MPRE BarBri Problem set Exam Questions with all
answers Correctly provided Latest 2024/2025
For the past five years, an attorney has represented an art dealer in the sale of
many valuable paintings. One of the major transactions occurred three years
ago, when the art dealer sold a landscape purportedly painted by Vincent van
Gogh to an art museum for $23 million. The museum subsequently resold the
painting for $35 million.
Now the art dealer has asked the attorney to do the legal work in connection with
the sale of another landscape, also a purported van Gogh. The proposed
purchase price is $12 million, and the prospective purchaser is a wealthy
television personality who knows nothing about art. During a confidential
conversation in the attorney's office, the attorney asked the art dealer if he had
appraisal letters certifying the painting as a genuine van Gogh. The art dealer
replied that he indeed had letters—letters he had forged himself—and that he
had also forged the letters for the purported van Gogh sold to the art museum.
When the attorney inquired further, the art dealer told him in confidence that both
of the purported van Gogh paintings were in fact counterfeits created by a clever
art student. Which of the following must the attorney do at this point?
A) Report the art dealer to the law enforcement authorities.
B) Warn the prospective purchaser about the proposed sale.
C) Inform the art museum of the truth about the first painting.
D) Refuse to represent the art dealer in the present transaction. - correct
answer D) Refuse to represent the art dealer in the present transaction.
A full-time judge lives in State A. Her father lives in a retirement home in State B.
The judge's father told her that several of his friends in the retirement home had
employed an attorney to write wills for them, and that in each will the attorney
had included a bequest to himself. Each bequest was approximately 50% of the
estimated total value of the person's probable estate. The friends told the judge's
father that they did not really want to leave the attorney anything, but they had
assumed it was merely a matter of routine, a part of the attorney's compensation
for drafting the will. The attorney is admitted to practice in State B, but not in
,State A. The judge did not talk personally with any of her father's friends, but she
believes that her father's rendition of the story is entirely accurate. Would it be
proper for the judge to communicate directly with the attorney about the matter,
and if that does not satisfy her, to communicate with the attorney disciplinary
authority in State B about the matter?
A) Yes, because she has received information indicating a substantial likelihood
that the attorney has violated a legal ethics rule.
B) Yes, because she has personal knowledge that the attorney has violated a
legal ethics rule.
C) No, because legal ethics violations that take place outside State A are not her
concern.
D) No, because she is not allowed to communicate directly with the attorney
about the supposed legal ethics violation. - correct answer A) Yes, because
she has received information indicating a substantial likelihood that the attorney
has violated a legal ethics rule.
A bank and trust company maintains a list of approved estate and trust lawyers
as a service to their customers who seek advice on estate planning matters.
When a young lawyer opened her trust and estate practice in town, she asked
other lawyers how she could get on the bank's approved list. They explained that
the bank lists lawyers who always name the bank in wills and trust agreements
they draft for clients who need an institutional executor or trustee. The bank is
one of the most stable and reputable banks in the state, and its fees for executor
and trustee services are competitive with those of similar institutions. In light of
what she has been told by the other lawyers, may the young lawyer seek to have
her name included on the bank's list?
A) No, because a tacit condition of being on the list is always to name the bank
as executor or trustee.
B) No, because a lawyer must not solicit business through an intermediary.
C) Yes, because naming the bank causes no harm to clients who need an
institutional executor or trustee.
,D) Yes, because those who use the bank's list are already bank customers. -
correct answer A) No, because a tacit condition of being on the list is always to
name the bank as executor or trustee.
A young lawyer, three years out of law school, had never set foot in a courtroom.
The lawyer was on the board of directors of a nonprofit preschool. One of the
preschool's teachers was charged with felony child abuse for allegedly molesting
three pupils. After conducting its own careful investigation, the preschool's board
of directors concluded that the criminal charge was totally unfounded, and the
board resolved to provide defense counsel for the teacher. The young lawyer
volunteered to do the work without a fee. A few days before the trial was to
begin, the lawyer became convinced that he was not competent to serve as the
teacher's trial counsel. He asked the trial judge for permission to withdraw. After
thoroughly questioning the lawyer about his preparation for trial, the judge said
that while he understood the lawyer's anxiety, he believed that the lawyer was
perfectly competent to handle the case. The judge denied the lawyer's motion to
withdraw but postponed the trial for seven days to allow him to complete his
preparation. Instead of doing what the judge ordered, the lawyer advised the
teacher that he would not defend her. He handed her all of the files in the case
and advised her to retain another lawyer. Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
A) Yes, because he abandoned his client in direct violation of the trial judge's
order.
B) Yes, because he undertook a case that he was not competent to handle.
C) No, because he believed that he was not competent to represent his client at
trial.
