Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam Practice Test

Because Pat's prior, substantially related representation creates a former-client conflict under Rule 1.9, the conflict is imputed to every lawyer in the firm by Rule 1.10(a). The only way the firm can proceed is if each affected client-the distributor and the manufacturer-gives informed written consent after full disclosure. A unilateral screen within the firm does not cure the conflict, and the fact that Deena never worked on Pat's matter is irrelevant. The other responses misstate these principles: they wrongly claim that personal involvement is required, that a screen alone suffices, or that the conflict disappears once Pat's representation ends.

Attorneys have a duty to maintain honest communications with others. Here, the attorney’s comments conflict with the landlord’s own records, which creates a misleading impression. Tactics during negotiations do not excuse false statements of fact, even if the attorney believes it may hasten a resolution. Regardless of the other party’s awareness or ability to verify the information, an attorney who provides incorrect statements risks a breach of ethical obligations.

A lawyer has a duty to provide documents that fall under valid discovery requests and refrain from concealing openly discoverable material. The correct option upholds the professional requirement to produce documents relevant to the issues at hand. The other responses suggest either withholding such documents, avoiding disclosure, or delaying the process in a way that conflicts with established fairness principles.

Lawyers have an independent duty to act honestly and uphold professional standards. Even if a client demands improper actions, a lawyer is responsible for personal conduct after admission to practice. Disciplinary authorities impose sanctions when a lawyer’s conduct violates the rules of professional responsibility. The client’s preferences do not shield the lawyer from accountability. A claim that the lawyer’s representation has ended or that no final court judgment exists does not eliminate the regulations against misrepresentations or prevent an investigation. Provisions in a client’s contract do not override professional obligations.

The reasonableness of the fee is determined by factors such as the complexity of the case, the amount of time and labor required, the experience of the lawyer, and the results obtained. A 30% contingency fee in complex litigation is generally considered reasonable, whereas excessively high or low fees may raise ethical concerns. Other options might address unrelated aspects such as the client's financial status or the lawyer's personal preference, which are not primary considerations in fee reasonableness.

Lawyers are generally restricted from making in-person solicitations for profit with unknown individuals who have not initiated or requested such contact. These rules protect the public from undue influence, intimidation, or overreaching. The other answer choices misinterpret or disregard the prohibition on face-to-face solicitations for personal gain without a prior relationship or request.

An approach that addresses the planned wrongdoing aligns with ethical obligations in many jurisdictions, which grant attorneys the power to reveal the client’s intentions to avert serious financial harm to another. The other suggestions either fail to stop the planned act, restrict timely action, or misinterpret the available exception and thereby neglect the primary goal of preventing harm.

Lawyers are expected to manage their workload effectively. The correct option reflects that missing the specified date stopped the client’s ability to proceed. Other responses either shift focus to different issues or suggest the attorney effectively handled the matter, which did not occur given the late filing.

The attorney exceeded their actual decision-making authority by making a significant decision without the client’s approval, which was contrary to the agreed-upon scope of representation.

Attorneys have a responsibility to ensure they possess the required knowledge by studying the relevant area or seeking assistance from someone with greater expertise. The correct choice recognizes that an attorney can become competent through proper research or shared responsibility with an experienced colleague. Other options either require abandoning the new matter outright, rely too much on a signed fee agreement alone, or impose a single method of gaining competence without confirming it is sufficient.

Attorneys are subject to liability to nonclients when they invite or approve reliance on an inaccurate representation made for those nonclients. Here, the contributors were prompted to rely on Mia’s memorandum. If she allowed or expected them to rely on her statements and did not verify relevant facts, she is open to liability. Stating that the representation was directed at the client alone does not prevent nonclients from relying, especially where reliance is reasonably expected. Disclaimers by themselves do not guarantee immunity, and limits on disclaimers often exist when the lawyer’s conduct encourages third parties to act on the lawyer’s statements.

ABA Model Rule 3.2 obligates a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the client's interests. Delaying a proceeding simply to inconvenience the adversary, or to obtain a fee, is improper because it lacks a substantial purpose beyond delay. Therefore, the lawyer must refuse to file or request postponements that have no legitimate legal justification, even if the client directs otherwise. Accepting extra payment to slow the case or communicating anonymously with the court would both violate the rules. A postponement could be sought only when a genuine, substantive ground exists-something the attorney has already concluded is absent here-so the choice instructing the attorney to request postponements is incorrect.

Under ethical rules, a lawyer who acted as a mediator may not represent a party in a similar or related matter unless all parties to the prior proceeding give their informed permission. Confidential information might have been shared in mediation, and the lawyer’s duty to remain impartial in that process can be compromised in subsequent representation. The answer that requires consent from all mediation parties before the lawyer can represent one sibling best aligns with these requirements. Other answers fail to address that each person in the original matter must give clear, written approvals, or they allow representation under narrower conditions that do not satisfy professional conduct standards.

Under these standards, an attorney should avoid leaving the unrepresented person with any impression that the attorney is serving their interests. The proper approach is to clarify that the lawyer represents the publishing company, not the writer. Suggesting the writer find counsel can help prevent misunderstandings. One incorrect answer proposes continuing the conversation without clarifying whom the lawyer represents, which risks misleading the writer. Another suggests giving guidance that may unintentionally place the lawyer at odds with client loyalty. A further answer advises stopping all communication outright, which is too restrictive and does not address the need to clarify the lawyer’s role.

Attorneys have a duty to maintain competence by acquiring sufficient knowledge and skills in a specific area or by associating with someone who does. Carla did not consult a knowledgeable colleague or research the specialized requirements, which directly contributed to her mistakes. In contrast, relying on her general real estate background or expecting the client to guide her did not address the more specialized expertise needed here.