A client fired an attorney after two weeks of representation, long before the matter was complete. The client had prepaid a large refundable retainer, against which the attorney was to draw his fees as the representation went on. The client therefore has fully paid her fees up to that point to the attorney. The attorney is upset about the client discharging him without cause and believes it is unfair and wrongful. The attorney refuses to return the remainder of the fees and refuses to turn over any documents from the representation to the client. Is it proper for the attorney to take this course of action, if indeed the client had no good reason not discharge him?

A client, who happened to be a judge, hired an attorney to represent her in her divorce proceeding against her husband, who is guilty of marital infidelity. Their fee agreement stipulates that the attorney would bill the client every month for the work performed in the previous thirty days. After two months of representation, the attorney has sent the client two bills, and has received no payments. Is it proper for the attorney to seek to withdraw from the case based on unpaid fees?

An attorney represents a defendant in a prosecution for rape. The client turned down several other experienced criminal defense lawyers who offered to take the case and hired the attorney to represent him. The client saw the victim early in the evening on the date when the rape occurred, but he has a solid alibi, supported by multiple credible witnesses, that he was nowhere near the scene where the rape occurred at the time that it happened, and no DNA tests link the client to the rape. The only evidence against the client, in fact, is the victim's memory of seeing him early that evening and feeling uncomfortable around him, as if she could sense that he was a sexual predator. Her rapist wore a mask, so she could not identify his face, but he was the same height and build as the client, so she is convinced he is the perpetrator. Despite the weakness of the evidence against him and his airtight alibi, the client is furious about the false accusation and wants to teach the victim a lesson. He informs the attorney that he plans to take the stand and testify that the victim has a reputation among his friends for being promiscuous, that when he saw her that evening she was wearing provocative clothing, and that he believes she was "asking to be raped." The attorney finds this repugnant, but he believes the client is truly innocent of the rape in this case, and the client is likely to receive an acquittal with or without his testify attacking the victim's character and reputation. The attorney believes the court will allow him to withdraw from the case and that the client could easily hire one of the other lawyers to take over the representation. Is it improper for the attorney to withdraw from the representation, if he agrees with the objectives the client is pursuing (acquittal) but disagrees with the actions the client plans to take?

An attorney agreed over the phone to represent a client and began working on the case immediately. The client came into the office two weeks later to sign the representation agreement. At the same time, the attorney gave the client a written statement of the hours worked so far and requested immediate payment for that portion of the fee, plus a $10k retainer up front against which the lawyer would draw fees as the representation proceeded. The fee arrangement was complicated. In addition to the hourly fee for the time he had already worked, the agreement called for an hourly rate of $150 per hour for any work done before trial. If the case were to go to trial, the hourly fee would be $250 per hour for the entire trial phase and any appeals. The agreement also stipulated that it incorporated by reference any oral agreements regarding additional fees and expenses. The client signed the agreement. Then the lawyer explained orally that in addition to the hourly fees and the non-refundable retainer, he would take a 25 percent contingent fee of any money that the other side had to pay the client as a result of the representation, whether in damages, as there were claims and cross-claims in the case, or in court-ordered attorneys' fees. The client agreed, and they shook hands to confirm their oral agreement. The client agreed, and they shook hands to confirm their oral agreement. Finally, the agreement authorized the lawyer to have full discretion to accept or reject any settlement offers without prior approval fro the client, although no such offers occurred.
The case proceeded through the discovery phase and went to trial. On the last day of trial, before closing arguments, it appeared that the client might win a large verdict. The client became resentful about the prospect of sharing this with the lawyer and fired the lawyer during a recess before closing arguments. The client returned to the courtroom alone, waived his right to closing argument, and still won a significant verdict. The client now refuses to pay the lawyer the contingent fee or even the hourly fees for the least day of trial, because the client claims the attorney performed incompetently that day. The attorney has threatened to sue the client to obtain the fees. Could the attorney be subject to discipline?

