S-Tier Indiana Bar
Ethics Exam
Bank:Questions, ABA
Matrix & Distractor
Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I: THE PREVIEW
● The Intro
● The "Critical Axioms" Cheat Sheet
● Indiana vs. ABA Standards Matrix
PART II: THE ELITE TEST BANK
● Tier 1: Foundational Syntax & Application (Questions 1–18)
● Tier 2: Complex Application & Simulation (Questions 19–37)
● Tier 3: Grandmaster Synthesis (Questions 38–55)
PART I: THE PREVIEW
Mastering the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct requires transcending rote memorization
to achieve clinical, instinctual application of regulatory mechanics. This test bank forces the
cognitive synthesis required to operate flawlessly within high-stakes jurisprudence, translating
academic rigor directly into unassailable professional competence.
● The "Critical Axioms" Cheat Sheet:
○ The Strict Referral Absolute: Indiana strictly prohibits "pure" referral fees; any
fee-sharing between disparate firms requires written client consent with exact
percentage disclosures and either proportional work or joint financial/ethical
responsibility.
○ The Isolation Firewall: Imputed firm conflicts under Rule 1.10 can only be cured
via ethical screening for incoming lateral lawyers, never for existing firm members.
○ The IOLTA Mandate: Client funds must never trigger a negative ledger balance;
, three-way trust reconciliations are mandatory, and records must be retained for
exactly five years post-representation.
○ The File Surrender Doctrine: Upon termination, a lawyer must release the entire
client file upon written request, regardless of outstanding copying expenses or fee
disputes.
○ The Technology Competence Standard: Rule 1.1 incorporates an ongoing duty to
understand the risks and benefits of relevant technology (including generative AI
and e-discovery), barring ignorance as a defense to spoliation or disclosure.
Indiana vs. ABA Standards Matrix
Rule Domain ABA Model Rule Indiana State Rule Source Authority
Baseline Standard
Rule 1.5(e) - Referral Permits fee division ifStrictly enforced judicial Kummerer v. Marshall
Fees proportional or joint standard; pure referral
responsibility, with fees categorically
client agreement. banned; written client
consent required
detailing exact
percentages.
Rule 1.6 - Disclosure permitted to Broad discretion to Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 1.6
Confidentiality prevent imminent death breach confidentiality to
or substantial bodily prevent any future
harm. criminal act by the
client.
Rule 1.10 - Screening Evolving standard, Screening exclusively ISBA Ethics Op. 18-02
generally permits limited to incoming
screening to cure lateral lawyers; strictly
lateral conflicts. prohibited to insulate
existing firm members
from internal conflicts.
PART II: THE ELITE TEST BANK
Tier 1: Foundational Syntax & Application
Q1: Two Indiana attorneys in separate firms agree to co-counsel a complex tort case. Attorney
A will perform 20% of the work, and Attorney B will perform 80%. They agree to split the fee
50/50. Based on the principles of Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e), which action is
the FIRST requirement to render this fee-sharing agreement enforceable?
A) The attorneys must ensure the total fee is customary for the geographic locality. B) The
attorneys must register the fee-sharing agreement with the Disciplinary Commission. C) The
attorneys must secure written client consent acknowledging the exact fee split and both must
assume joint responsibility. D) The attorneys must adjust their fee split to perfectly match the
20/80 proportional workload.
● Answer: C (The attorneys must secure written client consent acknowledging the exact fee
split and both must assume joint responsibility.)
, ● Distractor Analysis:
○ A is incorrect: While the total fee must be reasonable, customary locality pricing is
only one factor of reasonableness, not the threshold requirement for a
disparate-firm split.
○ B is incorrect: Indiana does not require registering fee-splitting contracts with the
Disciplinary Commission, though it strictly enforces their structural compliance.
○ D is incorrect: Disproportionate fee splits are explicitly permitted in Indiana if both
attorneys assume joint financial and ethical responsibility and the client consents in
writing.
The Mentor's Analysis: Indiana aggressively rejects the "pure referral fee." When facing a
non-proportional fee division between separate firms, the immediate priority is establishing joint
responsibility and securing explicit, written client consent detailing the exact percentages. By
utilizing joint responsibility, you bypass the common trap of forced strict proportionality.
Professional Intuition: Written client consent and joint responsibility cure non-proportional
fee divisions.
Q2: An Indiana attorney maintains a pooled IOLTA account. A client requests that their $5,000
settlement be held temporarily. Based on the principles of Indiana Admission and Discipline
Rule 23, which conclusion is MOST APPROPRIATE regarding the ledger management?
