500 MC -- 335 through 390

An attorney worked as an entry-level prosecutor. She did not have supervisory position or title in her office hierarchy but merely worked on her assigned cases under the direction and oversight of the higher-ranked lawyers in the office. On one occasion, however, a case arose involving an issue that was important to her, so she asked to be the lead prosecutor on this one case. The District Attorney agreed and assigned one other lawyer in the office, who was also an entry-level prosecutor, to assist her on the matter. The case had two defendants, and at one point, the attorney leading the prosecution was in one room negotiating a plea arrangement with the first defendant, and the lawyer assisting her was negotiating with the other defendant at the same time in the next room. The state's main witness against the two defendants was a third co-conspirator who had become an informant in exchange for a favorable plea that involved no jail time. The lawyer assisting in the case lied to the second defendant and denied that the state's witnesses had agreed to a deal. The lawyer had told the lead attorney on the case that he planned to do this beforehand, and she informed him that this was unethical, but she did not try to stop him from doing so, because she was not his boss. After the negotiations, they met to debrief and he informed her that he had indeed lied to the defendant and defense counsel about the state's arrangement with their main witness in the case. She reminded him that this violated the ethical rules, but she took no further action because she was only assisting on the case. Could the attorney be subject for the ethical violations in this case?

An insurance company routinely hired outside counsel to represent its policyholders in litigation under liability policy. An inexperienced attorney worked for the firm. The firm's partners charged the policyholders fees for the representation even though the insurer was already paying their legal fees; this and other aspects of their fee arrangements violated state insurance laws, as well as the ethical rules about reasonable fees. The inexperienced acted as the partners directed him to do and charged clients these fees that were illegal and unreasonable, but at one point he raised concerns about the practice with one of the partners. The partner said he would check into it. Would the safe harbor provisions of model rule 5.2(b) absolve the attorney of a duty to research the fee issue?

An attorney had recently graduated from law school and entered the practice of law. After a federal clerkship, he went to work for Big Firm, which paid the highest associate's salaries in the state. a partner at Big Firm gave the attorney an assignment to represent the teenage daughter of one of Big Firm's most important clients, a billionaire social media entrepreneur. The daughter had been part of a group of student protesters that the police had arrested. When arrested, the daughter had given the police a friend's driver's license and identified herself as the friend, who had a similar appearance. The police mistakenly charged the daughter under the friend's name, and the district attorney proceeded to prosecute her under the mistaken identity. The friend, whose name and driver's license the daughter had used, was unaware that she was the named defendant in a misdemeanor criminal case, and the billionaire's daughter, who was now the attorney's client, continued with the ruse even as she remained in custody along with the other protestors. During a private consultation with her, the attorney asked about the name discrepancy, as he was expecting to represent the daughter of Big Firm's client, and the girl explained the false identification and insisted that the attorney not disclose her real identity to the police or the court. BAck at the firm's office, the attorney approached the partner who had assigned the case but before the attorney could finish explaining the problem, the partner said,"Do not mess this up, her father is an important client of the firm. Convince the court to drop the charges as quickly as possible. Close this matter quickly." The attorney spoke to the prosecutor and convinced her to dismiss the case, but the attorney never told her about the misidentification of his client. After the dismissal of the case, the attorney met with the billionaire's daughter and her mother, together with the friend whose name she had used and the friend's parents, who were upset that their daughter had been named defendant in the matter in the first place. Despite the attorney's efforts to reassure the parents that the state dropped the charges, the friend's parents contacted the prosecutor's office in hopes of removing the arrest from their daughter's record. When the prosecutor realized what had trasnpired, he reported the attorney to the state bar disciplinary authorities. Could the attorney, as an inexperience new associate at Big Firm, be subject to discipline for this matter?

An attorney works exclusively as a contract lawyer for other firms that need extra help for big cases, whether in pre-trial document review or in background research and writing of briefs. She has no direct contact with the clients of these firms and she does not participate in important decisions about any of the matters for which she performs legal tasks. Can the attorney avoid being subject to discipline if a firm uses her contract work in a way that constitutes misconduct, either regarding clients or before a tribunal, assuming she either knows or could have known about the misconduct?

An attorney who had only recently graduated from law school, and she received a job offer from a newly elected county attorney, after volunteering for his campaign. The new attorney did not directly handle cases but assisted trial lawyers with clerical work and non-legal tasks, such as creating public service announcements for websites, social media, and press interviews. The county attorney soon began a series of highly publicized attacks, including lawsuits and investigations, against political rivals on the county board and county courts. At one point, the county attorney decided to file a federal civil racketeering lawsuit against several of the county board members. There was no factual support for the allegations. When all the other lawyers in the office refused to be involved in the matter, the county attorney assigned the case to the new attorney, who had no trial experience, and who was completely unfamiliar with the racketeering statute or case law. she took the case enthusiastically because she was eager to prove herself to the county attorney; she even tried to amend the complaint to add additional racketeering charges, which were merely duplicative of the existing frivolous charges. She also filed several preemptive pre-trial motions seeking to qualify her expert witnesses and suppress evidence the defendants might try to submit. The court denied the motion to amend the complaint and dismissed the original complaint for having no basis in fact or law. The judge took the additional step of filing a grievance with the state bar against the attorney. In her hearing before the disciplinary committee, the attorney claimed that she was too inexperienced to know that the racketeering charges in her case had no basis in fact or law, and that she merely deferred to the guidance and instructions of the county attorney. Could she be subject to discipline despite these mitigating factors?

