193. An attorney defended a client in a criminal proceeding that attracted low-level
media attention on the local evening news and a few local-interest blogs. One of
these bloggers called the attorney at his office and asked for a quote about the
client's case. The attorney stated that a member of the local clergy, as well as the
Principal of the local high school, would testify as to the client's good character and
volunteer activities. Was it proper for the attorney to discuss such things with a
blogger?
a) Yes, because a local-interest blogger is not an official public communication and
does not constitute dissemination by means of public communication.
b) Yes, because a lawyer may state the expected testimony of a party or witness in a
criminal matter.
c) No, because in a criminal matter, there is a presumption of prejudice when a lawyer
makes extrajudicial statements about the expected testimony of a party or witness.
d) No, because a criminal defense lawyer may not make any extrajudicial statements
except to state the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited
by law, the identity of the persons involved.
,Give this one a try later!
c) No, because in a criminal matter, there is a presumption of prejudice
when a lawyer makes extrajudicial statements about the expected
testimony of a party or witness.
Rule 3.6 Cmt. 5(1)
206. A famous professional athlete faced charges for murdering his wife and her male
companion one evening outside their Beverly Hills home. The defendant assembled a
legal "dream team" of the five most famous criminal defense lawyers from around the
country. One of the lawyers was in possession of a handwritten letter from one of the
murder victims saying that a drug cartel had been making death threats against the
victim for a few weeks. The evidence might have been exculpatory for the defendant,
but the lawyer would have to take the witness stand briefly during the trial to
authenticate the document or explain how he received it. The document was a hotly
contested piece of evidence in the case, but it was not the only evidence pointing
toward the defendant's innocence or guilt. The prosecutor wanted the court to
disqualify the lawyer from representing the defendant if he testified about the letter.
The defendant insisted that this would work a substantial hardship on him, because
this lawyer was the only criminal defense lawyer in the county with an undefeated
record - he had obtained acquittals in hundreds of criminal trials and had never lost a
case. Should the court side with the defendant in this case and allow the lawyer to
continue as part of his defense team?
a) Yes, because disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the
client.
b) Yes, because this is a criminal prosecution and the client has a Sixth Amendment
right to counsel.
c) No, because disqualification of the lawyer would not work substantial hardship on
the client.
d) No, because a lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the
lawyer's firm is likely to testify as a witness.
,Give this one a try later!
c) No, because disqualification of the lawyer would not work substantial
hardship on the client.
Rule 3.7(a)(3)
18. Two separate clients hired the same attorney, signing their retainer agreements one
week apart, on unrelated matters, though both involve property owners' rights under
the state's common law doctrine of public trust for beaches, which guarantees public
access to beaches up to the vegetation line on the shore. In one case, erosion has
moved the boundary back on the property owner's lot to the point where his house is
now clearly on the public access portion, and he seeks a declaratory judgment that
erosion cannot jeopardize the private ownership of a building and its curtilage.
Current public trust doctrine in the state would suggest that the property owner has
lost all the value in his property, so he needs to seek a change or exception to the
current law. The other case involves a property owner whose lots had always been
separated from the beach by a small public park, but erosion has eliminated the park
and given him water access from his property, which has doubled the value of his land
under current public trust doctrine. The state government, however, is seeking a
declaratory judgment in his case, arguing for an exception or change to the current
law that would rob the owner of the windfall he received due to the erosion. Does this
situation present a conflict of interest that would require the attorney to obtain
informed consent, in writing, from both clients, before proceeding with the
representation?
a) No, the mere fact that advocating a legal position on behalf of one client might
create precedent adverse to the interests of a client represented by the lawyer in an
unrelated matter does not create a conflict of interest.
b) No, given that both are declaratory judgment actions, it is not possible that one
client's interests could be adverse to the other's.
c) Yes, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer's action on
behalf of one client will materially limit the lawyer's effectiveness in representing
, another client in a different case, as when a decision favoring one client will create a
precedent likely to seriously weaken the position taken on behalf of the other client.
d) Yes, but this type of conflict involves a question of law, so it is non-consentable by
the two clients.
Give this one a try later!
c) Yes, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer's
action on behalf of one client will materially limit the lawyer's effectiveness
in representing another client in a different case, as when a decision
favoring one client will create a precedent likely to seriously weaken the
position taken on behalf of the other client.
