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 recently left your job at the District Attorney's office at Enycity. You were the Assistant D.A. of Enycity for three years until you decided to "go private" and take a job at a general practice firm located in Enycity called Dave Sureovitz & Others, LLP. One of your new colleagues at Sureovitz has been retained by a client who is a criminal defendant. The client was investigated by the Enycity D.A.'s office about a month after you left your old job, so the firm doesn't think there is an unworkable conflict of interest with taking on the client. Your colleague consults the ethical rules, and figures:
Correct Even if an assistant prosecutor has no connection with the investigation of a client of a firm that the assistant prosecutor has recently joined, there would nonetheless remain a potential conflict of interest. The chief concern is the appearance of possible impropriety to the general public.The Model Rules hold that the firm with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or continue representation if (1) the disqualified lawyer is screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom, and (2), written notice is promptly given to the appropriate government agency to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this rule. Choice (a) is thus the best answer. On the facts, since the client was investigated a month following your departure from the office, there does not appear to be a problem with continuing the representation, provided you are screened from participation in the matter, you receive no fee, and written notice is given to the county prosecutor's office to ensure compliance with the ethical rules. See Model Rule 1.11(b).
Incorrect! Even if an assistant prosecutor has no connection with the investigation of a client of a firm that the assistant prosecutor has recently joined, there would nonetheless remain a potential conflict of interest. The chief concern is the appearance of possible impropriety to the general public.The Model Rules hold that the firm with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or continue representation if (1) the disqualified lawyer is screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom, and (2), written notice is promptly given to the appropriate government agency to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this rule. Choice (a) is thus the best answer. On the facts, since the client was investigated a month following your departure from the office, there does not appear to be a problem with continuing the representation, provided you are screened from participation in the matter, you receive no fee, and written notice is given to the county prosecutor's office to ensure compliance with the ethical rules. See Model Rule 1.11(b).
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Attorney Geoff Geofferson is representing a client in a personal injury suit. The defendant, Theodore Pretzel, rammed into your client at a four-way intersection after failing to stop where the street sign indicated he must. Geofferson was a bit surprised when his client told him Mr. Pretzel's name, because Geofferson represented Mr. Pretzel in his divorce from Mrs. Pretzel a few years ago. Geofferson told his client he has to consult the ethical rules about conflicts of interest before he can continue further. Geofferson finds:
Correct An attorney may bring suit against a former client, so long as representation of the former client has ended and the present case does not involve any confidential communications.The Model Rules hold that the lawyer may not represent a client in a 'same or a substantially related matter in which that client's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client consents after a full disclosure...' On the facts, since your client's case is in tort, and Mr. Pretzel's case was matrimonial, there would not be a conflict of interest fatal to the representation. Therefore, choice (a) is the best answer. Choice (c) describes steps that are unnecessary, given that the former client's case ended and the present case is not the 'same' or 'substantially related.' Choice (b) is incorrect, because the conflict is not fatal to the representation.
Incorrect! An attorney may bring suit against a former client, so long as representation of the former client has ended and the present case does not involve any confidential communications.The Model Rules hold that the lawyer may not represent a client in a 'same or a substantially related matter in which that client's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client consents after a full disclosure...' On the facts, since your client's case is in tort, and Mr. Pretzel's case was matrimonial, there would not be a conflict of interest fatal to the representation. Therefore, choice (a) is the best answer. Choice (c) describes steps that are unnecessary, given that the former client's case ended and the present case is not the 'same' or 'substantially related.' Choice (b) is incorrect, because the conflict is not fatal to the representation.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Jacob Jingleheimer is contemplating his involvement in the celebrated divorce case of Simonize vs. Simonize, representing Mrs. Simonize, the complainant. Mrs. Simonize came to Jingleheimer in a state of confusion, exhaustion, and fear. Only an hour before their first meeting, Mr. Simonize reportedly dunked Mrs. Simonize's head into their 150-gallon saltwater fish tank, threatening to arouse the angry attention of a venomous lionfish in the process. Mrs. Simonize wanted Jingleheimer to file a complaint for divorce and represent her. Jingleheimer, however, remembered that ten years previously, he represented Mr. Simonize in a domestic violence action against the woman he used to live with, Betsy Rosster. Jingleheimer recalled that Mr. Simonize obtained a restraining order against Rosster when Rosster stunned Simonize with a tazer gun and rudely shoved asparagus stalks in his ears. May Jingleheimer now represent Mrs. Simonize?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The Model Rules hold that the lawyer may not represent a client in a 'same or a substantially related matter in which that client's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client consents after a full disclosure.' Here, Jingleheimer's representation of Mr. Simonize was related to a domestic violence matter. Such matters are similar to divorce cases ' especially this one, where there is domestic violence involved. As such, provided Mr. Simonize consents after full disclosure, Jingleheimer may represent Mrs. Simonize against Mr. Simonize, his former client in a domestic violence case. Therefore, choice (b) is the best answer. Choice (a) is correct in that the matters are substantially similar, but that is not per se fatal to the representation. Choice (c) is not true, and is also a vague statement regarding Jingleheimer's relationship to Mr. Simonize that does not adequately explain why Jingleheimer could be disqualified from the representation.