An attorney who works for a mid-size law firm that employs two or three law students every year as summer associates. The manager of the student associates assigns one of them to work on the attorney's pending anti-trust case, in addition to assignments for other lawyers at the firm. While researching a central issue in the case, the summer associate discovered an older supreme court decision that unfavorable to their client. The summer associate decided not to tell anyone about the case, as the opposing party seemed to have overlooked it in their briefs. The attorney was not aware of any of this until they were on a break during their hearing. The hearing was going well for their side, and the associate boasted to the attorney about "burying" that supreme court case he had found. The attorney said, "well, you should have told me about it at the time, but there is no point in bringing it up now, as It appears opposing counsel overlooked it and the hearing is going our way." The judge's clerks, however, found the case, and the judge queried the lawyers about how they could have missed it. Opposing counsel admitted he had been negligent in doing legal research on the matter, and the attorney recounted the story about the summer associate hiding the case from him. Is the attorney now subject to disciple for what the summer associate did?

An attorney hired a receptionist because of her good looks and because her brother was in the attorney's college fraternity, but he did not check into her background at all or ask for references. Receptionist had access to all files, records, and accounts in the firm, and three months later, there arose a problem with funds missing from client trust accounts. Circumstantial evidence pointed to Receptionist as the culprit, and at this point, the attorney learned that the Receptionist has an arrest record for theft and embezzlement on several occasions in the past. The attorney lectures Receptionist about it but allows her to keep her job because nobody can prove her guilty-- the firm does not keep the type of records that would enable anyone to prove where the missing funds went. When additional complaints arise over misappropriated client trust funds, would the attorney be subject to discipline?

A certain attorney is a fifth-year associate at a large national law firm. As a senior associate, the attorney can attend business meetings of the firm, but cannot vote on any decisions. The attorney is aware that the firm has no measures in effect that would give reasonable assurance that the paralegals are observing the confidentiality and conflict of interest rules that are part of the professional obligations of lawyers. The attorney mistakenly believes, however, that the rules apply only to the lawyers in the firm, not to the clerical staff of paralegals. When a paralegal in a separate practice group from the attorney violates the rules and the state disciplinary authority investigates the firm's ethical compliance measures, will the attorney be subject to discipline?

An attorney employs an experienced legal assistant to manage administrative matters in the firm, including the client trust accounts. The attorney provided the legal assistant with detailed instructions about client trust accounts, including the specific kinds of records to keep, what funds to deposit there, and under what circumstances to withdraw funds. The attorney also sent the legal assistant to attend CLE courses and workshops on IOLTA accounts and through training, competence, and experience, the attorney reviewed the client account books cursorily once a year during the annual review of the employee. Eventually, an audit by the state disciplinary authority revealed numerous discrepancies in the bookkeeping regarding the IOLTA accounts and some prohibited commingling of client funds with the firm's funds. The attorney had no actual knowledge of the discrepancies or problems regarding the client trust accounts. Is the attorney subject to discipline?

An attorney was part of a partnership before he died. He left his nephew as his sole heir. The partnership agreement, as written, provides that the firm should pay certain amounts to the nephew. those amounts are $210,000 for the attorney's share of the firm's assets; a $500,000 death benefit, provided for all shareholders in the partnership; and $17,500 for fees that the attorney earned on recent cases, but had to yet received. Under the model rules, which of the following represents the most that the firm may properly pay to the decedent's nephew?

Attorney Barrett was the managing partner at a small law firm. Barrett hired Cooper, an ordained minister who had been unemployed, as a legal assistant at the firm. Cooper's main job at the firm, however, was to bring in new clients. Cooper received a minimum-wage base salary, but also received large bonuses for bringing in clients who generated fees for the firm, and the combined bonuses each year exceeded $100,000. The firm paid for Cooper to complete a certification course to become a hospital chaplain, which gave Cooper chaplain's access to emergency areas of hospitals to visit accident victims and their families. He would offer to pray with them, but he would also give them a business card from Barrett's firm. In this way, Cooper brought several high-payoff personal injury clients to the firm. Cooper also recruited clients from the local church where he served as a "biblical counselor." Is it proper for the firm to pay Cooper bonuses for bringing fee-generating clients to the firm?