An attorney represents Conglomerate Corporation in a lawsuit against the company brought by an individual plaintiff. The lawsuit could bring bad publicity to CC and could adversely affect its stock share price. CC offers to settle the matter quietly, but the plaintiff rejects the settlement offer. The attorney then files a counterclaim against plaintiff, alleging libel and slander of CC, vexatious litigation, and tortious interference with contract, for which he demands millions of dollars in damages. The attorney and plaintiff's counsel both know these counterclaims lack any basis in fact, and that they will be costly for plaintiff to defend. The attorney uses the counterclaim as leverage in reopening the settlement negotiations, offering to withdraw the counterclaims if plaintiff will accept a new, slightly higher settlement offer. The plaintiff calculates the cost of defending against the counterclaims and the difference between the settlement offer and the expected damages if plaintiff wins at trial, and reluctantly agrees to accept the terms of the offer. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for filing the counterclaims?

A client asked an attorney to represent him in a lawsuit. The attorney conducts some preliminary research and quickly discovers that the lawsuit is a long shot. IN fact, based on the attorney's survey of the existing judicial decisions in very similar cases, the attorney estimates that they have only a 15 percent chance of winning, and it will depend on an extraordinarily lopsided jury, a strongly partisan judge whose political leanings go in their favor, as well as a mediocre lawyer representing the other side. Otherwise, all things being equal, the attorney advises the client that he is about 85 percent certain that they will not prevail. The client is willing to take risks, however, and urges the attorney to take the matter. The attorney reluctantly agrees, on the condition that he can charge a higher fee than usual, and files a lawsuit. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for bringing a frivolous claim?

A client, age eighteen, is facing criminal charges of sex with a minor, based on his sexual relationship with his thirteen-year-old girlfriend, who lives in the same tenement building. The relevant statute has strict liability for perpetrators -- that is, no mens rea or scienter element -- and places the victim's age cutoff for the most serious grade of felony at age fourteen. It is indisputable in the case that the defendant had a sexual relationship with the victim when she was thirteen, but the victim claims she wanted the relationship and willingly consented to the sexual contact with her boyfriend. A state psychologist examined the victim and included in his report that she was emotionally mature for her age and was making relationship decisions in the same way as an adult. Even though the attorney is certain that the trial court will convict the client, he believes there is a slight chance that he could convince an appellate court to take a loose view of the age-of-consent provision in the statute, either on substantive due process grounds or simply as a matter of progressive statutory construction. The attorney believes that many thirteen-year-olds, and even younger, are sexually active nowadays and that the criminal laws should reflect the changing values of society. The attorney agrees, therefore, to take the client's case and to use it as a test case that goes against the clear statutory verbiage and established case precedent?

An attorney is a criminal defense lawyer. The court has appointed him to represent a defendant who has already given a full confession of the burglary to the police, after receiving proper Miranda warnings, and the prosecution has several witnesses who either saw the crime or heard the defendant discussing his plans to commit the crime beforehand. The police property obtained all necessary warrants during their investigation and arrest, and the defendant's actions clearly meet the elements in the statute. The lawyer explains to the defendant that he has almost zero chance of an acquittal, given the evidence against him and the fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the penal code provision that furnished the basis of the charges in the case. In fact, the attorney cannot imagine any viable defense to raise at trial. Does the attorney have an obligation to ask the court for permission to withdraw from the representation?

An associate attorney works at a law firm. The supervising lawyer, who is a partner at the law firm, directs the associate attorney to prepare a petition for a civil case. The associate attorney contacts the client and discusses the facts of the case. During the conversation, the associate attorney realizes that the suit he was directed to file is frivolous and there are no facts to support the claim. The associate attorney discusses his concerns with his supervisor, and the supervising lawyer directs the associate attorney to file the suit, explaining that it is likely to settle prior to trial. Following the supervisor's direction, the associate attorney files the suit. Are the associate attorney's actions proper, given that he was merely following orders?

