MPRE Study Questions pt. 2 Correctly Answered & Updated.
1. For the past 40 years, solo practitioner Febell has (D) Febell and
Spryte are sub-
practiced municipal bond law in State A. Because he ject to discipline
for entering
is nearing retirement age, Febell takes in into the partnership
young at- torney Spryte as a partner. Their agree- ment because of
partnership agree- the restric-
ment provides that Febell will train Spryte in munici- tion on Spryte's
right to prac-
pal bond law, that Febell will receive 75% of the part- tice. A lawyer
must neither
nership's net earnings during the first three make nor otter a partner-
years, and that Spryte will receive the ship agreement that
remaining 25%. The restricts a
agreement further provides that if Spryte leaves the lawyer's right to
practice after
partnership before the end of the first three years, termination of the
relation-
he will remit to Febell 75% of all fees he earns there- ship, except for
an agreement
after from municipal bond work he does in concerning benefits upon
State re- tirement. [ABA Model
A. Finally, the agreement provides that if Febell Rule 5.6(a)]Under this
and Spryte are still partners when Febell agreement, if Spryte
retires, Spryte will pay Febell retirement leaves the partner- ship
benefits of $3,000 per month until Febell's within the first three
death; in return, upon his re- tirement, years, he must pay Febell
Febell will turn over to Spryte all of the 75% of the fees he earns
partnership assets (including goodwill) and thereafter from municipal
will not thereafter practice municipal bond bond work he does in
law in State A. State A. This provision
Are Febell and Spryte subject to discipline for enter- unduly restricts
Spryte's right
, MPRE Study Questions pt. 2 Correctly Answered & Updated.
ing into this partnership agreement? to practice. (A) is wrong
be- cause it overlooks the
(A)No, because the agreement gives Febell
improp- er restriction on
retire- ment payments in return for the
Spryte's right to practice.
restriction on his right to practice.
No, (B)iscause
wrongitbe- overlooks
(B)the restric-
because the agreement enables Febell to sell
the tion on Spryte.
Furthermore, it
partnership assets in return for the restriction on
his right to practice. implies that the sale of
(C)Yes, because of the restriction on both assets in exchange for the
Febell's and Spryte's right to practice. restriction on Febell is
necessary to re-
Yes, strict Febell's
(D) because of the restriction on Spryte's right to
right to practice;
, MPRE Study Questions pt. 2 Correctly Answered & Updated.
practice if he leaves the partnership within it is not. (C) is wrong
the first three years. because the restriction on
Febell's right to practice is
properly incident to the
retirement benefits he
will receive from Spryte.
2. Justice Jacobs was on the Supreme Court of
State (B) Jacobs may not
represent
Beta. State Beta's Supreme Court Rules provide that Dillon in the
habeas proceed-
in capital punishment cases, any one justice of the ing because, while
serving as
supreme court is empowered to grant a stay of exe- a supreme court
justice, Ja-
cution pending appeal to the supreme court. Justice cobs
grantedDillon a stay of
Jacobs granted such a stay in the case of execution. A lawyer must
People of State Beta v. Dillon, on the ground not represent a client in
that Dillon had been denied the effective a "mat- ter" in which the
assistance of counsel at his trial. A few lawyer ear- lier
months later, Justice Jacobs retired from the participated "personally
supreme court and went back to private and substantially" as a
judge.
law practice. In due course, the supreme court heard [ABA ModelRule
1.12(a)] The
the appeal in the Dillon case, rejected Dillon's habeas corpus
effec- tive assistance of counsel contention, proceeding and the
and affirmed the death penalty. Acting as earlier appeal should be
an indigent in propria persona, Dillon then regarded as the same
commenced a federal habeas mat- ter because the
habeas cor-
corpus proceeding in the United States District Court pus proceeding
, MPRE Study Questions pt. 2 Correctly Answered & Updated.