An attorney could not find a full-time job after law school, so instead he works on a contract basis for other firms. The attorney also signs up with a legal temp-work agency, a company owned by nonlawyers that places lawyers in temporary assignments at law firms that need an extra associate on a short-term basis. Law firms contact the legal temp-work agency when they need lawyers for a special project or assignment, and the agency sends them several resumes from which to choose the temporary associates they want. Through this temp- work agency, the attorney receives a three-month assignment at Big Firm conducting document review as part of litigation discovery. The firm pays the attorney $75 per hour, and it pays the temp-work agency a placement fee of 7% on whatever the attorney earns. Big Firm, in turn, passes the attorney's $100/hour fees and the 7% placement fee through to its clients as an item on the client's bill. Is this arrangement proper?

after a long distinguished career as a solo practitioner in a major city, an elderly attorney agrees to join a newer law firm on the condition that the firm would pay $1000 per month after the attorney's death to his sister, who is 74 years old, until her death. The attorney's sister is not a lawyer. The firm agrees to this arrangement, in addition to making the attorney a partner with a 15% share in the firm. Is this arrangement proper?

An attorney agrees to buy the successful law firm of a fellow lawyer who recently succumbed to terminal cancer. The sale includes the office building, the library and furnishings, and the good will of the firm, and conforms to the provisions of Rule 1.7. The purchasing attorney pays $100,000, the agreed-upon purchase price, to the executor of the deceased lawyer's estate, but the executor is not a lawyer. The funds for the purchase came from the contingent fees in a recent personal injury case won by the purchasing attorney. Was this transaction improper?

Three law partners have decided to incorporate their firm instead of continuing as a partnership, as their malpractice insurer has offered them a lower rate on their premiums if they incorporate and thereby reduce some of their joint liability. They also want to make a clearer track for associates to become shareholders after reaching certain performance benchmarks. The articles of incorporation provide that when a shareholder dies, a fiduciary representative of the estate may hold stock in the corporation for a reasonable time during the administration of the estate before transferring it to the heirs. Which of the following may the partners properly do as they incorporate?

A church retains an attorney to challenge a new zoning regulation that would prohibit the church from constructing a new, expanded sanctuary on its property, attached to the existing church. The church cannot afford to pay the attorney, and it is seeking only a declaratory judgment (that the regulation is invalid) rather than money damages. The attorney agrees to take the case and then split any court- awarded legal fees with the church if they prevail. They win a favorable judgment; the court declares the regulation unconstitutional and awards legal fees, which the attorney shares with the church. Is the fee sharing proper?

An attorney is a licensed lawyer in a New England state, but has an office and represents clients exclusively in a southern state. The attorney confines her practice to immigration law, representing foreign- born clients in immigration hearings. A relevant federal statute permits nonlawyers to appear as representatives for immigrants when they appear before the immigration agency. Many of the attorney's clients have applied for a spousal visa after marrying an American citizen, and some clients had a Notary Public from their home country or an un- ordained lay minister from their home church conduct their wedding ceremony. In addition, some were previously married and divorced in their home country, where such transactions are informal and have no official documentation. There is often some question about whether the marriage is valid under local state law, which is a prerequisite for obtaining certain types of visas. Which of the following is correct?

A husband and wife are both attorneys in Puerto Rico, though they attended law school in Florida. They have practiced in Puerto Rico for ten years and have a license to practice there. Last year, they moved to Florida, where the wife took the state bar exam and gained admission to the Florida bar. They have now opened a law office in Florida with both of their names listed on the firm letterhead, followed by the phrase "Attorneys at Law." The husband confines his practice exclusively to Puerto Rican clients who are living in Florida or are visiting there; the wife handles all other legal matters. It is proper for them to use such letterhead?

An attorney obtained a license to practice law in the state where she attended law school. After a few years, the attorney took a job in a neighboring state, moved there, and obtained a license to practice law in her new state. She kept her original license, in her former state, but went on inactive status there to avoid the burdensome annual bar membership fees in a state where she no longer practiced. Eventually, her new firm loses its anchor clients and recommends that the attorney drum up some new business among her former clients. Then the attorney sends letters to all her former clients in her former state, offering to represent them in any new legal matters they have, or in updating wills or contracts that she previously did for them. She travels about once per week to her home state and meets with clients in a library study room at the law school she attended. A few of her former clients refer her to friends or relatives who become new clients, and the attorney's new employer is thrilled. Which of the following is true?

A client retains his attorney, who has represented the client in the past, to represent him in litigation in another state, where the attorney is unlicensed. The matter requires some knowledge of the law of the state where the trial will occur. His attorney files a pro ha vice appearance in the matter, which the local court accepts, and begins preparing for trial there. The attorney and the client never discuss the particulars of filing a pro hac vice appearance; nor did they discuss why it would be necessary. The client never asked if the attorney could practice law in the other jurisdiction, and the attorney never explained the licensing requirement and that he would need permission from the court there to handle the case. Then the attorney prevailed in the matter on behalf of the client, kept his agreed- upon contingent fee, and gave the client the remaining proceeds and unused retainer funds. Which of the following is true?