A) The attorney may allow the client's individual ledger to temporarily drop below zero if the
pooled IOLTA balance remains positive. B) The attorney must notify the bank to remit the
interest of this specific $5,000 directly to the client. C) The attorney must maintain a distinct
client ledger showing the date, source, payee, and running balance for this specific client. D)
The attorney may deposit $500 of firm operating funds into the IOLTA to provide a buffer against
overdrafts.
● Answer: C (The attorney must maintain a distinct client ledger showing the date, source,
payee, and running balance for this specific client.)
● Distractor Analysis:
○ A is incorrect: A negative client ledger constitutes misappropriation, regardless of
whether the pooled balance masks the deficit.
○ B is incorrect: IOLTA interest is remitted to the Indiana Bar Foundation, not the
client, for nominal or short-term funds.
○ D is incorrect: Commingling firm funds is prohibited, except strictly to pay bank
service charges, not as a general buffer.
The Mentor's Analysis: Trust account mechanics require clinical precision. When facing pooled
funds, the immediate priority is absolute segregation via individual client ledgers. By utilizing
distinct matter ledgers, you bypass the common trap of commingling or accidental
misappropriation. Professional Intuition: A negative balance on an individual trust ledger is
per se misappropriation, regardless of the overall pooled account balance.
Q3: An Indiana attorney is representing a client in a contract dispute. The client reveals a plan
to commit a financial fraud that will devastate the opposing party's business, though it threatens
no physical harm. Based on the principles of Indiana Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality), what is the
attorney's MOST ACCURATE disclosure authority?
A) The attorney is strictly prohibited from disclosing the information because no imminent death
or bodily harm is threatened. B) The attorney must immediately disclose the information to the
tribunal. C) The attorney may reveal the information to the extent reasonably necessary to
prevent the client from committing any criminal act. D) The attorney may only reveal the
information if the client uses the attorney's services to commit the fraud.
● Answer: C (The attorney may reveal the information to the extent reasonably necessary to
, prevent the client from committing any criminal act.)
● Distractor Analysis:
○ A is incorrect: Unlike the ABA Model Rules, Indiana uniquely permits disclosure to
prevent any criminal act, not just those causing bodily harm.
○ B is incorrect: Disclosure to prevent a future crime is permissive (may), not
universally mandatory, unless required by Rule 3.3 (Candor toward the Tribunal).
○ D is incorrect: The use of the lawyer's services is required to mitigate past fraud, but
preventing a future criminal act does not require the lawyer's services to be
implicated.
The Mentor's Analysis: Indiana departs significantly from the baseline ABA Model Rules on
confidentiality. When facing a client's future criminal intent, the immediate priority is
understanding the state's broadened discretion. By utilizing Indiana's permissive disclosure
standard, you bypass the common trap of applying the more restrictive ABA bodily-harm
threshold. Professional Intuition: Indiana grants attorneys broad discretion to breach
confidentiality to prevent any future criminal act.
Q4: A partner at an Indiana firm is asked to represent a plaintiff in a lawsuit against a
corporation. Another partner in the same firm previously represented the corporation in a
substantially related matter but has since left the firm. No current attorney possesses material
confidential information. Based on the principles of Imputed Conflicts (Rule 1.10), which action
is PERMITTED?
A) The firm may represent the plaintiff only if they establish an ethical wall around the entire
corporate department. B) The firm may represent the plaintiff without corporate consent
because the conflicted lawyer has terminated their association and no material confidential
information remains. C) The firm must obtain written informed consent from the corporation
before proceeding. D) The firm is permanently disqualified because the matter is substantially
related to the prior representation.
● Answer: B (The firm may represent the plaintiff without corporate consent because the
conflicted lawyer has terminated their association and no material confidential information
remains.)
● Distractor Analysis:
○ A is incorrect: An ethical wall is unnecessary if the conflicted attorney has left the
firm and no remaining attorney holds confidential data.
○ C is incorrect: Consent is not required when the primary conflicted attorney departs
and the firm is purged of material confidential information.
○ D is incorrect: Imputation leaves with the departing lawyer, provided the remaining
firm members do not hold protected, material data.
The Mentor's Analysis: Imputed disqualification is a function of shared information. When facing
a conflict generated by a departed attorney, the immediate priority is assessing the residual
confidential knowledge within the firm. By utilizing the purged-knowledge exception, you bypass
the common trap of assuming permanent, unyielding firm-wide disqualification. Professional
Intuition: A firm is cured of a departed lawyer's conflict if no remaining lawyer possesses
material, protected information.
Q5: An Indiana prosecutor becomes aware of new, credible, and material evidence creating a
reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit the offense for which they were
convicted. Based on the principles of Rule 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor), what is
the prosecutor's FIRST obligation?
