Lawyer Lohman (age 34) regularly represented client Cruikshank (age 78) in matters
relating to the investment of Cruikshank's considerable wealth. Cruikshank told
Lohman that he wanted to put $500,000 into a sound, income-producing investment.
Lohman suggested that the two of them pool their money and talent and buy an
attractive new apartment house. Lohman would put up $75,000 and do the legal
work, and Cruikshank would put up $500,000 and serve as the live-in manager of the
apartment house. Cruikshank enthusiastically agreed to the arrangement and told
Lohman to draw up the papers. Lohman drafted an agreement between himself and
Cruikshank, negotiated the purchase of the apartment house, and drafted a deed
from the seller to himself and Cruikshank as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.
Lohman gave Cruikshank a carefully written explanation of the terms of the
transaction, but he forgot to explain the significance of the joint tenancy, i.e., that
upon the death of one joint tenant, the property would pass automatically to the
other joint tenant. Lohman urged Cruikshank to have an outside lawyer look over the
transaction, but Cruikshank said he trusted Lohman and signed all the papers without
further ado. Lohman and Cruikshank operated the apartment house successfully for
several years until Cruikshank died at age 83. The executor of Cruikshank's estate sued
Lohman to have the apartment house declared part of Cruikshank's estate, but the
court concluded that the joint tenancy created a gift to Lohman, effective on
,Cruikshank's death. Were Lohman's actions proper?
a. Yes, because Lohman might have died first, thus bestowing a gift on Cruikshank.
b. No, because Lohman entered into a business transaction with Cruikshank.
c. Yes, because the court concluded that the joint tenancy created a gift from
Cruikshank to Lohman.
d. No, because Lohman drafted the deed that bestowed a substantial gift on himself.
Give this one a try later!
Answer d
d. No, because Lohman drafted the deed that bestowed a substantial gift
on himself.
A lawyer cannot prepare the instrument giving himself or his relative a
substantial gift from a client,
* Including a testamentary gift, unless the lawyer or other recipient is
related to the client.
Police officer Owens was charged with murder. He is alleged to have savagely beaten
and ultimately killed a teenage gang member in the course of an arrest. Neither the
police department nor officer Owens's union was willing to provide legal counsel for
his defense, and Owens himself lacked funds to hire private counsel. The public
defender's office could not represent him due to a conflict of interest from a related
case. The trial court, therefore, appointed lawyer Lee to defend Owens. Lee is only
three years out of law school. Lee practices criminal defense, but he has never
handled a murder case before. For which of the following reasons may Lee decline
the court appointment'?
I. Based on what he has read in the newspapers, he sincerely believes that Owens is
guilty.
II. He has no experience in the defense of a murder case.
III. He is of the same race as the teenage victim, and he is in sympathy with the plight
of young gang members.
IV. Many of his clients are of the same race as the teenage victim, and they will be
irate if he defends Owens.
a. I. and II. only.
b. II. only.
,c. None of the above.
d. III. and IV. only.
Give this one a try later!
Answer c
c. None of the above.
Fundamental skills necessary for competence include the ability to analyze
precedent, evaluate evidence, draft legal documents, and identify legal
issues and problems.
* Even newly admitted attorneys should have these skills.
Where a lawyer is appointed to represent a client, he should accept the
appointment except for good cause.
Lawyer Lorenz agreed to represent wife Withers on an hourly fee basis in securing a
divorce from her husband Hullar. Hullar is represented in the matter by attorney
Atwell. Despite repeated warnings by Lorenz, Withers kept pestering Lorenz with
telephone calls and office visits concerning inconsequential details and trifling
personal complaints. When Withers was unable to contact Lorenz on the phone or in
person, she would telephone Atwell, her husband's attorney, and try to put her
questions and complaints to him. Atwell always refused to talk to Withers. Lorenz
repeatedly told Withers not to contact Atwell, but to no avail. Finally, Lorenz told
Withers that she would withdraw unless Withers changed her ways, but Withers did
not do so. Lorenz withdrew and sent Withers a fee bill for the total number of hours
she had spent on the case. Withers refused to pay the bill, and after futile efforts to
settle the matter, Lorenz sued her to collect the fee. Which of the following
propositions are true?