An attorney worked as a litigator, but she is also a single mother of two young children. She had to pick her children up from daycare every weekday by 4 PM. As a result, whenever she was scheduling hearings, conferences, settlement negotiations, or trial dates, she simply refused to schedule anything in the late afternoon, as that could easily run into the time when she had to pick up her children. The result is that her cases would stretch out over a long period, as she was available for hearings, trials, and other litigation-related meetings only in the mornings and early afternoons, and otherwise must seek postponements. Could the attorney be subject to actions for managing her schedule this way?

An attorney represents a client in a commercial litigation matter against a small independent bookstore. It is known in the local business community that the opposing party (the bookstore) has been on the verge of bankruptcy for the last two or three years. The facts and law of the present litigation, however, makes it a close case -- the attorney believes, accurately, that his client has at best a 50 percent chance of winning at trial. At the client's urging, the attorney files frequent motions asking for more time in discovery, more time to respond to the opposing party's motions, and a postponement of the trial date to allow more time to prepare and locate the necessary expert witnesses. The attorney thinks that the opposing party may have to close and file for bankruptcy soon, which would make the opposing party's claims moot. The judge has an overcrowded docket and is always glad to grant postponements or more time on various responses. Is it proper for the attorney to take this "time is on our side" approach to litigation?

An attorney represented a client in a criminal prosecution. The client agreed to a plea bargain, and the case moved on to a sentencing hearing. The prosecution's pre-sentencing report to the judge erroneously indicates that the client has no prior convictions, and the trial judge asked the client directly whether that is true. The client affirmed that he had no prior criminal record, and the judge sentenced him leniently, giving him six months' probation. Yet the attorney had represented the client previously in another jurisdiction in a criminal matter, and he knew that the pre-sentencing report was erroneous. Before adjourning, the judge asked the attorney if he had anything else to say. Could the attorney be subject to discipline if he does not correct the judge's misperception about the client's criminal record?

An attorney was representing a client in a criminal matter. At the bail hearing, the prosecutor told the court that the defendant was a flight risk, and he asked the court either to confine the defendant until trial or to set bail at $15k. When it was the attorney's turn to speak, he assured the judge that the client had a medical condition that would prevent him from leaving the area, and that the client did not intend to flee the jurisdiction, but was confident that he could stand trial and clear his name of all charges. The attorney knew, however, that the client already had plane tickets to Venezuela, a non-extradition country, and that the client had already fully recovered from his serious medical condition. Is the attorney subject to discipline for making these statements to the court?

A witness testified on a client's behalf at trial. That evening, when the attorney was reviewing exhibits and documents to prepare for the next day of trial, he noticed a document that completely negated the witness' testimony from earlier that day. The testimony was material evidence in the case. The witnesses left the jurisdiction after his testimony concluded, and he is no longer available to correct the false statements. The opposing party's lawyer waived his opportunity to cross-examine the witness, because the testimony was unfavorable to his side and he was eager to move on to a more favorable witness. Does the attorney have a duty to take remedial measures to correct the false testimony, such as disclosing the falsehood to the court?

While conducting research on a litigation matter, an attorney finds a very new case from the highest court in his jurisdiction that is directly adverse to his client's legal position in the case. The opposing party did not mention the case in its briefs, and the attorney realizes that the opposing party's lawyer has been recycling his firm's brief for this type of case for several years without updating his research. Does the attorney have an ethical duty to disclose the unfavorable binding precedent to the court?

An attorney represented a client in her divorce and custody case. The client's husband had been abusive, so she asked the attorney to obtain a temporary restraining order against her ex-husband. The application for the temporary restraining order is an ex parte proceeding, so opposing counsel is not present. The attorney knows that the ex-husband has not been physically abusive to the client in over two years, and that he has been faithfully attending an anger-management support group during that time that appears to have produced genuine results. At the same time, the client is fearful that the ongoing custody battle will push her ex-husband over the edge, and that the abuse she endured in the past will resume. At the hearing for the temporary restraining order application, does the attorney have an affirmative duty to disclose the length of time since the last abuse occurred and the ex-husband's faithful participation in an anger management program?

During opening arguments in a criminal trial before a jury, an attorney, who was representing the defendant, closed his statements by declaring, "My client is innocent; I know it in my heart. By the end of the trial, I am confident that you will agree with me that this is an innocent man." Are such comments proper for a defense lawyer to make during trial?

