Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam Practice Question
A lawyer was upset with a judge’s rulings over several weeks and gave public comments blaming the judge for favoring one party. The lawyer did not share any supporting evidence. Which option aligns with professional guidance on criticizing judges?
File a grievance while refraining from making comments on a judge’s actions outside formal channels
Speak in public forums to emphasize constitutional rights without necessarily relying on evidentiary support
Express criticisms based on factual information and refrain from making unsupported claims
Limit remarks to private gatherings instead of making critical observations in public settings
Lawyers may comment on a judge’s actions, but their statements should be grounded in fact or made in good faith. Spreading accusations that are not supported by a good faith basis harms confidence in the judicial system. Other options silence permitted public commentary or overlook the requirement to show a factual basis.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean to express criticisms based on factual information?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is it important to refrain from making unsupported claims about judges?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the potential consequences of publicly criticizing a judge without evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam
Lawyers’ duties to the public and the legal system