I. It was proper for Lorenz to withdraw.
II. It was proper for Atwell to refuse to talk with Withers on the phone.
III. It was proper for Lorenz to bill Withers for the total amount of time she spent on
the case.
IV. It was proper for Lorenz to sue Withers to collect the unpaid fee.
a. I. and III. only.
b. None of the above.
, c. II. only.
d. I., II., III., and IV.
Give this one a try later!
Answer d
d. I., II., III., and IV.
I. It was proper for Lorenz to withdraw.
II. It was proper for Atwell to refuse to talk with Withers on the phone.
III. It was proper for Lorenz to bill Withers for the total amount of time she
spent on the case.
IV. It was proper for Lorenz to sue Withers to collect the unpaid fee.
I) If resolution efforts are unavailing and the lawyer has a fundamental
disagreement with the client, the lawyer may withdraw from the
representation.
II) In representing a client, a lawyer shall communicate about the subject of
the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by
another lawyer in the matter unless the lawyer has the consent of the other
lawyer.
III) The attorney-client relationship is terminable at will subject to liability
for payment for the lawyer's services.
IV) Filing a suit against a client does involve risk.
* As many as two of every five clients sued for nonpayment of fees file a
counterclaim for legal malpractice.
Carla alleges that she was assaulted by Devlin, a very wealthy businessman. Carla
contacted lawyer Lazar about representing her in a civil action against Devlin. After
several lengthy discussions about the merits of the case, Carla decided to employ
attorney Arnold to represent her instead. Devlin was later charged with criminal
assault in connection with this incident, and his trial was televised. Lazar watched the
trial and was astonished when Carla testified to facts that Lazar knew from their
previous discussions to be false. Lazar sent a letter with a messenger over to the court
to notify the court that Carla had perjured herself. Were Lazar's actions proper?
a. No, unless he sent copies of the letter to the prosecution and defense attorneys
and they are given an opportunity to respond.
b. No, because Lazar's information was gained during his discussions with Carla.
c. Yes, because his actions were necessary to prevent Carla from perpetrating a fraud
relating to the investment of Cruikshank's considerable wealth. Cruikshank told
Lohman that he wanted to put $500,000 into a sound, income-producing investment.
Lohman suggested that the two of them pool their money and talent and buy an
attractive new apartment house. Lohman would put up $75,000 and do the legal
work, and Cruikshank would put up $500,000 and serve as the live-in manager of the
apartment house. Cruikshank enthusiastically agreed to the arrangement and told
Lohman to draw up the papers. Lohman drafted an agreement between himself and
Cruikshank, negotiated the purchase of the apartment house, and drafted a deed
from the seller to himself and Cruikshank as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.
Lohman gave Cruikshank a carefully written explanation of the terms of the
transaction, but he forgot to explain the significance of the joint tenancy, i.e., that
upon the death of one joint tenant, the property would pass automatically to the
other joint tenant. Lohman urged Cruikshank to have an outside lawyer look over the
transaction, but Cruikshank said he trusted Lohman and signed all the papers without
further ado. Lohman and Cruikshank operated the apartment house successfully for
several years until Cruikshank died at age 83. The executor of Cruikshank's estate sued
Lohman to have the apartment house declared part of Cruikshank's estate, but the
court concluded that the joint tenancy created a gift to Lohman, effective on
,Cruikshank's death. Were Lohman's actions proper?
a. Yes, because Lohman might have died first, thus bestowing a gift on Cruikshank.
b. No, because Lohman entered into a business transaction with Cruikshank.
c. Yes, because the court concluded that the joint tenancy created a gift from
Cruikshank to Lohman.
d. No, because Lohman drafted the deed that bestowed a substantial gift on himself.
Give this one a try later!
Answer d
d. No, because Lohman drafted the deed that bestowed a substantial gift
on himself.
A lawyer cannot prepare the instrument giving himself or his relative a
substantial gift from a client,
* Including a testamentary gift, unless the lawyer or other recipient is
related to the client.