During his closing argument at a bench trial, an attorney makes the following statement to the judge: "Your Honor, I know this client, because we grew up together and I have represented him in various legal matters for years. I know that he is an honest person who would never lie or try to take advantage of another person unfairly. In fact, I am doing this case on a pro bono basis because I feel so strongly about the justness of his cause." All of these statements were truthful -- the attorney had known the client since childhood and had represented him many times, the attorney admired the client's integrity, and the attorney had offered to handle this case without charging any fee because he believed so strongly that the client was on the right side. Was it proper for the attorney to make these comments during closing arguments?

A client is aware that he is under investigation for student loan fraud. A friend who works at the courthouse tips off the client that a magistrate issued a warrant to search the client's home for evidence the next day in the early morning. In a panic, the client calls his attorney and asks what he should do. The attorney informs him that the agents executing the warrant will surely seize any computers and hard drives that they find, and that the client should probably wipe and reformat all his drives or dispose of his computers, that he should probably smash his cell phone, and that he might want to go on a long vacation immediately. Is the attorney subject to discipline for this advice?

After much effort, an attorney located a witness who could fully corroborate his client's story and could impeach the testimony of the opposing party's star witness. The witness, however, was afraid of retaliation from others if she testified, and did not want to be involved. The attorney offered the witness $10k to appear at the trial for one afternoon and testify for an hour or two. The witness reluctantly agreed. Was it proper for the attorney to offer to pay a favorable witness to under the trouble of testifying at the trial?

An attorney located a witness who could corroborate his client's story. The witness, however, was afraid of retaliation from others if she testified, and did not want to be involved. The witness also lives 1,000 miles away and works as a waitress, so she cannot afford the travel expenses and lodging, and cannot afford to miss work, because she receives no wages if she does not work. The attorney offers to pay all the witness's expenses. The attorney then pays for airfare and pays to put the witness in one of the nicest hotels in the city and pays for all of the witness's dining bills and expensive downtown restaurants. The witness reluctantly agrees. Was it proper for the attorney to offer to pay the expenses for a favorable witness to undergo the trouble of testifying at the trial?

An attorney interviewed an expert witness whom he thought he might hire to testify at a client's trial. The attorney explained he was meeting with several expert witnesses and would hire the one who he thought would seem most persuasive to the jury. The expert witness offered to work on a contingent fee basis; if the attorney did not win the case at which the expert testified, then no fee would accrue. The attorney would have to pay the expert witness only if his testimony were compelling enough to produce a favorable outcome in the case. The attorney thought that this would give the expert an incentive to prepare more thoroughly for trial, and that it would be fairer to the client, who would be left bankrupt if they lost at trial and would have trouble paying the expert's fee anyway. Would it be proper for the attorney to hire the expert witness under such terms?

An attorney represents a small business in a contract dispute with one of its suppliers. The attorney meets with the employees of his client, in groups of four or five at a time, and explains there is litigation pending, that Big Firm is representing the supplier, and that they should simply decline to discuss the case with anyone, especially lawyers from Big Firm. Was it proper for the attorney to ask the employees not to talk to the other party?

In preparation for trial, an attorney and the client sat down together to go over the client's upcoming testimony. The client mentioned, as he recounted his version of the facts, something that the attorney knew would constitute an admission of fault on a critical point in the case. The attorney interrupted the client and said, "If you admit that, you will have forfeited your entire case." The client nodded to show his comprehension of what the attorney said. The client testified at trial and changed his story significantly, carefully omitting the statement that the attorney had identified as a legal admission of guilt. Did the attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct in preparing the client for his testimony in this way?