A) Promptly disclose the evidence to the tribunal or chief judge. B) Disclose the evidence to the
defendant's original trial counsel. C) Promptly disclose the evidence to an appropriate court or
Ethics Exam
Bank:Questions, ABA
Matrix & Distractor
Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I: THE PREVIEW
● The Intro
● The "Critical Axioms" Cheat Sheet
● Indiana vs. ABA Standards Matrix
PART II: THE ELITE TEST BANK
● Tier 1: Foundational Syntax & Application (Questions 1–18)
● Tier 2: Complex Application & Simulation (Questions 19–37)
● Tier 3: Grandmaster Synthesis (Questions 38–55)
PART I: THE PREVIEW
Mastering the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct requires transcending rote memorization
to achieve clinical, instinctual application of regulatory mechanics. This test bank forces the
cognitive synthesis required to operate flawlessly within high-stakes jurisprudence, translating
academic rigor directly into unassailable professional competence.
● The "Critical Axioms" Cheat Sheet:
○ The Strict Referral Absolute: Indiana strictly prohibits "pure" referral fees; any
fee-sharing between disparate firms requires written client consent with exact
percentage disclosures and either proportional work or joint financial/ethical
responsibility.
○ The Isolation Firewall: Imputed firm conflicts under Rule 1.10 can only be cured
via ethical screening for incoming lateral lawyers, never for existing firm members.
○ The IOLTA Mandate: Client funds must never trigger a negative ledger balance;
, three-way trust reconciliations are mandatory, and records must be retained for
exactly five years post-representation.
○ The File Surrender Doctrine: Upon termination, a lawyer must release the entire
client file upon written request, regardless of outstanding copying expenses or fee
disputes.
○ The Technology Competence Standard: Rule 1.1 incorporates an ongoing duty to
understand the risks and benefits of relevant technology (including generative AI
and e-discovery), barring ignorance as a defense to spoliation or disclosure.
Indiana vs. ABA Standards Matrix
Rule Domain ABA Model Rule Indiana State Rule Source Authority
Baseline Standard
Rule 1.5(e) - Referral Permits fee division ifStrictly enforced judicial Kummerer v. Marshall
Fees proportional or joint standard; pure referral
responsibility, with fees categorically
client agreement. banned; written client
consent required
detailing exact
percentages.
Rule 1.6 - Disclosure permitted to Broad discretion to Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 1.6
Confidentiality prevent imminent death breach confidentiality to
or substantial bodily prevent any future
harm. criminal act by the
client.
Rule 1.10 - Screening Evolving standard, Screening exclusively ISBA Ethics Op. 18-02
generally permits limited to incoming
screening to cure lateral lawyers; strictly
lateral conflicts. prohibited to insulate
existing firm members
from internal conflicts.
PART II: THE ELITE TEST BANK
Tier 1: Foundational Syntax & Application
Q1: Two Indiana attorneys in separate firms agree to co-counsel a complex tort case. Attorney
A will perform 20% of the work, and Attorney B will perform 80%. They agree to split the fee
50/50. Based on the principles of Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e), which action is
the FIRST requirement to render this fee-sharing agreement enforceable?
A) The attorneys must ensure the total fee is customary for the geographic locality. B) The
attorneys must register the fee-sharing agreement with the Disciplinary Commission. C) The
attorneys must secure written client consent acknowledging the exact fee split and both must
assume joint responsibility. D) The attorneys must adjust their fee split to perfectly match the
20/80 proportional workload.
● Answer: C (The attorneys must secure written client consent acknowledging the exact fee
split and both must assume joint responsibility.)
, ● Distractor Analysis:
○ A is incorrect: While the total fee must be reasonable, customary locality pricing is
only one factor of reasonableness, not the threshold requirement for a
disparate-firm split.
○ B is incorrect: Indiana does not require registering fee-splitting contracts with the
Disciplinary Commission, though it strictly enforces their structural compliance.
○ D is incorrect: Disproportionate fee splits are explicitly permitted in Indiana if both
attorneys assume joint financial and ethical responsibility and the client consents in
writing.
The Mentor's Analysis: Indiana aggressively rejects the "pure referral fee." When facing a
non-proportional fee division between separate firms, the immediate priority is establishing joint
responsibility and securing explicit, written client consent detailing the exact percentages. By
utilizing joint responsibility, you bypass the common trap of forced strict proportionality.
Professional Intuition: Written client consent and joint responsibility cure non-proportional
fee divisions.
Q2: An Indiana attorney maintains a pooled IOLTA account. A client requests that their $5,000
settlement be held temporarily. Based on the principles of Indiana Admission and Discipline
Rule 23, which conclusion is MOST APPROPRIATE regarding the ledger management?