An attorney resided in and had a license to practice law in the state where he graduated from law school. During a nationwide pandemic, the attorney went to stay with his aging parents in a neighboring state. He did not have a license to practice law there, but while there the attorney continued to work remotely on his existing cases from the state where had a law license. Weeks went by, then months, and he was still in the neighboring state staying with his parents and working remotely, a state that did not expressly prohibit lawyers licensed elsewhere from working remotely on their cases from where they held a license. The state where the attorney is staying does, however, have a version of Model Rule 5.5, prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law?

An attorney hired a second-year law student as a clerk. The law student is unlicensed. The attorney has the law student perform a variety of tasks. Which of the following tasks, if performed by the law student, would mean that the attorney is subject to discipline?

An attorney resided in and had a license to practice law in the state where he graduated from law school. During a nationwide pandemic, the attorney went to stay with his aging parents in a neighboring state. He did not have a license to practice law there, but while there the attorney continued to work remotely on his existing cases from the state where had a law license. Weeks went by, then months, and he was still in the neighboring state staying with his parents and working remotely, a state that did not expressly prohibit lawyers licensed elsewhere from working remotely on their cases from where they held a license. The state where the attorney is staying does, however, have a version of Model Rule 5.5, prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. After a few months, his secretary from his home office began to complain about having to forward all his regular mail to his remote-working address, so he obtained a P.O. Box address in the town where he was staying. He added this address on his firm's website contact information for him, and added the address where he was staying to his signature line on his emails and printed correspondence, so that mail would get sent directly to him. He also informed clients he was working remotely from the neighboring state and offered to meet with them there if they happened to be in town. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law?

An experienced attorney has an office in State X, and she is duly licensed to practice law in that state. The attorney's office is in a city on the border of State Y, and the attorney does not have a license to practice there. Over the years, some of the attorney's clients have in fact been residents of State Y, and their legal issues sometimes involve research into the laws or judicial precedents of State Y. For the convenience of these clients, and to attract the business of other clients there, the attorney rents a small office space, hires nonlawyer clerical staff, and otherwise prepares premises for the general practice of law at a branch-office location in State Y. Is it permissible for the attorney to open the branch office in State Y?

An experienced attorney has an office in State X, and she is duly licensed to practice law in that state. The attorney's office is in a city on the border of State Y, and the attorney does not have a license to practice there. The attorney represents a regulated utility, which operates a power plant in State X near the border with State Y. The attorney's representation of the utility mostly pertains to environmental issues, obtaining necessary permits, and complying with federal and state regulations of utilities. Occasionally, the utility also has issues relating to compliance with the environmental and permitting laws of State Y because of those same activities. Is it permissible for the attorney to travel to State Y to deal with governmental officials regarding regulatory issues arising out of the utility's activities?

An experienced attorney has an office in State X, and she is duly licensed to practice law in that state. The attorney's office is in a city on the border of State Y, and the attorney does not have a license to practice there. The attorney represents a regulated utility, which operates a power plant in State X near the border with State Y. The attorney's original work for the utility in State X related to rate-setting proceedings before a utility commission in that state, and before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). New legislative changes now permit the utility to make retail sales of electricity to consumers in multiple states. Given the attorney's extensive knowledge of the utility's rate-related financial information, the utility asks the attorney to handle its new rate applications in several other states, but in none of these states does the attorney have a license to practice law. The attorney's work in those matters would frequently require her presence for legal activities in each of the other states until the new rate work is complete. Is it permissible for the attorney to conduct those activities in the other states on behalf of the utility?

An attorney wants to retire from practice due to a chronic illness, and he decides to sell his practice to another lawyer. The sale agreement complies with the Model Rules regarding the sale of a law practice. As part of the sale agreement, however, the attorney stipulates that he will not resume the practice of law in that jurisdiction, even if medical breakthroughs cure his chronic illness and restore him to perfect health. The purchaser of the firm is aware that research for a cure of the attorney's illness is well underway, and he is concerned because it is foreseeable that the attorney would recover and want to return to the practice of law in a few years. Is it proper for the attorney and his buyer to include this provision of the sales agreement for the law firm?

An attorney agrees to join a new firm as one of its shareholders, and to merge his practice with that of the new firm. The shareholder agreement includes a provision that if the attorney retires from the firm and begins collecting the firm's retirement benefits, he cannot practice law with another firm, government entity, or as a solo practitioner. Otherwise, the agreement stipulates, the attorney will forfeit the retirement benefits. The firm is concerned that the attorney will want to represent clients occasionally in his retirement, and that he may steal some clients from the firm. Is this agreement proper?

