¡GoConqr estrena diseño! Cuéntanos qué te parece.

Test

Supplement Questions 1-200 (Lauren)

Lauren Strickland 200 preguntas

Hacer el test

Preguntas del test (200)

  1. 1An attorney sued Giant Company on behalf of a client in a personal injury matter. During the protracted litigation that ensued, Conglomerate bought Giant Company. The attorney was already representing Conglomerate in a regulatory compliance matter before a federal administrative agency. Assuming this development was unforeseeable at the outset of representing the client against Giant Company, will the attorney have the option to withdraw from one of the representations to avoid the conflict?
    1. AYes, because one matter is in state court and the other matter is a completely unrelated federal administrative proceeding.
    2. BYes, but the attorney must seek court approval where necessary and take steps to minimize harm to the clients, and he must continue to protect the confidences of the client from whose representation the lawyer has withdrawn.
    3. CNo, if a conflict arises after representation is underway, the lawyer ordinarily must withdraw from the representation of both clients, unless the lawyer has obtained the informed consent of each client at the outset of the representation.
    4. DNo, because the federal administrative matter would preempt state tort law under the Supremacy Clause.
  2. 2Big Firm represents hundreds of corporate clients out of a dozen offices in different states. The firm has no formal procedures in place to check for conflicts at the outset of representation for new clients, but the managing partner of the firm has an incredible memory and has never failed to spot a potential conflict of interest in the past. An attorney agrees to represent a new corporate client that owns many subsidiaries, and checks with the managing partner, who assured Attorney there are no potential conflicts. After the new corporate client had disclosed a substantial amount of confidential information, it emerged that some of its subsidiaries were directly adverse to other clients of Big Firm. The attorney was completely unaware of the potential conflicts at the time he agreed to the representation, despite asking the corporate client a few questions about the opposing parties in pending litigation it might have. Will the attorney be subject to discipline for not declining representation in this case?
    1. AYes, because ignorance caused by a failure to institute reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, will not excuse a lawyer's violation of the Rules regarding conflicts of interest.
    2. BYes, because there is a presumption that a company owning several subsidiaries will have at least one adverse interest to other clients of a Big Firm.
    3. CNo, as he was unaware of the conflict at the time, but now that the conflict is apparent, Attorney must withdraw from representation
    4. DNo, because the attorney at least partly relied upon the managing partner’s prowess in identifying conflicts, given that the managing partner had never before made a mistake.
  3. 3A husband and wife decide to divorce and reach an agreement to share the same lawyer in hopes of saving money. They hire an attorney to represent each of them in Family Court for the dissolution of marriage. The attorney explains that there is an obvious conflict of interest here, but the husband and wife insist, and sign informed consent forms waiving the conflict and their rights to assert any future claims related to the conflict. The husband and wife have no children, and they have always kept separate bank accounts. Each purchased their own car from the money in their own bank account and each car’s title is in only one name. They live in an apartment whose lease is expiring soon, so there is no real property to divide. Would it be proper for the attorney to represent both in the divorce?
    1. AYes, because it appears on these facts that there will be no assets in dispute at all, so the theoretical conflict of interest would have no bearing on their case.
    2. BYes, because both clients consented in writing, the dual representation does not violate law, and the attorney could have a reasonable belief that he will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client.
    3. CNo, because contingent fees are not permissible in divorce cases, and the husband and wife’s sole motivation in sharing a lawyer was to save money.
    4. DNo, because the representation involves the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.
  4. 4Three individuals plan to form a joint venture and ask an attorney to represent them in drafting the necessary documents and making the necessary filings with government agencies. They have already agreed that everyone will contribute exactly one-third of the startup funds for the venture, each will own a one-third share, each will have equal control over the Board, and each agrees to indemnify the others for a one-third share of any personal liability related to the joint venture. They have also agreed that they will have no non-compete agreements. The joint venture will hire managers, marketers, and other employees to operate the business. The three individuals are co-owners of a patent that could potentially be very lucrative when they bring it to market, and they have known each other and worked together for a long time. The attorney cannot find any current areas of conflict between them, though he knows that it is technically possible that some unforeseen conflict could arise in the future. The shared objectives and goals of the group lead the attorney to conclude that no conflicts of interest are present and that it would be counterproductive to try to convince each member of the group to sign an informed consent form acknowledging that conflicts of interest exist and that the attorney may still represent everyone at once. May the attorney trust his professional judgment and proceed without obtaining separate consent forms from each person in the joint venture?
    1. AYes, if the attorney has a reasonable belief that he will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each client, because the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.
    2. BYes, because the mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent.