A) The attorney may allow the client's individual ledger to temporarily drop below zero if the
pooled IOLTA balance remains positive. B) The attorney must notify the bank to remit the
interest of this specific $5,000 directly to the client. C) The attorney must maintain a distinct
client ledger showing the date, source, payee, and running balance for this specific client. D)
The attorney may deposit $500 of firm operating funds into the IOLTA to provide a buffer against
overdrafts.
● Answer: C (The attorney must maintain a distinct client ledger showing the date, source,
payee, and running balance for this specific client.)
● Distractor Analysis:
○ A is incorrect: A negative client ledger constitutes misappropriation, regardless of
whether the pooled balance masks the deficit.
○ B is incorrect: IOLTA interest is remitted to the Indiana Bar Foundation, not the
client, for nominal or short-term funds.
○ D is incorrect: Commingling firm funds is prohibited, except strictly to pay bank
service charges, not as a general buffer.
The Mentor's Analysis: Trust account mechanics require clinical precision. When facing pooled
funds, the immediate priority is absolute segregation via individual client ledgers. By utilizing
distinct matter ledgers, you bypass the common trap of commingling or accidental
misappropriation. Professional Intuition: A negative balance on an individual trust ledger is
per se misappropriation, regardless of the overall pooled account balance.
Q3: An Indiana attorney is representing a client in a contract dispute. The client reveals a plan
to commit a financial fraud that will devastate the opposing party's business, though it threatens
no physical harm. Based on the principles of Indiana Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality), what is the
attorney's MOST ACCURATE disclosure authority?
A) The attorney is strictly prohibited from disclosing the information because no imminent death
or bodily harm is threatened. B) The attorney must immediately disclose the information to the
tribunal. C) The attorney may reveal the information to the extent reasonably necessary to
prevent the client from committing any criminal act. D) The attorney may only reveal the
information if the client uses the attorney's services to commit the fraud.
● Answer: C (The attorney may reveal the information to the extent reasonably necessary to
, prevent the client from committing any criminal act.)
● Distractor Analysis:
○ A is incorrect: Unlike the ABA Model Rules, Indiana uniquely permits disclosure to
prevent any criminal act, not just those causing bodily harm.
○ B is incorrect: Disclosure to prevent a future crime is permissive (may), not
universally mandatory, unless required by Rule 3.3 (Candor toward the Tribunal).
○ D is incorrect: The use of the lawyer's services is required to mitigate past fraud, but
preventing a future criminal act does not require the lawyer's services to be
implicated.
The Mentor's Analysis: Indiana departs significantly from the baseline ABA Model Rules on
confidentiality. When facing a client's future criminal intent, the immediate priority is
understanding the state's broadened discretion. By utilizing Indiana's permissive disclosure
standard, you bypass the common trap of applying the more restrictive ABA bodily-harm
threshold. Professional Intuition: Indiana grants attorneys broad discretion to breach
confidentiality to prevent any future criminal act.
Q4: A partner at an Indiana firm is asked to represent a plaintiff in a lawsuit against a
corporation. Another partner in the same firm previously represented the corporation in a
substantially related matter but has since left the firm. No current attorney possesses material
confidential information. Based on the principles of Imputed Conflicts (Rule 1.10), which action
is PERMITTED?
A) The firm may represent the plaintiff only if they establish an ethical wall around the entire
corporate department. B) The firm may represent the plaintiff without corporate consent
because the conflicted lawyer has terminated their association and no material confidential
information remains. C) The firm must obtain written informed consent from the corporation
before proceeding. D) The firm is permanently disqualified because the matter is substantially
related to the prior representation.
● Answer: B (The firm may represent the plaintiff without corporate consent because the
conflicted lawyer has terminated their association and no material confidential information
remains.)
● Distractor Analysis:
○ A is incorrect: An ethical wall is unnecessary if the conflicted attorney has left the
firm and no remaining attorney holds confidential data.
○ C is incorrect: Consent is not required when the primary conflicted attorney departs
and the firm is purged of material confidential information.
○ D is incorrect: Imputation leaves with the departing lawyer, provided the remaining
firm members do not hold protected, material data.
The Mentor's Analysis: Imputed disqualification is a function of shared information. When facing
a conflict generated by a departed attorney, the immediate priority is assessing the residual
confidential knowledge within the firm. By utilizing the purged-knowledge exception, you bypass
the common trap of assuming permanent, unyielding firm-wide disqualification. Professional
Intuition: A firm is cured of a departed lawyer's conflict if no remaining lawyer possesses
material, protected information.
Q5: An Indiana prosecutor becomes aware of new, credible, and material evidence creating a
reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit the offense for which they were
convicted. Based on the principles of Rule 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor), what is
the prosecutor's FIRST obligation?
A) Promptly disclose the evidence to the tribunal or chief judge. B) Disclose the evidence to the
defendant's original trial counsel. C) Promptly disclose the evidence to an appropriate court or
