Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam Practice Test

Depositing client funds into a designated trust account separate from personal or business accounts is essential to prevent commingling of funds, a requirement under professional responsibility rules. This practice ensures clear tracking and safeguarding of client property.

Attorneys have a duty to serve when appointed if representation is feasible without substantial risk of inadequate performance or overwhelming burden. Personal preference or moderate scheduling conflicts do not justify turning away an appointment. Positioning acceptance on unrelated factors is not consistent with professional responsibilities.

Attorneys safeguard client details discovered during representation. The correct response involves checking with Bob before sharing, even if Carla represents him on another matter. That option respects the principle that information from one case remains secured unless the client has agreed to share it. Other approaches assume that co-counsel status grants free access to all data or that partial omissions protect privacy. Those options overlook the requirement that the client must authorize any release from a prior case.

A lawyer who learns protected information from a prospective client cannot use that information to the client’s disadvantage in the same or a substantially related matter. If Caldwell received specifics that pose a conflict, informed consent or another safeguard is needed before accepting representation. Simply accepting representation without regard to Rita’s disclosures fails to account for the conflict. An outright ban is too extreme because screening or obtaining Rita’s permission could address the concerns.

Lawyers owe a duty to preserve and return property that belongs to non-clients when requested. The option requiring protection and return matches this professional responsibility. Other suggestions conflict with the lawyer's duties by either prioritizing the client's wishes at the expense of a third person’s rights or discarding property without permission.

Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, fee sharing between lawyers who are not in the same firm is generally prohibited, except in specific circumstances such as referrals to certain organizations. Accepting a portion of the fees in exchange for a referral violates these ethical guidelines. Therefore, Smith should decline the referral fee and refer the client without any fee-sharing arrangement.

If an attorney circulates allegations about an official with inadequate factual backing, the criticism is deemed inappropriate. Labeling an accusation as personal opinion does not remove the ethical obligation to ensure accuracy. Restricting the circulation of a statement also does not remove professional responsibilities.

The correct choice recognizes that withholding details about an academic integrity violation can trigger character and fitness concerns. The committee has authority to rescind any prior eligibility notice and reinvestigate, even if the applicant’s school record was previously reviewed. This ensures that individuals entering practice meet the profession’s standards of honesty and candor. The other options minimize the importance of the undisclosed matter or sidestep reexamination of the applicant’s fitness, which does not fulfill the committee’s duty to protect the integrity of the profession.

A lawyer must not conceal or obstruct access to documents that are validly requested and relevant. Even though the information might damage the client’s position, proper disclosure is required to maintain fairness. The correct selection indicates that disclosure of relevant materials satisfies these professional standards. The other options overlook the responsibility to produce the information in a timely manner, which would violate discovery obligations.

The best option establishes that a supervisory lawyer implements measures to guide compliance and intervenes when an issue is recognized. Proposing that the department head avoids responsibility overlooks the fundamental requirement of supervision. Suggesting that the department head personally manages all assignments incorrectly implies a more onerous obligation than what the rules require, which focus on systems and interventions when problems arise.

Lawyers must discourage conduct that contravenes legal directives and clarify that subverting a court’s ruling is inappropriate. Providing options that respect legal and ethical standards while advising against deceit protects the integrity of the legal system. Ignoring or endorsing the plan puts the lawyer at risk of violating professional rules.

Lawyers can propose developments or adaptations of existing law when there is a basis for doing so. A lack of precedent does not automatically mean that the claim violates ethical obligations. Arguing that legislative endorsement is required or that a defendant’s agreement is necessary misses the principle that a lawyer can advocate for a shift in legal standards supported by reasoned considerations.

The correct answer involves advising the client to document the employee's performance issues and follow company policies, which provides a legitimate basis for termination and reduces the risk of wrongful termination claims. The other options either omit essential steps, such as proper documentation and adherence to procedures, or suggest incomplete strategies that do not adequately protect the client from potential legal risks.

An attorney typically refrains from acting as both advocate and witness if the testimony addresses a key matter of fact that is contested. The rules often include recognized exceptions for uncontested issues, nature and value of services, or when withdrawal causes substantial hardship for the client. If testimony is essential to a disputed element, it jeopardizes the lawyer’s objectivity and may confuse the finder of fact. Other suggested strategies, such as disclosing the dual role to the court or simply focusing on the client’s success, do not override these concerns. An outright ban on testifying in every circumstance is also inaccurate because some circumstances permit a lawyer’s testimony.

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.