    3. CNo, the situation is likely to limit materially the attorney’s ability to recommend or advocate all potential positions that each might take because of his duty of loyalty to the others; representing the group’s overall interests in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client.
    4. DNo, because the fact that the individuals already decided to create a joint venture, and sought representation together from a single lawyer, constitutes implied consent to the common representation despite any potential conflicts of interest involved.
  5. 5A client owns a partnership share of a closely held business, and the other partners vote to impose an involuntary buy-out of the client to remove him from the firm. The client is clearly upset about this, but the partnership agreement clearly permits involuntary buyouts by a majority vote of the other shareholders. Then the client hires an attorney to represent him in the buyout transaction, to review the necessary documents and provide legal counsel about it. No litigation is under consideration yet. The attorney’s sister is also a lawyer in that city, at another firm, and the sister represents the other shareholders in the partnership. Nevertheless, the attorney did not disclose that her sister represented the other partners, as she and her sister are not close and rarely speak, and the matter is unlikely to turn into litigation. Is the attorney, or the other lawyers in her firm, subject to disqualification in this matter?
    1. ANo, because the attorney and her sister are not close enough for there to be a substantial risk that they will share confidential information, and the matter seemed unlikely to turn into litigation.
    2. BNo, so long as both sisters give informed consent in writing, and each believes that she will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to her client
    3. CBoth the attorney and her firm would be subject to disqualification, because the client did not give written informed consent.
    4. DThe attorney would be subject to disqualification, but ordinarily the other lawyers in her firm would not be subject to disqualification.
  6. 6An attorney has applied to make a lateral move from her firm to Big Firm, and she has already gone through the first two of three rounds of interviews for the position. Then the attorney agrees to represent a client in filing a breach of contract claim against Construction Company over a commercial development project. Big Firm is representing Construction Company, and the firm’s lawyers drafted the contract that forms the basis of the client’s complaint. The client claims that Construction Company breached a certain provision of the contract that is ambiguous; Construction Company is confident that its conduct falls within the contractual language in that provision. Is it proper for the attorney to undertake representation of the client in this case?
    1. AYes, assuming the client gives informed consent to the representation despite the conflict of interest here.
    2. BYes, because there is no clear conflict of interest here, because the attorney has not yet started working at Big Firm and could not have participated at all in drafting the contract provision that is now in dispute.
    3. CNo, as during the previous interviews, the attorney was likely to have gleaned some confidential information about Construction Company from Big Firm.
    4. DNo, because when a lawyer has discussions concerning potential employment with an opponent of the lawyer's client, or with a law firm representing the opponent, such discussions could materially limit the lawyer's representation of the client.
  7. 7A group of several individuals seeking to form a joint venture asked an attorney to represent them in drafting the necessary documents and making the necessary filings with government agencies. Two of the individuals were to provide most of the initial funds for the startup; two others were experienced inventors who were to provide new product designs; two others had expertise in business management and were to serve as managers; and two had proven records in high-end sales and marketing. They have not yet resolved the allocation of ownership shares, bonuses for managers, whether to have anti-compete agreements for each participant, whether patents will belong solely to the joint venture or partly to the inventors themselves, and whether sales reps will work on salary or commissions. Everyone says that she wants whatever terms would be best for the joint venture overall, rather than what would be most beneficial for each one individually. The shared objectives and goals of the group lead the attorney to conclude that no conflicts of interest are present and that it would be counterproductive to try to convince each member of the group to sign an informed consent form acknowledging that conflicts of interest exist, and that the attorney may still represent everyone at once. May the attorney trust his professional judgment and proceed without obtaining separate consent forms from each person in the joint venture?
    1. AYes, because the mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent.
    2. BYes, assuming the attorney has a reasonable belief that he will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each client, because the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.
    3. CNo, the situation is likely to limit materially the attorney’s ability to recommend or advocate all potential positions that each might take because of his duty of loyalty to the others; representing the group’s overall interests in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client.
    4. DNo, because the fact that the individuals already decided to create a joint venture, and sought representation together from a single lawyer, constitutes implied consent to the common representation despite any potential conflicts of interest involved.
  8. 8Three individuals hire an attorney to represent them as co-defendants in a tort action. At the outset, the attorney tells them that there could be a potential conflict of interest if he represents all three of them, and that they will need to sign informed consent forms, which they do. The three individuals have common goals and interests in the litigation, so they do not hesitate to sign the forms or inquire further about the implications of the potential conflicts. No further discussion occurs about the issue, and the attorney proceeds with the representation. Could the attorney end up having a duty to withdraw from representation later in the litigation, if the clients gave written consent to the shared representation at the outset?