Big Bank hires outside counsel to handle its mortgage foreclosure cases against borrowers who are in default. An attorney agrees to handle a matter for Big Bank, but the engagement contract between the attorney and Big Bank specifies that the attorney may not represent clients in the future who have adversarial claims against Big Bank, and that the attorney agrees to disqualification in any case in which Big Bank would be the opposing party in litigation. The attorney recognized that this term would be unenforceable in court, and he accepted the appointment as outside counsel. Were the attorney's actions improper, under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct?

An attorney specializes in helping his business clients obtain business loans from commercial lenders. While assisting one client in obtaining an unusually large commercial loan from Big Bank, the attorney noticed a clause in the loan contract by which the borrower promised that its attorney would not seek to obtain similar loans for other parties from Big Bank's primary market competitor in that state. The clause required evidence of a contractual agreement by the attorney - whether with Big Bank or with the client - to this effect. The client desperately needed the loan to survive a temporary downturn in its own industry, and the attorney could easily direct future clients to this same lender, Big Bank, to obtain loans on comparable terms to what the competitor bank offered. In fact, most of the attorney's clients ended up getting their financing through Big Bank, and only rarely had the attorney succeeded in securing loans for clients through the competitor. The contract provision seemed harmless to the attorney, though it would be enforceable. Is it proper for the attorney to sign off on these loan documents for this client, including this clause in the contract?

Big Bank routinely hired lawyers as outside counsel on various matters, and it required each one to sign an Outside Counsel Agreement (OCG) as part of its contract of engagement for legal representation. Big Bank's OCG included the following provision: Notwithstanding the rules and opinions set forth in ABA or state ethical opinions, regulations, or cases applicable to outside counsel, outside counsel agrees to treat Big Bank and all its subsidiaries as one entity for analyzing conflicts of interest. Big Bank will ordinarily give informed consent, confirmed in writing, to waive conflicts in transactional matters, whenever the bank's interests will not be impaired. For conflicts of interest, Big Bank shall include all organizations and entities delineated in the attached APPENDIX, which Big Bank may amend at any time. An attorney has an opportunity to work as outside counsel for Big Bank on a specific matter, but she is concerned about this provision. Would it be proper for the attorney to accept this CG by contractual agreement?

Conglomerate Corporation routinely hires outside counsel for representation on legal matters, and it requires the lawyers to sign an Outside Counsel Agreement (OCG) that contains the following provision: ATTORNEY agrees not to represent any party adverse to CONGLOMERATE CORP., or any entity in the APPENDIX, without prior written consent. In no event may ATTORNEY represent an adverse party against CONGLOMERATE in litigation. The APPENDIX contains a confidential list of entities ATTORNEY must use in screening for conflicts. The APPENDIX includes some entities that may be affiliated with CONGLOMERATE's parent companies, as well as entities that may not be controlled by CONGLOMERATE or its parent companies, but in which they may have an ownership interest. Would it be improper for an attorney to enter into this agreement, if it includes this CG provision?

Conglomerate Corporation offered to hire an attorney as outside counsel for a specific legal matter. Conglomerate's OCG (outside counsel agreement) with all outside lawyers it hires includes the following provision: ATTORNEY agrees that it would constitute an impermissible conflict of interest to represent a significant competitor of CONGLOMERATE CORP. or its subsidiaries or affiliates. The APPENDIX attached to this document includes a list of CONGLOMERATE CORP. subsidiaries. Before ATTORNEY'S representation begins, ATTORNEY must disclose in writing the names of any national or regional retailers or any significant competitors of CONGLOMERATE CORP. or its subsidiaries or affiliates that ATTORNEY represents, as well as a general description of the type of representation that ATTORNEY'S firm provides to such client(s). Is it proper for Conglomerate's in-house counsel to require outside counsel to agree to this provision in the OCG?

An attorney worked as in-house counsel at Conglomerate Corporation. Her employment agreement with Conglomerate Corporation that she would not, following her employment there, represent any client in litigation against Conglomerate. General Counsel for Conglomerate maintained that this was necessary to prevent lawyers who left there from using confidential information they learned during their time at Conglomerate against the company in litigation thereafter. In other words, the contractual provision merely mirrored the duties a lawyer in that situation would have under the conflicts of interest rules. Would this agreement be enforceable, if the attorney left Conglomerate Corporation and then represented a client who had a contract claim against the company?

An attorney worked as in-house counsel at Conglomerate Corporation. Conglomerate had a problem with lawyers who left its legal department to work for its suppliers - the lawyers would contact their friends who still worked for Conglomerate to solicit additional supply contracts, or to negotiate more favorable terms on existing contracts. Worse, the lawyers could also make strategic use of their knowledge of Conglomerate's internal procurement practices (such as the time of year when certain major supplier contracts were up for renewal). General Counsel for Conglomerate started including in its contracts with all new in-house counsel a prohibition on departing lawyers who work for Conglomerate's corporate vendors, either as in-house counsel or with a law firm representing the vendor, from contacting any of Conglomerate's employees. Is this agreement proper, under the Model Rules?