During a personal injury trial, the court took a lunchtime recess for an hour. The plaintiff's attorney from the case walked across the street from the courthouse to a familiar diner to buy lunch. The diner was very crowded, so it was difficult for patrons to find a table to sit and eat. After ordering his sandwich at the counter, the attorney noticed two jurors from his own trial standing with their food, waiting for a free table. One of the jurors asked the attorney if they could share a table with him when one became available. The attorney agreed, but he reminded them that they could not talk about the case. The three sat together and ate their sandwiches. The two jurors talked most of the time, getting to know each other -- discussing their children, their jobs, and their pets. The attorney did not participate in the conversation except to answer their questions about how many children he had, and whether he owned any pets. Another juror from the trial was at the diner, and noticed the attorney sitting with the other two jurors, which he reported to the judge when court reconvened. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for sharing a table with the jurors during a lunch break?

During a trial, the judge overruled an objection by one of the attorneys. The attorney felt that the judge had made a fundamental error and had ignored a clear provision of the official Rules of Evidence. Court adjourned for the day a few minutes later, and the judge retreated to his chambers. The attorney approached the judge's clerk, who was still in the courtroom, and gave him a handwritten note, folded into a square, to pass along to the judge. The clerk gave the note to the judge. The note thanked the judge for recently inviting the attorney to the judge's home, along with sixty other people from the legal community, for a holiday party. It also said that the judge had made a mistake ruling on the attorney's objection that day, and it referred the judge to the relevant provision of the Rules of Evidence. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for his action?

An attorney represented a client in a prosecution for murder, and the prosecutor was seeking the death penalty. The trial was not going well, and the judge had not sequestered the jury, so the attorney sent his secretary to visit some of the jurors in their homes one evening, bringing them cookies and talking to them about the seriousness of sentencing a fellow human being to death. The secretary did not say she worked for the attorney, but instead introduced herself as a member of an advocacy group that seeks to abolish the death penalty, and she left pamphlets about abolishing the death penalty in each juror's home. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for this activity?

An attorney is a litigator and finds it helpful to talk to jurors after a trial concludes to see what they thought about the performance of the lawyers in the case. Assuming the judge has not forbidden talking to jurors and the jurors are willing to talk to him, is it proper for the attorney to have conversations with jurors in their homes, a week after the trial?

An attorney represented a client in an action for replevin. After the filing of the case, but before the court had sent any notices about the docket number, the attorney spoke to a clerk at the courthouse, and inquired whether the case had received an assignment yet to a judge. The clerk said it was still unassigned. The attorney then asked the clerk to mention to the Director of Judicial Administration, who was also the Chief Presiding Judge, that they should not assign the case to a particular judge, who was notorious for having a bias against parties like the attorney's client, and who had an extraordinarily high reversal rate from the appellate courts in replevin cases. The clerk said he would mention the conversation to the Director, which he did. The Director said she could not accommodate special requests from lawyers regarding case assignments, but when it came time to assign the case, she assigned the case to another judge merely to avoid another embarrassing reversal from the appellate courts. Was it improper for the attorney to ask the clerk to pass his concerns along to the Director?

A client is struggling through a deposition, during which opposing counsel is subjecting him to intense questioning. The attorney, who represents the client, tries objecting a few times in order to break the opposing counsel's momentum, but it was to no avail. The attorney then stood up, shouted, and with a heave overturned the conference table around which the lawyers, court reporter, and deponent were sitting. Notes, cell phones, and open briefcases flew across the room, and the stenographer's equipment tumbled to the floor. The attorney and the client gathered their things and stormed out of the room. A few days later, the attorney called opposing counsel and halfheartedly apologized, and agreed to reschedule the deposition if opposing counsel would agree to behave himself this time. Opposing counsel reported the attorney to the state bar disciplinary authority. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for the way in which he disrupted the deposition?

An attorney is engaged in civil litigation. On his way into the courthouse on the day of jury selection, reporters gather around the attorney hoping for comments. The attorney explains that the (unrelated) criminal trial happening at the courthouse that day is far more important, and he expresses regret that he is not involved in that case at all. He states that he believes the criminal case should result in an acquittal because the police (who are testifying as witnesses in the case) violated the defendant's civil liberties, and because the relevant penal statute itself, which furnished the basis for charges in the case, violates the Bill of Rights. His own civil case, he says, is a brief matter scheduled for a one-day trial, so he hopes to observe the closing arguments tomorrow in the important criminal case in the other courtroom. Are the attorney's statements proper?