will doubtless
for the Eastern District of State Beta, and asked that raise many of
the same is-
court to appoint a private lawyer to sues that were decided on
represent him in the habeas corpus the earlier appeal. (The
proceeding. The district court appointed ettective assistance of
Jacobs to represent Dillon. A key issue in counsel issue is
the habeas corpus proceeding is whether Dillon was one example.) The
stay of ex-
deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at his ecution should
be regarded
trial as personal, substantial
. par- ticipation. (A) is
wrong be-
MAY Jacobs represent Dillon without getting the con- cause it confuses the
roles of
sent of all parties to the habeas corpus proceeding? judge and lawyer;
a judge is
1. For the past 40 years, solo practitioner Febell has (D) Febell and
Spryte are sub-
practiced municipal bond law in State A. Because he ject to discipline
for entering
is nearing retirement age, Febell takes in into the partnership
young at- torney Spryte as a partner. Their agree- ment because of
partnership agree- the restric-
ment provides that Febell will train Spryte in munici- tion on Spryte's
right to prac-
pal bond law, that Febell will receive 75% of the part- tice. A lawyer
must neither
nership's net earnings during the first three make nor otter a partner-
years, and that Spryte will receive the ship agreement that
remaining 25%. The restricts a
agreement further provides that if Spryte leaves the lawyer's right to
practice after
partnership before the end of the first three years, termination of the
relation-
he will remit to Febell 75% of all fees he earns there- ship, except for
an agreement
after from municipal bond work he does in concerning benefits upon
State re- tirement. [ABA Model
A. Finally, the agreement provides that if Febell Rule 5.6(a)]Under this
and Spryte are still partners when Febell agreement, if Spryte
retires, Spryte will pay Febell retirement leaves the partner- ship
benefits of $3,000 per month until Febell's within the first three
death; in return, upon his re- tirement, years, he must pay Febell
Febell will turn over to Spryte all of the 75% of the fees he earns
partnership assets (including goodwill) and thereafter from municipal
will not thereafter practice municipal bond bond work he does in
law in State A. State A. This provision
Are Febell and Spryte subject to discipline for enter- unduly restricts
Spryte's right
, MPRE Study Questions pt. 2 Correctly Answered & Updated.
ing into this partnership agreement? to practice. (A) is wrong
be- cause it overlooks the
(A)No, because the agreement gives Febell
improp- er restriction on
retire- ment payments in return for the
Spryte's right to practice.
restriction on his right to practice.
No, (B)iscause
wrongitbe- overlooks
(B)the restric-
because the agreement enables Febell to sell
the tion on Spryte.
Furthermore, it
partnership assets in return for the restriction on
his right to practice. implies that the sale of
(C)Yes, because of the restriction on both assets in exchange for the
Febell's and Spryte's right to practice. restriction on Febell is
necessary to re-
Yes, strict Febell's
(D) because of the restriction on Spryte's right to
right to practice;
, MPRE Study Questions pt. 2 Correctly Answered & Updated.
practice if he leaves the partnership within it is not. (C) is wrong
the first three years. because the restriction on
Febell's right to practice is
properly incident to the
retirement benefits he
will receive from Spryte.
2. Justice Jacobs was on the Supreme Court of
State (B) Jacobs may not
represent
Beta. State Beta's Supreme Court Rules provide that Dillon in the
habeas proceed-
in capital punishment cases, any one justice of the ing because, while
serving as
supreme court is empowered to grant a stay of exe- a supreme court
justice, Ja-
cution pending appeal to the supreme court. Justice cobs
grantedDillon a stay of
Jacobs granted such a stay in the case of execution. A lawyer must
People of State Beta v. Dillon, on the ground not represent a client in
that Dillon had been denied the effective a "mat- ter" in which the
assistance of counsel at his trial. A few lawyer ear- lier
months later, Justice Jacobs retired from the participated "personally
supreme court and went back to private and substantially" as a
judge.
law practice. In due course, the supreme court heard [ABA ModelRule
1.12(a)] The
the appeal in the Dillon case, rejected Dillon's habeas corpus
effec- tive assistance of counsel contention, proceeding and the
and affirmed the death penalty. Acting as earlier appeal should be
an indigent in propria persona, Dillon then regarded as the same
commenced a federal habeas mat- ter because the
habeas cor-
corpus proceeding in the United States District Court pus proceeding
, MPRE Study Questions pt. 2 Correctly Answered & Updated.
will doubtless
for the Eastern District of State Beta, and asked that raise many of
the same is-
court to appoint a private lawyer to sues that were decided on
represent him in the habeas corpus the earlier appeal. (The
proceeding. The district court appointed ettective assistance of
Jacobs to represent Dillon. A key issue in counsel issue is
the habeas corpus proceeding is whether Dillon was one example.) The
stay of ex-
deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at his ecution should
be regarded
trial as personal, substantial
. par- ticipation. (A) is
wrong be-
MAY Jacobs represent Dillon without getting the con- cause it confuses the
roles of
sent of all parties to the habeas corpus proceeding? judge and lawyer;
a judge is