An attorney represented a plaintiff in a claim against Conglomerate Corporation and was remarkably effective in her efforts, mostly because she hired Professor Stevenson as an expert witness. After the deposition of Stevenson, Conglomerate realized they needed to settle the case before trial. Conglomerate offered a very generous settlement to the plaintiff, including the full amount the plaintiff sought as recovery in its pleadings, plus reasonable attorney's fees, and even some additional stock options in Conglomerate Corporation. Conditions of the settlement included a waiver and release of all the plaintiff's claims, including potential claims not part of this lawsuit, and an agreement by the attorney never to use Professor Stevenson again as an expert witness in a case against Conglomerate. The settlement imposed no other restraints on the attorney, and it did not restrain Professor Stevenson from serving as a fact witness (as opposed to expert) in the future. Assume for this question that Professor Stevenson is not a licensed attorney in this jurisdiction. Is this agreement proper, under the Model Rules?

An attorney made a lateral move to Small Firm. The managing partner had the attorney sign an employment contract on his first day, which included a provision under which the attorney agreed that upon leaving employment, he would pay his former employer ninety-five percent of any attorney fees earned in a contingent-fee settlement from any Small Firm clients who might follow the attorney when he left. The attorney worked for Small Firm for seven years, then left to start his own practice. Before the attorney left Small Firm, however, he had begun representation of a client who was an accident victim, and the client choose to follow the attorney to his new firm, to continue the representation. The attorney eventually obtained a generous settlement for the client; the attorney's contingent fee was one- third of the award, after deducting fees and expenses. The managing partner immediately notified the attorney that he had a contractual obligation to pay Small Firm ninety-five percent of the fee from the settlement, and notified the defendant's insurer, that it should send its check to Small Firm as the loss payee rather than the attorney's new firm. What is the proper result in this case?

Conglomerate Corporation was a defendant in multidistrict litigation and a plaintiff's attorney represented many different plaintiffs in these related cases against Conglomerate. The attorney and Conglomerate reached a settlement agreement for one group of claimants. The settlement was generous toward those plaintiffs, but it included an agreement by the attorney to withdraw as counsel from representing the other plaintiffs in related cases who had not yet settled their claims. Is the attorney correct in believing it would be improper to sign this agreement with this group of plaintiffs?

An attorney represented a plaintiff in a wrongful death case arising out of a prison riot, which included many claims and crossclaims. The case ended in settlement. The defendant's settlement offer included two conditions: first, the commonplace requirement that the attorney and client not disclose the amount of the settlement; and second, that the attorney give defendant counsel her entire file to keep under seal, meaning the attorney could not keep copies of her own work product in the case. She would have to turn over her own personal notes and internal memoranda in the file from her interns and associates. Would it be proper for the attorney to agree to this as a condition of a large monetary settlement for her client?

An attorney represents a large corporate defendant in a tort action over a defective product line. The current action is the first of what may be many such lawsuits, but the problems with its product line have not received any media attention yet, so the company decides to settle the matter quietly. Recognizing that he has a duty to protect the legal interests of his client, the attorney asks for three conditions in the settlement. First, the plaintiff agrees to a waiver and release of this and any other claims arising out of the use of this product, at least up to that time. Second, the plaintiff and the attorney must agree not to disclose the settlement amount to anyone. Third, the plaintiff's lawyer must agree not to use any information learned in the current representation in any future representation against the corporate defendant, whether in litigation or transactional matters. The attorney recognizes that there can be no restrictions placed on the lawyers right to practice law, so he does not ask the lawyer to refrain from representing other plaintiffs against the corporation, but only that the information from this case not carry over into other unrelated cases. The attorney also points out to opposing counsel that the conflict-of-interest rules would already prohibit the attorney from using any information learned in a representation against the client. Similarly, the confidentiality rule forbids the disclosure (without the client's consent) of confidential information learned from any source during the representation. Thus, the condition in the settlement overlaps with other disclosure restraints that the Model Rules impose on the other lawyer. Opposing counsel is a notorious plaintiff's lawyer in that region, receiving frequent reprimanded for ethical violations from the state bar. The lawyer has a reputation for bringing up irrelevant but inflammatory evidence from other cases in his trials, telling the jury, "You wouldn't believe what this same company did to my other client!" It seemed appropriate, therefore, to the attorney for this defendant to ask for settlement conditions that recognize this lawyer's previous bad behavior. Is the attorney correct?

An attorney in a small partnership decided it was time to retire. The partnership agreement had clear provisions for the retirement of partners, in which the partnership would buy out the retirement partner's share, including an hourly prorated amount for work on matters that were still pending and had not yet generated divisible fees. The retirement provisions also provided a substantial pension for the retiring partner, purchase of a single-term life insurance policy, and separate payments from an annuity. A condition of these retirement benefits was that the partner permanently leave the practice of law. Is this condition proper?

