Answer Choice 1	Answer Choice 2	Answer Choice 3	Answer Choice 4	Selected Answer
Question 1:  Peter Paralegal works for the law firm of A, B and C. In preparation for an upcoming case, Peter interviews Walter Witness and takes notes on what Walter has to say. Later, in discovery, the opposing side demands that Peter turn over a copy of those notes. The opposing attorneys could interview the witness themselves, but they would rather just read Peter's notes instead. Must Peter turn over the notes?
No, because the notes are protected by the work product doctrine.	Yes, because the interest in the search for the truth outweighs the work product doctrine.	No, because the notes are protected by the attorney-client privilege.	Yes, because Peter is not a lawyer and so his notes are not work product.
Question 2:  Legal Firm represents Small Corp, a small business. Peter Plaintiff is suing Small Corp, claiming that he fell on the sidewalk of Small Corp's building because the ice had not been properly salted. Larry Lawyer represents Peter. Peter approaches James Janitor, a maintenance worker at Small Corp and asks James if he salted the sidewalk on the date in question. Assume that James is a low-level employee at Small Corp and he has no power to speak on behalf of the company. Was Larry's conduct proper under the ethical rules?
No, because James' admission could hurt Small Corp. in court	Yes, because an attorney has an inherent right to interview witnesses who may have information regarding the suit.	Yes, because James has no power to speak on behalf of Small Corp.	No, because James worked for Small Corp. and Small Corp. was represented by counsel
Question 3:  Lucy tells her husband, Ricky, that she 'hates that good-for-nothing Ethel and will probably kill her when she gets the chance.' Three days later, Ricky and Lucy get divorced. Two weeks later, Ethel turns up dead and Lucy is arrested for homicide. Can the prosecution use Ricky's testimony as to Lucy's statement?
No, because of spousal immnuity.	No, becuase of the marital communications privilege.	Yes, but only if Ricky testifies voluntarily.	Yes, because Lucy and Ricky are divorced.
Question 4:  In which case is an attorney PROHIBITED from soliciting a client in person?
The attorney asks an indigent person if he would let her represent him for free.	The attorney is soliciting a close friend or relative.	The attorney is soliciging a stranger who he knows has a specific legal problem.	An attorney may never solicit a client in person.
Question 5:  Big Firm has offices in New York, Washington and Chicago. John Q. Private Citizen hires the New York Office of Big Firm to sue Jane Doe, another private citizen, for trespass. It so happens that Jane is represented by Big Firm's Washington office in an employment discrimination case unrelated to John Q. May both offices of Big Firm continue their representations?
Yes, assuming that the two offices do not consult with each other on this case and that both sides consent to the dual representation after full disclosure.	No, because one may not oppose a current client, even on a matter that is not 'substantially related.'	No, because there is too great a risk that there will be a sharing of information.	Yes, because the 2 matters are not 'substantially related matters.'
Question 6:  Paul Prosecutor is working on a case in which A and B are being prosecuted for conspiring to rob a bank. Paul has been working on the case, but will not be trial counsel for the prosecution. On the eve of the trial, B calls Paul and asks Paul to represent him at trial. Paul explains that he is already working against B on that same case. B says 'That's okay; I trust you to do your best for me anway.' May Paul represent B at trial?
Yes, if B and the prosecutor's office consents, after consultation.	Yes, if Paul is doing the work 'pro bono.'	No, because no reasonable person could think that Paul's work on the prosecution's side in B's case would not interfere with his representation of B at trial.	Yes, because the prosecutor's job is to try to bring out the truth, and so the prosecutor is not considered 'adverse' to the criminal defendant.
Question 7:  Which of the following statements about retainer fees is accurate?
They prevent the attorney from being fired in the middle of a representation.	None of the other choices are true.	They are generally unethical.	Any excess money remaining in the retainer after expenses and fees must be returned to the client.
Question 8:  Which of the following may be provided by a lawyer or firm to a client?
The attorney may allow a third party to pay for the representation, as long as the client consents, the payment will not interfere with the representation, and the lawyer doesn't reveal any confidential information to the third party.	All of these are allowed.	The law firm may advance to the client the estimated court costs, if the client will eventually be responsible for it.	The attorney may pay for litigation expenses for a pro bono client.
Question 9:  Which of the following is true about the 'ethical wall?'
It can allow the same lawyer to represent opposite interests in the same case.	All of these are true.	It is not necessary for pro bono representations.	It can negate the effect of an 'imputed disqualification.'
Question 10:  Legal Law Firm represented Joe Smith in a car accident case in 1995. That case has long since been settled. In 2004, Mary Smith, Joe's wife, comes to Legal and asks them to represent her in a divorce action against Joe. May Legal take on this representation?