    1. AYes, when undertaking representation of multiple clients in a single matter, the information must include the implications of the common representation, including potential effects on loyalty, confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege and the advantages and risks involved.
    2. BYes, if the liability insurers for the three co-defendants disagree on the terms of settlement and were unincluded in the original written consent.
    3. CNo, because the attorney dutifully obtained written consent from each client, as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct.
    4. DNo, assuming no situations arise where the lawyer obtains confidential information from one client that he could use to harm the interests of another client, and none of the clients file a crossclaim against another co-defendant.
  9. 9Husband and Wife wanted to hire a certain attorney to prepare their wills. Before the formalities of representation were final, husband spoke with the attorney privately by phone and disclosed that Husband had been having an affair, and that his lover might be pregnant. Husband forbids the attorney to tell Wife about this. Then the attorney realizes there could be potential conflicts of interest between husband and wife about the wills, distribution of assets, potential challenges to the will by offspring from outside the marriage, and potential claims for child support against Husband’s estate. Would it be proper for the attorney to proceed with representing Husband and Wife in preparing their wills?
    1. AYes, assuming each provides written consent after receiving warnings about the potential conflicts that often emerge in dual representation.
    2. BYes, because this is a transactional matter, not litigation in which adverse claims could arise.
    3. CNo, because the attorney cannot violate the duty of confidentiality to Husband, which would be necessary to obtain informed consent from Wife.
    4. DNo, because it would be improper to prepare a will for Husband under such circumstances.
  10. 10Business Manager and Shift Supervisor, who worked at a customer service call-center, became co-defendants in a lawsuit by a disgruntled former employee. The plaintiff claimed to have been the victim of gender discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment, as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress related to the same factual allegations about her treatment at the workplace. Business Manager hired a certain attorney to represent both himself and the Shift Supervisor, who had been the plaintiff’s direct superior. Based on Business Manager’s initial investigation and review of the personnel files of the plaintiff and the Shift Manager, he believes the allegations are baseless and that the suit will end in a dismissal or summary judgment before trial. Shift Supervisor had a spotless work history, but the plaintiff had numerous interpersonal conflicts with her peers, was frequently late for work or missed work completely, and was the subject of several customer complaints. From his consultations with the defendants, the attorney understood that the complaints targeted the Business Manager and Shift Supervisor equally. Business Manager and Shift Supervisor both gave the attorney written informed consent to the potential conflicts of interest in having the attorney represent both. Business Manager obtained tentative permission to have the business cover the legal fees for the attorney. Near the end of the discovery phase, however, plaintiff produced numerous inappropriate love letters to her from Shift Supervisor, many with explicit sexual overtures, and a few that sounded threatening based on her lack of response to previous letters. In addition, several co-workers of plaintiff gave depositions explaining that they had witnessed Shift Supervisor engaging in inappropriate and unwanted touching of plaintiff on many occasions. Several also testified that Shift Supervisor would often accost her for ten or fifteen minutes outside, before she could reach her workstation, and that this was the cause of her tardiness for work. Business Manager had never heard about any of these problems before. Moreover, during depositions the plaintiff explained that she always had little contact with Business Manager and had no direct complaints about his treatment of her, and she acknowledged that she had never complained to Business Manager about Shift Supervisor’s harassment of her. She disclosed that Business Manager was a co-defendant only because her attorney believed it was necessary to name someone from upper management in the lawsuit to trigger the legal protections of Title VII and other antidiscrimination laws. Business Manager then revoked his consent to the conflict of interest, explaining that he wanted separate representation from Shift Supervisor. Trial was due to begin two weeks later. Would it be proper for the attorney to continue representing either Shift Supervisor or Business Manager, but withdraw from representing the other?
    1. AYes, the attorney can potentially continue to represent Business Manager but not Shift Supervisor, because Shift Supervisor engaged in misconduct that was unknown to Business Manager, and Business Manager is the one who arranged for the payment of the legal fees.
    2. BYes, the attorney can potentially continue representing Shift Supervisor but not Business Manager, given the nature of the conflict, the fact that Business Manager revoked consent because of a material change in circumstances, the expectations of Shift Supervisor, and so on.
    3. CNo, the attorney must petition the court to withdraw from representing both clients, as he has now obtained confidential information about each of them, and one is unwilling to consent to the continued common representation.
    4. DNo, the attorney must continue to represent both clients, because it is the eve of trial and withdrawing would be prejudicial to them, and both consented in writing to the potential conflicts involved with using the same lawyer.

Información

Descripción
MPRE Professional Responsibility Test sobre Supplement Questions 1-200 (Lauren), creado por Lauren Strickland el 06/02/2022.
Idioma
English
Visitas
240
Valoración
Aún sin valoraciones
Valora este test
Valora este test

Escríbenos

¿Sobre qué es tu mensaje?

¿Qué te parece el nuevo diseño?

¿Te gusta?