D) No, because he was working pro bono, not for a fee. - correct answer A)
Yes, because he abandoned his client in direct violation of the trial judge's order.
A building contractor and his lawyer met with a landowner to negotiate a contract
for construction of an office building on the landowner's property. The contractor,
the lawyer, and the landowner were the only persons present at the meeting.
Ultimately, the three of them worked out a written agreement, and the contractor
commenced work. However, it soon became apparent that the building site
required far more preparation work than the contractor had contemplated when
, he agreed to the contract price. The contractor and the landowner argued about
who had to pay for the additional site preparation. One important issue is whether
the landowner made certain oral representations to the contractor during the
contract negotiating session that the lawyer attended. The contractor contends
that the landowner did make the representations, while the landowner contends
that he did not. The lawyer was present during the entire negotiating session,
and she is virtually certain that the landowner did not make the representations.
The contractor refused to proceed with construction until the landowner paid for
the extra site preparation. The landowner then sued the contractor for specific
performance of the construction contract. The contractor asked the lawyer to
represent him as trial counsel. The lawyer should:
A) Agree to serve as trial counsel for the contractor because the contractor is
entitled to the counsel of his choice.
B) Agree to serve as trial counsel for the contractor because she can refuse to
testify if she is called as a witness by the landowner.
C) Decline to serve as trial counsel for the contractor because a lawyer is not
allowed to testify in a manner that is prejudicial to her client.
D) Decline to serve as trial counsel for the contractor because she can foresee
that she will be called as a witness. - correct answer D) Decline to serve as
trial counsel for the contractor because she can foresee that she will be called as
a witness.
A plaintiff brought a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries he
suffered as the victim of alleged police brutality inflicted by three defendant police
officers. The trial was widely reported by the media. The jury returned a verdict in
favor of the plaintiff and against the three police officers for $500 million. When
the trial judge received the verdict, he was shocked by the size of the award.
Before dismissing the jurors, the judge told the jurors that when they were sworn
in, they had promised that they would deliver a verdict based on the evidence
and that they would not be swayed by passion or prejudice. The judge further
admonished the jurors that they had failed in those duties, that they had made a
mockery of justice, and that they should be ashamed of themselves. He then
dismissed the jury, and the defense lawyers renewed their motion for judgment
as a matter of law and, alternatively, moved for a new trial. The judge announced
that he would rule on the motions the following Monday at 10 a.m. in open court.
answers Correctly provided Latest 2024/2025
For the past five years, an attorney has represented an art dealer in the sale of
many valuable paintings. One of the major transactions occurred three years
ago, when the art dealer sold a landscape purportedly painted by Vincent van
Gogh to an art museum for $23 million. The museum subsequently resold the
painting for $35 million.
Now the art dealer has asked the attorney to do the legal work in connection with
the sale of another landscape, also a purported van Gogh. The proposed
purchase price is $12 million, and the prospective purchaser is a wealthy
television personality who knows nothing about art. During a confidential
conversation in the attorney's office, the attorney asked the art dealer if he had
appraisal letters certifying the painting as a genuine van Gogh. The art dealer
replied that he indeed had letters—letters he had forged himself—and that he
had also forged the letters for the purported van Gogh sold to the art museum.
When the attorney inquired further, the art dealer told him in confidence that both
of the purported van Gogh paintings were in fact counterfeits created by a clever
art student. Which of the following must the attorney do at this point?
A) Report the art dealer to the law enforcement authorities.
B) Warn the prospective purchaser about the proposed sale.
C) Inform the art museum of the truth about the first painting.
D) Refuse to represent the art dealer in the present transaction. - correct
answer D) Refuse to represent the art dealer in the present transaction.
A full-time judge lives in State A. Her father lives in a retirement home in State B.
The judge's father told her that several of his friends in the retirement home had
employed an attorney to write wills for them, and that in each will the attorney
had included a bequest to himself. Each bequest was approximately 50% of the
estimated total value of the person's probable estate. The friends told the judge's
father that they did not really want to leave the attorney anything, but they had
assumed it was merely a matter of routine, a part of the attorney's compensation
for drafting the will. The attorney is admitted to practice in State B, but not in
,State A. The judge did not talk personally with any of her father's friends, but she
believes that her father's rendition of the story is entirely accurate. Would it be
proper for the judge to communicate directly with the attorney about the matter,
and if that does not satisfy her, to communicate with the attorney disciplinary
authority in State B about the matter?
A) Yes, because she has received information indicating a substantial likelihood
that the attorney has violated a legal ethics rule.
B) Yes, because she has personal knowledge that the attorney has violated a
legal ethics rule.
C) No, because legal ethics violations that take place outside State A are not her
concern.