Police officer Owens was charged with murder. He is alleged to have savagely beaten
and ultimately killed a teenage gang member in the course of an arrest. Neither the
police department nor officer Owens's union was willing to provide legal counsel for
his defense, and Owens himself lacked funds to hire private counsel. The public
defender's office could not represent him due to a conflict of interest from a related
case. The trial court, therefore, appointed lawyer Lee to defend Owens. Lee is only
three years out of law school. Lee practices criminal defense, but he has never
handled a murder case before. For which of the following reasons may Lee decline
the court appointment'?
I. Based on what he has read in the newspapers, he sincerely believes that Owens is
guilty.
II. He has no experience in the defense of a murder case.
III. He is of the same race as the teenage victim, and he is in sympathy with the plight
of young gang members.
IV. Many of his clients are of the same race as the teenage victim, and they will be
irate if he defends Owens.
a. I. and II. only.
b. II. only.
,c. None of the above.
d. III. and IV. only.
Give this one a try later!
Answer c
c. None of the above.
Fundamental skills necessary for competence include the ability to analyze
precedent, evaluate evidence, draft legal documents, and identify legal
issues and problems.
* Even newly admitted attorneys should have these skills.
Where a lawyer is appointed to represent a client, he should accept the
appointment except for good cause.
Lawyer Lorenz agreed to represent wife Withers on an hourly fee basis in securing a
divorce from her husband Hullar. Hullar is represented in the matter by attorney
Atwell. Despite repeated warnings by Lorenz, Withers kept pestering Lorenz with
telephone calls and office visits concerning inconsequential details and trifling
personal complaints. When Withers was unable to contact Lorenz on the phone or in
person, she would telephone Atwell, her husband's attorney, and try to put her
questions and complaints to him. Atwell always refused to talk to Withers. Lorenz
repeatedly told Withers not to contact Atwell, but to no avail. Finally, Lorenz told
Withers that she would withdraw unless Withers changed her ways, but Withers did
not do so. Lorenz withdrew and sent Withers a fee bill for the total number of hours
she had spent on the case. Withers refused to pay the bill, and after futile efforts to
settle the matter, Lorenz sued her to collect the fee. Which of the following
propositions are true?
I. It was proper for Lorenz to withdraw.
II. It was proper for Atwell to refuse to talk with Withers on the phone.
III. It was proper for Lorenz to bill Withers for the total amount of time she spent on
the case.
IV. It was proper for Lorenz to sue Withers to collect the unpaid fee.
a. I. and III. only.
b. None of the above.
, c. II. only.
d. I., II., III., and IV.
Give this one a try later!
Answer d
d. I., II., III., and IV.
I. It was proper for Lorenz to withdraw.
II. It was proper for Atwell to refuse to talk with Withers on the phone.
III. It was proper for Lorenz to bill Withers for the total amount of time she
spent on the case.
IV. It was proper for Lorenz to sue Withers to collect the unpaid fee.
I) If resolution efforts are unavailing and the lawyer has a fundamental
disagreement with the client, the lawyer may withdraw from the
representation.
II) In representing a client, a lawyer shall communicate about the subject of
the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by
another lawyer in the matter unless the lawyer has the consent of the other
lawyer.
III) The attorney-client relationship is terminable at will subject to liability
for payment for the lawyer's services.
IV) Filing a suit against a client does involve risk.
* As many as two of every five clients sued for nonpayment of fees file a
counterclaim for legal malpractice.
Carla alleges that she was assaulted by Devlin, a very wealthy businessman. Carla
contacted lawyer Lazar about representing her in a civil action against Devlin. After
several lengthy discussions about the merits of the case, Carla decided to employ
attorney Arnold to represent her instead. Devlin was later charged with criminal
assault in connection with this incident, and his trial was televised. Lazar watched the
trial and was astonished when Carla testified to facts that Lazar knew from their
previous discussions to be false. Lazar sent a letter with a messenger over to the court
to notify the court that Carla had perjured herself. Were Lazar's actions proper?
a. No, unless he sent copies of the letter to the prosecution and defense attorneys
and they are given an opportunity to respond.
b. No, because Lazar's information was gained during his discussions with Carla.
c. Yes, because his actions were necessary to prevent Carla from perpetrating a fraud