Incorrect! The Model Rules hold that the lawyer may not represent a client in a 'same or a substantially related matter in which that client's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client consents after a full disclosure.' Here, Jingleheimer's representation of Mr. Simonize was related to a domestic violence matter. Such matters are similar to divorce cases ' especially this one, where there is domestic violence involved. As such, provided Mr. Simonize consents after full disclosure, Jingleheimer may represent Mrs. Simonize against Mr. Simonize, his former client in a domestic violence case. Therefore, choice (b) is the best answer. Choice (a) is correct in that the matters are substantially similar, but that is not per se fatal to the representation. Choice (c) is not true, and is also a vague statement regarding Jingleheimer's relationship to Mr. Simonize that does not adequately explain why Jingleheimer could be disqualified from the representation.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
Your client, Barb Edith, is in the middle of a tough divorce from her husband, Eremey Edith. The divorce process has been made especially difficult, because the Ediths continually make up, at least verbally, and then soon enough are up in arms again. Barb and Eremey have been on quite a roller coaster of a relationship. Eventually, the suit for divorce is dropped. Barb and Eremey figure they can make do without the voluminous court documents and lawyers' answering machine messages, plus they figure it's better to make love and not war. Six months after reconciling, they split up. This time, Eremey comes to you and wants you to represent him in his divorce action against Barb, your former client. If Barb says no, may you still represent Eremey?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Model Rule 1.9(a) holds that a lawyer cannot represent a client against a former client in the same or a substantially related matter when the present client's interests are materially adverse to the former client's interests. Here, you represented Barb in a substantially related matter as the one for which you will be representing Eremey. The parties' interests are too adverse to continue, and the chance of divulging confidential information about your former client is great. Therefore, choice (b) is the best answer
Incorrect! Model Rule 1.9(a) holds that a lawyer cannot represent a client against a former client in the same or a substantially related matter when the present client's interests are materially adverse to the former client's interests. Here, you represented Barb in a substantially related matter as the one for which you will be representing Eremey. The parties' interests are too adverse to continue, and the chance of divulging confidential information about your former client is great. Therefore, choice (b) is the best answer
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
Your client, Barb Edith, is in the middle of a tough divorce from her husband, Eremey Edith. The divorce process has been made especially difficult, because the Ediths continually make up, at least verbally, and then soon enough are up in arms again. Barb and Eremey have been on quite a roller coaster of a relationship. Eventually, the suit for divorce is dropped. Barb and Eremey figure they can make do without the voluminous court documents and lawyers' answering machine messages, plus they figure it's better to make love and not war. Six months after reconciling, they split up. This time, Eremey comes to you and wants you to represent him in his divorce action against Barb, your former client. If Barb consents to your representation of Eremey, may you still represent Eremey?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct According to Model Rule 1.9(a), a former client may consent to your representation of her adversary after consultation. It does not matter that the matter is the same or substantially similar to the one for which you represented the former client, so long as fully informed consent is obtained. As such, choice (d) is the best answer. Choice (a) is not the best answer, because whether or not you have confidential information will not control, if your former client consents to the representation. Choice (b) is incorrect because even though the matter is substantially related, obtaining consent will waive the conflict. Choice (c) is not the best answer because it is the former client's choice to make as to whether to waive the conflict, and not the ethics board's choice.
Incorrect! According to Model Rule 1.9(a), a former client may consent to your representation of her adversary after consultation. It does not matter that the matter is the same or substantially similar to the one for which you represented the former client, so long as fully informed consent is obtained. As such, choice (d) is the best answer. Choice (a) is not the best answer, because whether or not you have confidential information will not control, if your former client consents to the representation. Choice (b) is incorrect because even though the matter is substantially related, obtaining consent will waive the conflict. Choice (c) is not the best answer because it is the former client's choice to make as to whether to waive the conflict, and not the ethics board's choice.
