Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam Practice Test

The correct answer requires the lawyer to disclose previous disciplinary actions when applying for admission to a new jurisdiction. This transparency allows State B to assess the lawyer's fitness to practice law. The other options either incorrectly state the extent of restrictions or suggest actions that do not align with standard regulatory practices.

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.

Attorney Johnson may disclose the client's plan to prevent the embezzlement. This falls under the exception to confidentiality that allows attorneys to reveal information to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm or to prevent a client from committing a crime or fraud.

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.

Under Model Rule 5.4(d), lawyers may practice in the form of a professional corporation only if non-lawyers neither own an equity interest, serve as corporate directors or officers, nor possess the right to direct or control the lawyers' professional judgment. The arrangement in which the three lawyers serve as the sole shareholders and directors satisfies these requirements. All other options violate Rule 5.4 because they involve non-lawyer ownership, impermissible fee sharing, or the incorrect assumption that the corporation is exempt from ethical rules.

Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 1.9, a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter cannot represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter if that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent. Since Beta Inc. is a direct competitor and the matters are substantially related, Attorney Jordan must decline representation to avoid a conflict of interest.

Reprimanding the attorney and requiring additional ethics training is appropriate for unintentional but unprofessional behavior. Suspension or disbarment would be excessive for non-malicious misconduct, and dismissing the complaint would not address the professionalism issues identified.

Attorney Johnson should inform his client about his financial interest in the merging company and decide on the appropriate steps to continue the representation. This approach ensures transparency and allows the client to make an informed decision, aligning with ethical standards that prioritize the client's interests and the lawyer's duty of loyalty.

Obtaining informed consent from both corporations after fully disclosing the potential conflicts ensures that each client is aware of the situation and agrees to the joint representation. This aligns with ethical standards to prevent conflicts of interest. Continuing to represent both without disclosure might lead to undisclosed conflicts, withdrawing without necessity is not required if consent is obtained, and prioritizing one client over the other breaches duty of loyalty.

The correct answer emphasizes the lawyer's responsibility to inform the client and take steps to protect the client's interests, ensuring a smooth termination. The other options impose additional requirements, such as refunding fees, obtaining permission, or providing explanations, which are not mandated in all circumstances.

Setting reasonable boundaries for communication methods and frequency allows the attorney to keep the client informed while effectively managing the workload. Responding promptly ensures the client feels supported without becoming overwhelming. Limiting communication too strictly or delegating essential communications can hinder effective representation.

A written client-lawyer contract is required when the parties agree to a contingency fee arrangement. Contingency fee agreements must be in writing to ensure clarity and compliance with ethical standards. The other options do not universally require a written contract under the MRPC.

Under the MRPC, specifically Rule 8.3, a lawyer is required to report another lawyer's professional misconduct that raises a substantial question about the lawyer's honesty or trustworthiness. Overbilling clients by exaggerating hours undermines trust and honesty, thereby necessitating mandatory reporting. Other options either fail to recognize the seriousness of the misconduct or incorrectly categorize the reporting obligation.

Under ABA Model Rule 5.1, lawyers with managerial authority must make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has in place measures that give reasonable assurance all lawyers comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Creating clear protocols for reporting and addressing ethical violations satisfies this duty because it establishes a system that detects and responds to misconduct. Merely reducing direct involvement in cases does not create any compliance mechanism. Letting each lawyer craft individual compliance strategies without oversight fails to provide uniform assurance of adherence to the rules. Assigning ethical oversight to administrative staff who are not lawyers does not meet the requirement that those with legal training and authority remain responsible for supervision.

Preparing legal documents for others without a license constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Nonlawyers are prohibited from engaging in activities that require legal expertise and authorization. The other options involve tasks that do not require a legal license.