GRE General Test

Correct: Under ABA Model Rule 1.3, a lawyer is required to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Comment 2 to this rule emphasizes that a lawyer’s workload must be controlled so that each matter can be handled competently. Furthermore, Comment 3 notes that unreasonable delays can cause a client needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer’s trustworthiness, regardless of whether the client’s substantive legal position is prejudiced. The attorney’s failure to attend to the matter due to other trial commitments constitutes a failure to manage their workload in a way that maintains promptness for all clients.

Incorrect: The strategy of arguing that meeting court deadlines excuses other delays fails to recognize that the duty of diligence extends beyond mere compliance with court orders to include general promptness in all aspects of representation. Focusing only on the lack of material prejudice or financial loss is incorrect because professional discipline for lack of diligence does not require a showing of harm to the client’s case outcome. The approach suggesting that a violation depends on a measurable decline in client confidence is inaccurate because the ethical standard is based on the lawyer’s conduct and workload management rather than a subjective or quantifiable psychological impact on the client.

Takeaway: Attorneys must maintain reasonable promptness and manage workloads to prevent delays, even if those delays do not prejudice the client’s case outcome.

Correct: Under ABA Model Rule 8.3(c), the duty to report professional misconduct does not require the disclosure of information that is protected by Rule 1.6. Because the attorney learned of the misconduct during the course of the representation, the information relates to the representation and is confidential. Therefore, the attorney cannot report the opposing counsel’s behavior without the client’s informed consent, as the duty of confidentiality to the client takes precedence over the duty to report another lawyer’s misconduct.

Incorrect: The strategy of claiming that the duty to the profession or the court always supersedes confidentiality is a common misconception, as Rule 8.3 specifically includes an exception for confidential information. Basing the reporting requirement on the financial impact of the refusal ignores the clear hierarchy of the rules where confidentiality is prioritized over reporting. Seeking an in camera review with the judge does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 1.6 and could still lead to a breach of the attorney’s duty to the client regarding information related to the representation.

Takeaway: A lawyer’s mandatory duty to report another lawyer’s misconduct is limited by the duty of confidentiality to their own client under Rule 1.6.

Correct: Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and related ethics opinions, a lawyer must safeguard client property and take steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation. This includes identifying documents with intrinsic value, such as original deeds or wills, which should not be destroyed. The lawyer must generally notify the client and offer them the chance to retrieve the file before destruction, especially when the mandatory retention period has not yet expired.

Incorrect: Relying on the fact that the matter is closed to justify immediate shredding ignores the specific record-keeping timeframe mandated by jurisdictional rules and the duty to return client property. The strategy of digitizing everything and destroying originals without notice is insufficient because certain documents have intrinsic value that requires physical preservation or return to the client. Focusing only on retaining internal firm memos while disposing of client-specific documents fails to satisfy the duty to protect the client’s interests and property upon the conclusion of a matter.

Takeaway: Attorneys must safeguard client property, return original documents of value, and provide notice before destroying closed files within retention periods.

Correct: Under ABA Model Rule 7.3, lawyers are generally prohibited from live person-to-person solicitation for pecuniary gain. However, written communications are permitted even if directed at specific individuals known to need legal services, provided the communication is not misleading and includes the required ‘Advertising Material’ label. Since Miller used written letters and included the mandatory labels, his conduct is permissible.

Incorrect: The argument that contacting individuals known to need legal services is inherently prohibited fails to distinguish between prohibited live solicitation and permitted written solicitation. Claiming a violation based on a thirty-day waiting period is incorrect because the ABA Model Rules do not impose a universal time restriction on written solicitation following an accident, though some specific state or federal laws might. The idea that the source of the contact information determines the ethicality of the solicitation is misplaced, as the primary concern is the method of contact and the potential for coercion rather than how the address was found.

Takeaway: Written solicitation is ethically permissible under the Model Rules if it is truthful, non-coercive, and clearly labeled as advertising material.