10. A 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?
a) No, 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.
b) No, 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.
c) Both the attorney and her firm would be subject to disqualification, because the
client did not give written informed consent.
media attention on the local evening news and a few local-interest blogs. One of
these bloggers called the attorney at his office and asked for a quote about the
client's case. The attorney stated that a member of the local clergy, as well as the
Principal of the local high school, would testify as to the client's good character and
volunteer activities. Was it proper for the attorney to discuss such things with a
blogger?
a) Yes, because a local-interest blogger is not an official public communication and
does not constitute dissemination by means of public communication.
b) Yes, because a lawyer may state the expected testimony of a party or witness in a
criminal matter.
c) No, because in a criminal matter, there is a presumption of prejudice when a lawyer
makes extrajudicial statements about the expected testimony of a party or witness.
d) No, because a criminal defense lawyer may not make any extrajudicial statements
except to state the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited
by law, the identity of the persons involved.
,Give this one a try later!
c) No, because in a criminal matter, there is a presumption of prejudice
when a lawyer makes extrajudicial statements about the expected
testimony of a party or witness.
Rule 3.6 Cmt. 5(1)
206. A famous professional athlete faced charges for murdering his wife and her male
companion one evening outside their Beverly Hills home. The defendant assembled a
legal "dream team" of the five most famous criminal defense lawyers from around the
country. One of the lawyers was in possession of a handwritten letter from one of the
murder victims saying that a drug cartel had been making death threats against the
victim for a few weeks. The evidence might have been exculpatory for the defendant,
but the lawyer would have to take the witness stand briefly during the trial to
authenticate the document or explain how he received it. The document was a hotly
contested piece of evidence in the case, but it was not the only evidence pointing
toward the defendant's innocence or guilt. The prosecutor wanted the court to
disqualify the lawyer from representing the defendant if he testified about the letter.
The defendant insisted that this would work a substantial hardship on him, because
this lawyer was the only criminal defense lawyer in the county with an undefeated
record - he had obtained acquittals in hundreds of criminal trials and had never lost a
case. Should the court side with the defendant in this case and allow the lawyer to
continue as part of his defense team?
a) Yes, because disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the
client.
b) Yes, because this is a criminal prosecution and the client has a Sixth Amendment
right to counsel.
c) No, because disqualification of the lawyer would not work substantial hardship on
the client.
d) No, because a lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the
lawyer's firm is likely to testify as a witness.
,Give this one a try later!
c) No, because disqualification of the lawyer would not work substantial
hardship on the client.
Rule 3.7(a)(3)
18. Two separate clients hired the same attorney, signing their retainer agreements one
week apart, on unrelated matters, though both involve property owners' rights under
the state's common law doctrine of public trust for beaches, which guarantees public
access to beaches up to the vegetation line on the shore. In one case, erosion has
moved the boundary back on the property owner's lot to the point where his house is
now clearly on the public access portion, and he seeks a declaratory judgment that
erosion cannot jeopardize the private ownership of a building and its curtilage.
Current public trust doctrine in the state would suggest that the property owner has
lost all the value in his property, so he needs to seek a change or exception to the
current law. The other case involves a property owner whose lots had always been
separated from the beach by a small public park, but erosion has eliminated the park
and given him water access from his property, which has doubled the value of his land
under current public trust doctrine. The state government, however, is seeking a
declaratory judgment in his case, arguing for an exception or change to the current
law that would rob the owner of the windfall he received due to the erosion. Does this
situation present a conflict of interest that would require the attorney to obtain
informed consent, in writing, from both clients, before proceeding with the
representation?
a) No, the mere fact that advocating a legal position on behalf of one client might
create precedent adverse to the interests of a client represented by the lawyer in an
unrelated matter does not create a conflict of interest.
b) No, given that both are declaratory judgment actions, it is not possible that one
client's interests could be adverse to the other's.
c) Yes, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer's action on
behalf of one client will materially limit the lawyer's effectiveness in representing
, another client in a different case, as when a decision favoring one client will create a
precedent likely to seriously weaken the position taken on behalf of the other client.
d) Yes, but this type of conflict involves a question of law, so it is non-consentable by
the two clients.
Give this one a try later!
c) Yes, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer's
action on behalf of one client will materially limit the lawyer's effectiveness
in representing another client in a different case, as when a decision
favoring one client will create a precedent likely to seriously weaken the
position taken on behalf of the other client.
10. A 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?
a) No, 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.
b) No, 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.
c) Both the attorney and her firm would be subject to disqualification, because the
client did not give written informed consent.