An attorney is representing the defendant in a highly publicized criminal trial. On his way into the courthouse on the day of jury selection, reporters gather around the attorney hoping for comments. The attorney explains that the prosecutor already held a press conference in which she shared that the defendant had refused to take a polygraph test, that DNA tests had confirmed the defendant's guilt, and that the defendant had refused several offers of guilty pleas. To set the record straight before trial, the defense attorney explains that his client had already agreed to take a polygraph test but that none had occurred. He adds that defense experts would testify about problems with the DNA tests, and that the plea offers had all been the same (a life sentence instead of the death penalty) and were unacceptable to the client. Were the defense attorney's statements proper?

An attorney is representing the defendant in a highly publicized trial. On his way into the courthouse on the day of jury selection, reporters gather around the attorney hoping for comments. The attorney explains that the prosecutor already held a press conference in which she shared that the defendant had refused to take a polygraph test, and that DNA tests had confirmed the defendant's guilt. The attorney explains that polygraphs are inadmissible due to their unreliability, and that the DNA results are in dispute and will be the subject of expert testimony at trial. He adds that the sleazy prosecutor has a habit of holding such press conferences to prejudice the proceedings before every criminal trial, and that it merely reveals that the prosecutor's cases are too weak to win on the merits without such stunts. His client, he says, is now guilty until proven innocent, which is a shame considering the serious criminal charges in the case. He also mentions that the state's star witness is a dangerous convicted felon who is testifying in exchange for early release from prison. Were the defense attorney's statements proper?

An attorney is representing the defendant in a personal injury trial between a celebrity plaintiff and a famous hotel, where the plaintiff claims to have suffered injuries due to unsafe conditions. On his way into the courthouse on the day of jury selection, reporters gather around the attorney hoping for comments. The attorney explains that his client has already made renovations to the hotel to ensure that no accidents happen in the future, even though they do not admit liability in the present case. He also explains that if his client loses, hisinsurance company will simply pay the damages, and lawsuits like this make everyone's insurance premiums go up. The client had previously given the attorney permission to talk to the media. Opposing counsel is standing nearby waiting for his turn to talk, and he expresses no objection to the first attorney giving interviews like this, or to the lawyer's comments. Are the attorney's statements proper?

An attorney represented a newspaper publisher in a defamation case brought by a popular actor. A radio talk show invited the attorney to participate in their afternoon program and respond to calls from the radio listeners. The first caller asked the attorney to explain the case involving the superhero that the popular actor had played in a recent film. The attorney mentioned that the actor (using the actor's legal name as it appeared in the pleadings, rather than his stage name or the character for which the actor was most famous), and the legal name of the publisher the attorney represented. He also explained that the lawsuit was over alleged defamation by the newspaper, and that the newspaper planned to raise an affirmative defense of truth, that is, it would attempt to show that the stories it printed about the actor were factually accurate, even if they were unflattering. The attorney also mentioned that the actor owns a home and a business in the state, which is a matter of public record, and this is the reason the case is in the courts in that state. Did the attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by making these statements on a radio talk show program?

A prosecutor in a felony drug case addressed a group of reporters outside the DA's office. In response to questions about the specific case underway, the prosecutor explained that the judge had consolidated the trials of three co-defendants into a single proceeding and had postponed the proceeding until the next summer, four months away. Was it proper for the prosecutor to disclose such details about the case to reporters?

An attorney works in a partnership with one other lawyer. A client wants the attorney to represent her in litigation over a contract dispute, because the attorney helped negotiate the contract. In fact, the attorney was the only other party in the room when the client and the other party reached a final agreement on the terms and signed the contract. The attorney explains that he may have to testify as a witness at the client's trial, as the dispute involves the parties' intention regarding a certain ambiguous provision of the contract. The attorney said he would truthfully corroborate the client's version of the events. As a result, the attorney explains, he cannot represent the client at the trial, but his partner at the firm (a two-lawyer partnership) could represent the client instead. The client retained the attorney's partner to represent her in the litigation. Is this arrangement proper?