Correct: According to Rule 6.3 of the ABA Model Rules, a lawyer may serve as a director of a legal services organization even if the organization serves interests adverse to the lawyer’s clients. However, the lawyer is prohibited from knowingly participating in a decision or action of the organization if that participation would be incompatible with the lawyer’s obligations to a client under Rule 1.7. In this scenario, voting on a lawsuit against a current firm client would constitute such an incompatible participation.

Incorrect: The strategy of resigning from the board is unnecessary because the rules specifically permit lawyers to hold these positions while managing conflicts through abstention. Simply disclosing the conflict and seeking verbal approval from the board is insufficient because the rule mandates non-participation in the decision-making process itself. Opting for a written waiver from the client’s general counsel is not a requirement for the attorney to remain on the board or attend general meetings, as the ethical duty is specifically focused on the act of participating in the adverse decision.

Takeaway: A lawyer serving on a legal aid board must abstain from any decision that would adversely affect a client of the lawyer’s firm.

Correct: Under ABA Model Rule 7.3, a lawyer is prohibited from soliciting professional employment by live person-to-person contact when a significant motive is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. However, this restriction does not apply to written communications, such as letters or emails. Targeted mail to individuals known to need legal services is generally permitted as long as the communication is not false or misleading.

Correct: According to ABA Model Rule 6.3(b), a lawyer may serve as a director or member of a legal services organization even if the organization serves persons having interests adverse to a client of the lawyer. However, the lawyer is explicitly prohibited from knowingly participating in a decision or action of the organization if participating in the decision would have a material adverse effect on the interests of a client of the lawyer. In this scenario, the bank is a client of the associate’s firm, and a class-action lawsuit would likely have a material adverse effect on that client’s interests.

Incorrect: The strategy of allowing participation based on a lack of personal representation or confidential information fails to account for the specific restrictions in Rule 6.3 regarding client interests. Relying solely on informed consent from the firm or the society is insufficient because the rule creates a specific prohibition on participation when a client’s interests are materially affected. Choosing to believe that board service is entirely prohibited is an overstatement of the rules. The Model Rules encourage public service and only require recusal from specific decisions rather than a total ban on membership in legal aid organizations.

Takeaway: Lawyers may serve on legal aid boards but must recuse themselves from decisions that materially and adversely affect their firm’s clients.

Correct: Under ABA Model Rule 5.1(c), a lawyer is responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if the lawyer is a partner or has direct supervisory authority and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. Because the partner discovered the associate’s failure to disclose and the subsequent misrepresentation while there was still time to supplement the discovery and correct the record with the client, the partner has a mandatory duty to intervene and remediate the situation.

Incorrect: The strategy of limiting responsibility only to instances where a supervisor ordered or ratified misconduct ignores the affirmative duty to remediate known violations under the Model Rules. Relying solely on the existence of general firm-wide policies is insufficient because direct supervisors must ensure specific compliance for the lawyers they manage. Choosing to believe that an associate’s status as a licensed attorney absolves the supervisor of responsibility contradicts the regulatory framework for law firm management. Opting to report the misconduct without taking corrective action fails the requirement to mitigate the actual consequences of the ethical breach when a window for remediation exists.

Takeaway: Supervisory lawyers are ethically responsible for a subordinate’s misconduct if they know of the violation and fail to take reasonable remedial action.

Correct: According to ABA Model Rule 5.2(b), a subordinate lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if they act in accordance with a supervisory lawyer’s reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty. Because the partner’s interpretation of the discovery request is considered reasonable and the obligation to produce is not clear-cut, the associate is protected from disciplinary action for following the instruction.

Incorrect: Choosing to produce the document against the partner’s explicit instructions ignores the hierarchy and protections established for subordinate lawyers facing debatable ethical issues. The strategy of reporting the partner to a disciplinary authority is inappropriate because the partner’s conduct does not constitute a clear violation when the legal obligation is subject to reasonable interpretation. Opting for immediate resignation is an extreme and unnecessary response to a situation where the Model Rules specifically provide a safe harbor for the associate.