Conglomerate Corporation has a rule for in its legal department against ' "side hustles," that is, its lawyers working cases for private clients on the side, even on a pro bono basis. The rule, which it embodied in its employment contract with all the in- house attorneys who work there, became a policy there when General Counsel was targeting a certain employee in the legal department, for purely personal reasons, and needed to create an excuse to fire the lawyer. Is this rule proper?

A criminal defendant received a death sentence after his murder conviction. The defendant's attorney, a court-appointed lawyer representing the defendant at state expense, had already been representing the defendant in an earlier manslaughter (noncapital) case, which he was handling on a pro bono basis. In this other manslaughter case, the attorney filed a motion alleging newly discovered evidence of innocence, with a view toward eliminating one of the aggravating factors that was also a justification for the death sentence in the capital case. The state then moved to disqualify the attorney from representing defendant in the capital case, arguing that state-appointed capital counsel could not represent a capital defendant in more than one proceeding at a time. A state statute prohibited state-appointed capital counsel from representing a capital defendant in a noncapital proceeding at state expense. Can the attorney avoid disqualification because he is handling the noncapital case pro bono?

An attorney practices corporate securities law in a Wall Street firm. The attorney is also one of three" owners of a financial forecasting consulting firm, Trends Tomorrow, which employs several well. known economists and financial analysts. The attorney refers clients to this firm when they need consultants to advise them about the timing of new stock offerings, projections for share price and prof forecasts, and so on. The attorney duly discloses to clients before referring them that she is a part owner of the consulting firm and that they are free to shop around and hire other consultants if they prefer; she also explains that the Trends Tomorrow is not a law Firm and provides only financial forecasting services. Trends Tomorrow is in the building next door to the attorney's Wall Street firm, and when clients go there. Trends Tomorrow explains as part of their service contract that they provide no legal services Eventually, complaints emerge that Trends Tomorrow has been leaking confidential client information to the press, and that the consulting firm has potential conflicts of interest, advising competing clients about strategies to encroach on one another's market share. The attorney faces disciplinary charges for these violations, but the attorney claims that the complaining clients need to show that the disclosures provided were inadequate to apprise them of the fact that the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers would not apply to Trends Tomorrow. Who has the burden of proof on this issue?

An attorney developed expertise regarding the area of legal ethics and legal malpractice. Another firm hired the attorney to testify as an expert in an adjudication about the reasonableness of the firm's fees. The attorney has testified as an expert regarding legal fees and legal ethics on several prior occasions. During his cross-examination by the lawyer representing the opposing party, the attorney had to answer questions that forced him to disclose some unfavorable information about the client of the firm that had hired him as an expert. The attorney did not object that the information was confidential or attempt to assert privilege; he answered the questions frankly and objectively. If he had been representing the client directly, the disclosures would have clearly violated his duty of confidentiality. The answers were a setback to the interests of the party that had hired him, and the lawyers and their client were upset. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for his actions while testifying as an expert witness?

An attorney works for a firm that handles residential real estate closings. The firm also provides title insurance, as part of the legal representation it offers to clients, but for an additional fee. Nonlawyers also provide title insurance in that state, for comparable prices. A prospective client met with the attorney for an initial consultation about their anticipated purchase of a home. Another client of the attorney's firm had referred the prospective client to the attorney. When the attorney mentioned that the firm would also provide title insurance for an additional fee, the prospective client asked if the person who had referred her to the attorney had obtained title insurance through the firm, and how much they had paid for it. Would it be permissible for the attorney to share this information with the prospective client without first obtaining the other clients consent?

An attorney practices commercial real estate law in the state capitol, but also provides legislative lobbying services for some clients, especially for firms seeking lucrative government contracts. For example, working on a retainer, the attorney successfully lobbied his state legislature to privatize most of its prison system, and to give his client the contract to operate the private prisons. His client continues to pay the retainer and the attorney continues to lobby for longer statutory minimum sentences for crimes, so that the private prisons remain full. The attorney uses a separate retainer agreement for lobbying work, which specifies that he is not representing the client as their lawyer, but only as a lobbyist, and is not providing legal advice or legal services under their agreement. Meanwhile, one of the attorney's other clients faces charges of securities fraud and hires the attorney to handle his appeal, which includes arguing that the mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional. The criminal defendant signs a written waiver of the potential conflict of interest the attorney has over the mandatory sentencing issue, but the attorney fails to obtain a similar waiver from the private prison client on whose behalf he lobbied for the mandatory sentencing laws. If the attorney is successful in having mandatory sentencing laws declared unconstitutional on behalf of his criminal client, will he be subject to discipline for the conflict of interest with his lobbying client?