An attorney, an associate at Big Firm, applied for a patent for a client and successfully obtained the patent. Three years later, another party sued the client, alleging an infringement on one of their patents. The attorney was a necessary witness in the patent infringement matter and planned to testify on behalf of the client that the client had successfully obtained a patent to the invention in dispute. Two partners at Big Firm, where the attorney worked, handled the representation of the client in the infringement case, pursuant to the client's written consent. Will the two partners at Big Firm be subject to disqualification from representing the client in the patent infringement case, if the attorney will be a witness about the original patent application?

After obtaining a favorable verdict at trial, a client asked the court to award attorneys' fees which was permissible under relevant law. An attorney had represented the client throughout the litigation and now had to testify as a witness about the fees he had charged during the representing, authenticating, explaining, and justifying both the billable hours recorded on the timesheets and the lodestar rate for his legal services. Was it improper for the attorney to testify as a witness in the same proceeding in which he had represented a party as trial counsel?

Three years into the litigation in a complex antitrust lawsuit, it became necessary to have the attorney, who alone represented the defendant corporation, testify as a witness at the trial. The attorney had been present at a private meeting between his client and an industry rival, at which they allegedly discussed a price-fixing scheme, and the testimony of the two rivals (the only ones besides the attorney at the meeting) contradicted each other. The question of what occurred at the meeting was a hotly contested issue in the case, but it was only one of many issues in the protracted, extremely complex litigation. The opposing party moved to disqualify the attorney from representing his client after the attorney took the stand to testify. Should the court disqualify the attorney from representation, or from testifying as a witness?

A District Attorney discovers a single item of evidence that partly undermines the state's case against a criminal defendant -- the state's star witness in the case, the prosecutor learns, had a suspension from high school for an instance of egregious plagiarism. The DA believes this is not material in that it would not change the outcome of the case, because the incident occurred ten years ago, and the witness is now an undercover police officer-informant. In fact, the DA believes it is trivial, and he is correct that the item would not fall under the duty of disclosure set forth by the Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland. At the same time, the defense lawyer in the case has a reputation for making much ado about nothing, prolonging trials unnecessarily with tedious minutia. The DA decides to keep the information about the high school suspension to himself and let defense counsel discover it on his own if he wants. Did the DA act within the requirements of the Model Rules?

An attorney represented an alternative energy firm that is lobbying the state legislature to provide subsidies for companies that develop wind, solar, or geothermal energy sources. When appearing before a legislative committee, the attorney disclosed that he represents the company and submitted reports from his client about the efficiency of his client's products and the savings that could accrue to the public if more people used their products. The reports also purported that the company was having trouble staying in business and could not survive without a large government grant or subsidy. The attorney knew, however, that many of these figures were inaccurate, and that in fact the company was making a handsome profit on products that were less efficient than fossil fuel sources of energy. Was it improper for the attorney to submit such documents to a legislative committee?

Unable to find a convincing defense for his criminal client, the defense lawyer began to think about desperate measures. He felt an overwhelming duty to rescue his client from a long prison sentence, no matter what.
Just before the close of evidence, the lawyer raised a defense of entrapment. The defendant had not been the target of a sting operation, and there was no evidence that the police had offered any inducement to commit the crime, which was an aggravated assault on a family member. The prosecutors immediately objected that the defense counsel should have raised this earlier, and the judge quickly dismissed the claim as unfounded and told the lawyer to move on.
He next tried stalling, and he told the judge he could prove someone else committed the crime if there could be more time. This was a complete fabrication, and the judge asked several searching questions, but the lawyer was insistent. The judge denied the request for more time. Then the lawyer claimed that he also wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the assault statute itself, claiming the Second Amendment's right to bear arms implied a right to assault people with a weapon under a wide range of circumstances. The judge laughed and agreed to give him two weeks to brief the issue to preserve it for appeal. The next day, the lawyer held a press conference, in which he claimed the judge was biased and that it was clear that someone else had committed the crime and had framed his client. Were the lawyer's actions proper?

