he delivered were unusable. Would it be frivolous to make such an argument?

You represent Chop and Shop, a big supermarket defending itself in a personal injury suit brought by one of its customers. The customer testifies that he was walking down the "pets" aisle at the store when suddenly a 50-pound bag of dog food fell off a shelf and knocked him down. The customer claims his skull was fractured as a result of your client's negligence. In cross-examination, you try to elicit from the customer that he is a card-carrying member of the Americans for Nazis. The court sustains an objection to this line of questioning, but you press on, hoping to sway the jury's opinion with this information. Are you subject to discipline?

You represent Caravaggio in a murder defense - he's been accused of killing Vermeer with a meat cleaver. Late in the trial you realize Caravaggio perjured himself. You tell Caravaggio he has to correct the record to reflect the truth. He refuses. You want to withdraw but the court won't grant you leave to do so, this late in the trial. Do you tell the court about the perjury?

You represent Caravaggio in a murder defense - he's been accused of killing Vermeer with a meat cleaver. Caravaggio wants to testify. While you question Caravaggio on the stand, you stammer a bit. You're not sure, but you think he might be lying to the jury about the death of Vermeer. Do you tell the court about his possible perjury?

You represent Snoopy Dogg in his invasion of privacy suit against Kew Tipp. The jury finds for Snoopy and the court enters the verdict, ending the trial. A week later at a raucous celebratory dinner, Snoopy tells you he lied before and during the trial his evidence was falsified. You are shocked and worry for your own career. You're not sure whether you should go to the judge on your case and disclose what you just learned from Snoopy himself. Do you tell the court?

You're the lawyer for the plaintiff, Vlad N. Bokoff, who is suing his publisher for breach of an oral contract. You call to the stand a witness, Vera (a friend of Vlad) who said during trial preparations that she heard the defendant publisher agree to a million dollar deal with Vlad. Vera shocks you when she shows the jury a memo she claimed to have written at the time of the contract negotiations. You are positively sure the memo is a fraud and that Vera is lying. Must you interrupt Vera and try to get her to recant before telling the court about her lie?

You are writing a brief to the New York Court of Appeals on behalf of your client, Sam Swap, the defendant in an online song-swapping case. In looking for cases to cite as precedent for your argument against the plaintiff, a powerful multinational corporation, you come across an old court ruling from the New Jersey Court of Appeals that contradicts your argument. Must you cite this holding in your brief, or risk discipline?

You represent Tom Tiepolo, plaintiff in a personal injury suit against Francis Fragonard. Tiepolo broke his leg in a car crash caused by Fragonard, who fell asleep at the wheel coming home late from a Shriner's meeting. You're negotiating with Fragonard's attorney, Al Einstein, for a settlement. Einstein apparently handles hundreds of these cases at the same time and messes up facts related in a police report of the accident. The failure to point out these facts leaves Einstein with little ammunition in his negotiations on behalf of Fragonard. You realize right away that Einstein has either misread the police reports, or simply forgot what he read. You keep your mouth closed, figuring it's not your obligation to correct the opposition's mistake. Have you violated an ethical duty of candor?

Attorney Ike Bashevis asks your client, Ad Loos, a question about his health insurance coverage during a deposition. (A deposition is an interview given under oath in which information is elicited for purposes of discovery in litigation). You think this question is absolutely unnecessary. You interrupt Attorney Bashevis and tell Ad Loos he doesn't have to answer the question. A few days later, your assistant comes across a rule of evidence that changes your view of the health insurance question, making the question relevant to the opposition's case. Even though the deposition has ended, must you reveal to the opposition what you have learned?

Your client, famous boxer Micah Tiesohn, hires you to represent him in the sale of one of his fabulously expensive vintage automobiles. You're amazed when you realize the potential bluebook value of Tiesohn's little two-seater sports car is as much as your 4-bedroom home. The buyer's attorney requests that you obtain a mechanic's report on the state of the car. You do so. You and Micah are very disappointed to find that in the mechanic's opinion, the car is worth a whole lot less than you originally thought. When negotiations begin, you're very surprised that the buyer's attorney offers the bluebook value of a "mint" auto instead of one that's in "good" condition. You realize the buyer's attorney or the buyer might have overlooked the mechanic's opinion. Should you point this out to the other attorney?

You represent famous boxer Micah Tiesohn in helping him contract with a public relations professional, Paul Roberts. Tiesohn wants to enter into an agreement whereby in return for public relations services, Roberts will earn a percentage of Tiesohn's purse in his next fight with Elijah Holyman. You draft a contract, and Roberts's attorney sends it back to you after making some changes. You realize in looking over the edits that Roberts's attorney miscalculated the percentages for fees owed to Roberts. You nonetheless say nothing, get Tiesohn to sign, and return the contract to Roberts for his signature. Have you breached an ethical duty?

You represent Jane Smith in an ex parte domestic violence hearing. Jane wants you to help her get a temporary restraining order against her husband. Jane requests that you do not answer a question on a court form asking whether the defendant is in possession of any weapons. Jane does not want the court to know that her husband, a convicted felon, is in possession of a shotgun. She wants to keep her husband away from the house but is afraid that if he is arrested for unlawful weapons possession, he will never get out of jail. Since the goal your client wants you to achieve is obtaining the restraining order, and not an arrest of her husband, do you omit the answer to this question on the form out of allegiance to Jane?

As a tax attorney, you have dedicated much of your career to discovering loopholes in the law to help your clients minimize their tax liabilities. You've earned the nickname "Lawyer Loop" by colleagues, and your reputation spreads among clients, making your office rather popular. One day, a client seeks your advice on how to minimize state tax liability. You study the client's essential information, and fail to see any loopholes. The client becomes angry, and his face turns so red he looks like a different character. You ask some questions about the client's family, and find out he has a brother in an adjoining state, who he visits quite often. You tell your client you'll vouch for his residency in this adjoining state, where taxes are lower. You tell the client he could claim he's been a tenant of his brother for over a year. Are you subject to discipline?

You represent the Inbread Corp. in its suit for contractual interference against Neofight, Inc. In discovery, you request records of every contract Neofight and its subsidiaries have entered into in the last 50 years. Neofight is a huge multinational conglomerate with holdings vast and numerous. Nonetheless, you reason it is your right in discovery to access all the information you deem relevant to proving your case. Are you subject to discipline?

Your client, Leo Lyon, is being sued by his ex-wife, Liza Vanilli, who claims Leo purposefully ran over her foot with his big blue SUV when he saw her on the corner of Broadway and 56th. Liza's foot was badly broken in the incident. In her complaint, Liza correctly alleges that Leo lives in Scarsdale, New York and drives a big blue SUV. You think issuing a general denial as to all of Liza's allegations would be proper in advocating zealously on behalf of Leo. Are you subject to discipline for doing so?