An attorney has expertise in launching new businesses. His undergraduate major was entrepreneurship, and he has numerous connections among investment bankers, and venture capitalists in the area. Entrepreneurs seek him out to incorporate their new businesses and help them find loans and equity investors for startup. The attorney drafts articles of incorporation and bylaws. He handles name registration with the Secretary of State, arranges meetings with local commercial bankers and investors, and helps write business plans and market analysis in anticipation of these meetings. Which of the following is true regarding the attorney's activities?

An attorney agreed to write a recommendation letter for admission to the bar on behalf of the law student who had worked for him part-time throughout law school. The student had consistently behaved appropriately during her employment, in compliance with the ethical rules for lawyers and law firms. On one occasion, the student intern had confided in the attorney that she had faced academic discipline for plagiarism on a law school seminar paper, and that she was very ashamed of herself about the incident and had accepted a failing grade in the class. She took an overload of courses the following semester to make up for the lost credits from the course she failed. The attorney did not mention this incident at all in his "character and fitness" recommendation to the state bar, because he felt it was out of character and did not represent the way the student normally behaved at the workplace. He also assumed the student would report it herself or that the bar would inquire about the failing grade on her law school transcript. The bar admissions board eventually learned about the incident only from the law school administration, which turned over the student's disciplinary records. Could the attorney who wrote the favorable recommendation be subject to discipline for filing to mention or address the incident?

An attorney faced a grievance over a client complaint regarding his neglect of the client's matter. The attorney knew that he had never formally agreed to represent the client, but instead had met with the client once, determined that he had a conflict of interest, and he had refused to represent the potential client by both oral and written communication. The client failed to hire another lawyer, and mistakenly (unreasonably) believed that the attorney she had met with was, in fact, representing her. Because he knew the case was without merit, he did not respond to the state bar when the disciplinary authorities requested a formal response from him. In the end, the client withdrew her complaint, and the disciplinary authorities dismissed the grievance as frivolous. The board then commenced disciplinary proceedings against the attorney for failing to respond to its requests in the case it had dismissed. Was the attorney's refusal to respond permissible in this case?

An attorney agreed to represent an applicant to the state bar - a recent law school graduate in her hearing before the state bar admissions board, which had tentatively denied her application for making false statements on her bar application. The board formally requests the applicant and her attorney make full disclosures about the events in question to help resolve the matter. The client (bar applicant) explains the entire situation to her attorney, including some self-incriminatory information - it turned out that the applicant's misbehavior had been much more serious than the board was aware. The attorney did not disclose this latest information, which would have made it much clearer to the board that the applicant lacked the character and fitness to practice law. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for this action?

An attorney faced a disciplinary action over accusations that she had neglected a client matter and had not communicated enough with the client. The state disciplinary authority requested a written account of her version of what happened, and it asked her ten or twelve probing questions during the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the disciplinary tribunal decided that the client complaint was without merit and cleared the attorney of all charges in that regard. At the same time, it also concluded that the attorney had answered one question during the hearing untruthfully, and that she had made a minor misrepresentation regarding dates in her written statement to the board. The tribunal therefore filed a separate grievance against the attorney for these misrepresentations. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for incidental misrepresentations to the grievance committee if the same committee had decided that the underlying case had no merit and issued a dismissal?

An attorney faced disciplinary action over a client grievance. The disciplinary tribunal asked the attorney several probing questions about her handling of client funds. The attorney had, in fact, used some client funds to pay offa gambling debt, so she was less worried about a temporary suspension of her law license than about potential criminal charges for embezzlement. The attorney, therefore, invokes her Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination and refuses to answer the questions. The disciplinary tribunal then determines that it lacks substantial evidence that the attorney mishandled client funds, but it commences disciplinary proceedings over the attorney's refusal to answer some of its questions. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for refusing to answer the questions in this scenario?

An attorney faced disciplinary action over a client grievance. The disciplinary tribunal asked the attorney several probing questions about her handling of client funds. The attorney had, in fact, used some client funds to pay off a gambling debt, so she felt less worried about a temporary suspension of her law license than about potential criminal charges for embezzlement. The attorney, therefore, simply refuses to answer the questions, without offering any explanation. The disciplinary tribunal then determines that it lacks substantial evidence that the attorney mishandled client funds, but it commences disciplinary proceedings over the attorney's refusal to answer some of its questions. The attorney now claims she was merely exercising her Fifth Amendment right to refrain from self-incriminating statements. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for refusing to answer the questions in this scenario?

A criminal defense attorney was angry at the local prosecutor for pushing forward with a certain matter against one of the attorney's clients. In a state of frustration, the attorney penned a letter to state officials responsible for overseeing the local prosecutors, in which he accused the prosecutor in his case of specific instances of witness tampering, destruction of evidence, and framing innocent victims for crimes they did not commit. The attorney based these allegations solely on inferences that she had drawn from the unfavorable situation with her own case, and some rumors circulating among inmates in the county jail. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for sending this letter?