The Supreme Court in a state adopted a new rule that doubled the number of continuing legal education hours each lawyer must complete every year in order to maintain a license to practice law in the state. The fifty-hour annual CLE requirement was the highest of any state in the nation. A legal aid lawyer challenged the new rule on constitutional grounds, claiming that it was unduly burdensome to poverty lawyers, given the high cost of the CLE courses, and therefore could leave more poor citizens without representation. Is the legal aid lawyer likely to prevail in this challenge?

A client consults with an attorney, a solo practitioner, about a family law issue. The attorney has never practiced family law; he has spent his years as an attorney practicing construction litigation issues. The attorney accepts the case, as he is only handling a few commercial construction cases at this time and could use the money this case will bring to his practice. The attorney believes he can get advice on how to handle the case from attorneys in the area who practice family law, and with whom he has good relationships. Is the attorney subject to discipline?

A state legislature enacted a statute that doubled the number of continuing legal education hours each lawyer must complete every year in order to maintain a license to practice law in the state. The fifty-hour annual CLE requirement was the highest of any state in the nation. A legal aid lawyer challenged the new rule on constitutional grounds, claiming that it was unduly burdensome to poverty lawyers, given the high cost of the CLE courses, and therefore could leave more poor citizens without representation. In the alternative, the lawyer claimed that it violated the separation of powers. Is the legal aid lawyer likely to fail in this challenge?

A client asks an attorney to represent him in a complete corporate taxation matter regarding the taxable earnings of an overseas corporate subsidiary that pays its American employees by direct deposits to bank accounts in the United States. All the overseas subsidiary's sales occur in the United States, but all its products and supplies it purchases overseas, and half the employees are foreigners. A dispute with the IRS over the matter has been going on for several years. The attorney never took a tax course in law school and has no practice experience in the area. The attorney needs more clients, so he agrees to take the case and to conduct the necessary study to provide adequate representation. The client agrees to those terms, and the attorney undertakes the representation. A few months later, due to a change in which political party controlled the White House, the IRS abruptly dropped the case against the client, so the client receives a satisfactory resolution to the matter. Would the attorney be subject to discipline for undertaking this representation?

An attorney normally does business transactional work for clients, and he has done so for a decade. One of the attorney's clients recently injured another driver in a car accident, and he asked the attorney to defend him the personal injury lawsuit over the incident. The attorney has never taken a case to trial, but he took trial advocacy courses in law school and has served as second chair on other lawyer's commercial litigation trials. The attorney would like to keep the client and would not mind expanding his practice into a new area. Which of the following would be an improper course of action?

A lawyer received a court appointment to represent an indigent criminal defendant in a complex case involving felony money laundering, counterfeiting, tax fraud, and other aspects of organized crime. The lawyer tried to refuse the appointment, explaining to the judge that she was handling too many other cases right then, and that she had never handled a complex criminal case. The lawyer reluctantly took the case and did a minimal amount of work on it -- no more than she would normally do for a simple misdemeanor matter. In the end, the prosecutor needed her client to agree to testify against another more important member of the same criminal conspiracy, and offered her client a surprisingly favorable (lenient) plea deal. The client was pleased with the outcome of the matter and grateful to the lawyer who represented him. Could the lawyer be subject to discipline, based on these facts?

An attorney works as a public defender. The office is always underfunded, meaning they cannot afford to hire enough staff attorneys, and the current attorneys all carry an overload of cases. The attorney feels that she is unable to provide full representation to each client, as she must conduct about seven plea bargaining sessions for different clients per weekday, and usually meets the clients for the first time about fifteen minutes before each plea bargain session. Each plea bargain takes about an hour, with short breaks in between. The attorney strongly encourages most of her clients to accept a plea bargain, because taking one case to trial will mean that the public defender's office must turn away about two dozen indigent clients. The attorney and her colleagues believe that it is better for defendants to have a little representation rather than none at all, and that most defendants would lose at trial anyway. Does the attorney have an ethical problem, under the Rules of Professional Conduct?