Yes, but only if Joe consents.	No, because they have an irreconcilable conflict of interest.	Yes, but only if no attorney that worked on Joe's 1995 case works on this case.	Yes, assuming that the 2 cases are not 'substantially related matters.'
Question 11:  Which of the following factors may NOT be considered in determining whether or not a fee is 'reasonable?'
The level of training required to practice in that area of law.	Whether the client is acquitted or convicted in a criminal case.	The complexity of the litigation.	The 'standard' fee for that service in that area of practice in that geographic area.
Question 12:  In which of the following cases does the attorney-client PRIVILEGE (not confidentiality) not apply?
The attorney is being pressed to reveal information that would help to solve a crime that has already been committed.	The attorney is being pressed to reveal information that would help to prevent the client from committing a fraud against the public in the future.	None of these. The privilege applies in all of these cases.	The attorney has knowledge that the client has committed the crime of which he is accused.
Question 13:  Adrianna Attorney sees, on the 6:00 news, a story aout a fifty-car pileup on the Northway Expressway. The news reports that the victims were rushed to Holy Place Hospital. Using her contacts at the hospital, Adrianna learns the names and addresses of all of the injured people. Adrianna's staff prepares a special brochure for victims of the 'Great Pileup on the Northway,' a title that Adrianna herself has coined. The brochure contains pictures and reports about the accident and its historical significance, and, naturally, offers the services of Adrianna's law firm to any victim of the pileup who wants to sue. Adrianna mails a brochure to each of the victims of the pileup. Is this an ethical practice?
Yes, as long as the information in the brochure is accurate and not misleading.	No; an attorney may never solicit business.	No, because it is akin to an in-person solicitation, which is unethical.	Yes, even if not everything in the brochure is accurate, because Adrianna is completely protected by the First Amendment.
Question 14:  In which of the following cases has the attorney behaved unethically?
Mary, an attorney who represents Paul, an experienced real estate salesman, purchases real estate from Paul without advising him to seek outside counsel.	The attorneys have acted unethically in all of these cases.	Joe, an attorney, asks his mother to leave him a lot of money in her will.	Bret, an attorney, agrees to represent Dara, an indigent person, for free in a divorce proceeding.
Question 15:  Carmela sees Tony, her husband, shoot Ralphie. By the time Tony is put on trial for the murder, Tony and Carmela are divorced. Still, Carmela refuses to testify as to what she saw. Can she be forced to testify?
Yes, because the spousal immunity does not survive a divorce.	Yes, because the interest of bringing a criminal prosecution to fruition outweighs the spousal privilege.	No, because the marital communications privilege survives a divorce.	No, because the spousal immunity survives a divorce.
Question 16:  In which of the following cases would the attorney-client relationship have been established for purposes of the attorney-client privilege and confidentiality rules?
Client interviews Attorney and tells him about her case, but later chooses to hire a different lawyer.	All of these cases.	Client hires Attorney to represent her in a divorce proceeding.	Client asks Attorney for legal advice and help, but has no intention of paying Attorney.
Question 17:  Bertha is the vice president of Big Corp, a large company. Bertha walks into the office of Andrea, her attorney, and hands her a bank statement that shows that Bertha embezzled money from the company. In a later criminal trial against Bertha, the prosecution seeks to introduce a different copy of that bank statement into evidence. Can the prosecution do this?
Yes, because the bank statement does not fall within the attorney-client privilege.	No, because the bank statement falls within the attorney-client privilege, since it was given to Andrea.	Yes, because the interest of the prosecution proving its case outweighs the attorney-client privilege.	No, because the bank statement would be too prejudicial a piece of evidence to be used at trial.
Question 18:  Contingency fees are
are generally allowed under ethics rules, despite the fact that they give an attorney a strong incentive to win at all costs	can sometimes lead to the collection of very high fees by law firms	all of the other choices are true	are often helpful in allowing poor people access to the court system
Essay Question:   (15 points) Adrian and Barbara are attorneys who practice together as part of a small law firm in Mid City, Ohio. (They are the only 2 attorneys in the firm.) Barbara represented Scott five years ago, when Scott was charged with assault in a domestic violence episode when he was accused of hitting his wife, Michelle. That case has long since been settled. Now, Michelle comes to Adrian and asks Adrian to represent her in a divorce proceeding against Scott. Adrian has never heard of Scott or Michelle before and he has never discussed their case with Barbara. In fact, when Barbara represented Scott, she and Adrian had not been practicing together. What are the issues involved in the possibility of Adrian representing Michelle? Do you see any way in which Adrian can ethically represent Michelle? If so, what steps must be taken? Explain.