D) No, because she is not allowed to communicate directly with the attorney
about the supposed legal ethics violation. - correct answer A) Yes, because
she has received information indicating a substantial likelihood that the attorney
has violated a legal ethics rule.
A bank and trust company maintains a list of approved estate and trust lawyers
as a service to their customers who seek advice on estate planning matters.
When a young lawyer opened her trust and estate practice in town, she asked
other lawyers how she could get on the bank's approved list. They explained that
the bank lists lawyers who always name the bank in wills and trust agreements
they draft for clients who need an institutional executor or trustee. The bank is
one of the most stable and reputable banks in the state, and its fees for executor
and trustee services are competitive with those of similar institutions. In light of
what she has been told by the other lawyers, may the young lawyer seek to have
her name included on the bank's list?
A) No, because a tacit condition of being on the list is always to name the bank
as executor or trustee.
B) No, because a lawyer must not solicit business through an intermediary.
C) Yes, because naming the bank causes no harm to clients who need an
institutional executor or trustee.
,D) Yes, because those who use the bank's list are already bank customers. -
correct answer A) No, because a tacit condition of being on the list is always to
name the bank as executor or trustee.
A young lawyer, three years out of law school, had never set foot in a courtroom.
The lawyer was on the board of directors of a nonprofit preschool. One of the
preschool's teachers was charged with felony child abuse for allegedly molesting
three pupils. After conducting its own careful investigation, the preschool's board
of directors concluded that the criminal charge was totally unfounded, and the
board resolved to provide defense counsel for the teacher. The young lawyer
volunteered to do the work without a fee. A few days before the trial was to
begin, the lawyer became convinced that he was not competent to serve as the
teacher's trial counsel. He asked the trial judge for permission to withdraw. After
thoroughly questioning the lawyer about his preparation for trial, the judge said
that while he understood the lawyer's anxiety, he believed that the lawyer was
perfectly competent to handle the case. The judge denied the lawyer's motion to
withdraw but postponed the trial for seven days to allow him to complete his
preparation. Instead of doing what the judge ordered, the lawyer advised the
teacher that he would not defend her. He handed her all of the files in the case
and advised her to retain another lawyer. Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
A) Yes, because he abandoned his client in direct violation of the trial judge's
order.
B) Yes, because he undertook a case that he was not competent to handle.
C) No, because he believed that he was not competent to represent his client at
trial.
D) No, because he was working pro bono, not for a fee. - correct answer A)
Yes, because he abandoned his client in direct violation of the trial judge's order.
A building contractor and his lawyer met with a landowner to negotiate a contract
for construction of an office building on the landowner's property. The contractor,
the lawyer, and the landowner were the only persons present at the meeting.
Ultimately, the three of them worked out a written agreement, and the contractor
commenced work. However, it soon became apparent that the building site
required far more preparation work than the contractor had contemplated when
, he agreed to the contract price. The contractor and the landowner argued about
who had to pay for the additional site preparation. One important issue is whether
the landowner made certain oral representations to the contractor during the
contract negotiating session that the lawyer attended. The contractor contends
that the landowner did make the representations, while the landowner contends
that he did not. The lawyer was present during the entire negotiating session,
and she is virtually certain that the landowner did not make the representations.
The contractor refused to proceed with construction until the landowner paid for
the extra site preparation. The landowner then sued the contractor for specific
performance of the construction contract. The contractor asked the lawyer to
represent him as trial counsel. The lawyer should:
A) Agree to serve as trial counsel for the contractor because the contractor is
entitled to the counsel of his choice.
B) Agree to serve as trial counsel for the contractor because she can refuse to
testify if she is called as a witness by the landowner.
C) Decline to serve as trial counsel for the contractor because a lawyer is not
allowed to testify in a manner that is prejudicial to her client.
D) Decline to serve as trial counsel for the contractor because she can foresee
that she will be called as a witness. - correct answer D) Decline to serve as
trial counsel for the contractor because she can foresee that she will be called as
a witness.
A plaintiff brought a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries he
suffered as the victim of alleged police brutality inflicted by three defendant police
officers. The trial was widely reported by the media. The jury returned a verdict in
favor of the plaintiff and against the three police officers for $500 million. When
the trial judge received the verdict, he was shocked by the size of the award.
Before dismissing the jurors, the judge told the jurors that when they were sworn
in, they had promised that they would deliver a verdict based on the evidence
and that they would not be swayed by passion or prejudice. The judge further
admonished the jurors that they had failed in those duties, that they had made a
mockery of justice, and that they should be ashamed of themselves. He then
dismissed the jury, and the defense lawyers renewed their motion for judgment
as a matter of law and, alternatively, moved for a new trial. The judge announced
that he would rule on the motions the following Monday at 10 a.m. in open court.