Question 6
You represented Nails Dyekstrah in a criminal battery case. A jury convicted Nails of assault and battery after Nails beat the heck out of Gary Kartei. Kartei suffered terrible injuries to his knees after Nails repeatedly bashed them with a tire iron, and then with an electric pogo stick. Kartei is still in physical therapy to this day and can no longer play catcher on the baseball team composed of employees from the local Deli where he works. As a result of his injuries, Kartei sues Nails. Kartei asks you to represent him in his civil case against Dyekstrah. You figure since Kartei's case is civil, and since Nails's case was criminal, you will not be subject to discipline. You consult your online ethics manual. What do you find?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The general rule when it comes to opposing former clients is that a lawyer may not do so in a same or substantially related matter when the present client's interests are materially adverse to the former client's interests. See Model Rule 1.9(a). Here, the matters are substantially related because representing Kartei is almost like 'switching teams,' from Nails to Kartei. The ethical rules mandate that before you continue, you must obtain Nails's fully informed consent. Therefore, choice (b) is correct.
Incorrect! The general rule when it comes to opposing former clients is that a lawyer may not do so in a same or substantially related matter when the present client's interests are materially adverse to the former client's interests. See Model Rule 1.9(a). Here, the matters are substantially related because representing Kartei is almost like 'switching teams,' from Nails to Kartei. The ethical rules mandate that before you continue, you must obtain Nails's fully informed consent. Therefore, choice (b) is correct.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 7
As in-house counsel for a bagel distributor, The Universal Bagel, you took care of all the issues in the firm related to food preparation and quality. The most memorable case got its start when the store sent a dozen bagels to The Four Reasons restaurant. One bagel caused a violent reaction. Almost lost among the numerous poppy seeds topping this delectable dough was a wee cockroach, her life snuffed out during the boiling stage of the bagel's creation. The roach scared a restaurant customer silly, and your firm was sued on a number of novel legal theories. A few years later, you took your experience with you and set up shop as a sole practitioner. A prospective client came to you for legal help, claiming he was walking past the retail arm of The Universal Bagel when he slipped on some lox spread and crashed into plate glass in the front of the store. May you represent the client given that you used to be in-house counsel of his adversary?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct A lawyer's duty of loyalty to his clients continues even after the representation ends. This, however, does not mean that a lawyer may never oppose a former client in any matter. A lawyer is entitled to oppose a former client on a claim that is unrelated to those handled for the former client. See Model Rule 1.9(a). In this case, you are being asked to represent a client on a slip-and-fall case ' the type of case you never handled when you were an in-house counsel for The Universal Bagel. You thus are entitled to represent the client in this matter. As such, choice (c) is the best answer.
Incorrect! A lawyer's duty of loyalty to his clients continues even after the representation ends. This, however, does not mean that a lawyer may never oppose a former client in any matter. A lawyer is entitled to oppose a former client on a claim that is unrelated to those handled for the former client. See Model Rule 1.9(a). In this case, you are being asked to represent a client on a slip-and-fall case ' the type of case you never handled when you were an in-house counsel for The Universal Bagel. You thus are entitled to represent the client in this matter. As such, choice (c) is the best answer.
Question 8
You represent Jorge Busch in many of his personal affairs, including his employment contracts, medical malpractice issues, and his trust and estate needs. You draft Busch's will, leaving everything to his mother, Barbie. A year or so later, Busch asks you to redraft the will and leave everything 50/50 to Barbie and Dave Korash, a friend of Busch and owner of a club that Busch frequents. You take care of Busch's request. After Busch dies, Barbie challenges the validity of the second will on the grounds of undue influence by Korash. Are you entitled to represent Barbie in her will contest?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct A lawyer may not be retained to challenge the validity of a will he drafted. Importantly, a lawyer owes former clients a duty of loyalty. Even when a client has passed away, the duty of loyalty continues. You may not represent another client in a same or substantially similar matter against your former client, if the new client's interests are materially adverse to those of the former client. In this case, Barbie is challenging the validity of the Busch will, making her interests materially adverse to those of your former client. Of course, obtaining the fully informed consent of your deceased client is impossible. Therefore, choice (c) is the best answer. You may not represent Barbie in her will contest.
Incorrect! A lawyer may not be retained to challenge the validity of a will he drafted. Importantly, a lawyer owes former clients a duty of loyalty. Even when a client has passed away, the duty of loyalty continues. You may not represent another client in a same or substantially similar matter against your former client, if the new client's interests are materially adverse to those of the former client. In this case, Barbie is challenging the validity of the Busch will, making her interests materially adverse to those of your former client. Of course, obtaining the fully informed consent of your deceased client is impossible. Therefore, choice (c) is the best answer. You may not represent Barbie in her will contest.