Takeaway: Subordinate lawyers are protected from discipline when following a supervisor’s reasonable resolution of an arguable ethical question.

Correct: According to ABA Model Rule 1.15, a lawyer must promptly distribute all portions of property as to which the interests are not in dispute. In this scenario, the client agrees the attorney is owed 20% ($20,000) and the attorney agrees the client is owed at least 60% ($60,000, which is the total minus the maximum possible fee and the medical lien). The remaining $20,000 is disputed: $10,000 for the attorney’s additional fee claim and $10,000 for the medical provider’s lien. These disputed funds must remain in the trust account until the interests are severed.

Incorrect: The strategy of holding the entire settlement amount is incorrect because the lawyer has an affirmative duty to promptly deliver the undisputed portion of the funds to the client and themselves. Simply conducting a transfer of the full 30% fee to the operating account is a violation of ethical rules because the lawyer must keep disputed funds separate from their own property until the dispute is resolved. Focusing only on the client’s instructions to ignore the medical provider is improper because a lawyer must protect the interests of third parties who have a lawful claim, such as a valid legal lien, under the rules of professional conduct.

Takeaway: Lawyers must promptly distribute undisputed funds while maintaining disputed portions in trust when a client or third party challenges the distribution.

Correct: Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer must maintain a normal relationship with a client with diminished capacity as far as reasonably possible. However, if the lawyer reasonably believes the client has diminished capacity and is at risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harm, the lawyer may take protective action. This includes consulting with individuals or entities that have the ability to take action to protect the client, such as medical professionals. In such cases, the lawyer is impliedly authorized to reveal confidential information to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client’s interests.

Incorrect: The strategy of withdrawing immediately from the representation is incorrect because it leaves a vulnerable client without legal assistance or protection during a period of potential exploitation. Simply following the client’s instructions without question is inappropriate because the lawyer has an ethical duty to take protective action when a client with diminished capacity faces substantial harm. Opting for the immediate appointment of a permanent legal guardian is often considered a last resort and may be more restrictive than necessary to protect the client’s interests in the initial stages of assessment.

Takeaway: Lawyers may take reasonably necessary protective actions, including limited disclosure of confidential information, when a client with diminished capacity faces substantial harm.

Correct: Under ABA Model Rule 1.14, when a client’s capacity to make adequately considered decisions is diminished, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship. However, when the lawyer reasonably believes that the client has diminished capacity, is at risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harm unless action is taken, and cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest, the lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action. This includes consulting with individuals or entities that have the ability to take action to protect the client and, in appropriate cases, seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem, conservator, or guardian.

Incorrect: The strategy of immediately seeking a permanent legal guardian is often seen as a last resort because it is the most restrictive means of protection and should only be pursued if no lesser protective measures are effective. Choosing to withdraw from the representation at a moment of high vulnerability may leave the client without any protection against exploitation and fails to address the underlying ethical duty to protect a client with diminished capacity. Focusing only on the client’s immediate instructions while ignoring clear signs of incapacity and potential financial abuse neglects the lawyer’s responsibility to take protective action when the client is unable to act in their own best interest.

Takeaway: Lawyers must maintain normal relationships with clients of diminished capacity but may take protective actions if substantial harm is threatened.

Correct: According to ABA Model Rule 1.7, a concurrent conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client. Even if the construction firm is not a direct client, Miller’s relationship with the parent company (GreenSpace Inc.) could influence his advocacy for Sarah. To proceed, Miller must reasonably believe he can provide competent representation and obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing, from both Sarah and GreenSpace Inc.

Incorrect: Relying solely on the separate legal identity of a subsidiary ignores the reality that a lawyer’s loyalty to a parent company client can create a material limitation conflict. The strategy of withdrawing from an existing client to take on a new, conflicting matter is generally prohibited under the ‘hot potato’ doctrine and does not cure the ethical breach. Opting for a purely verbal disclosure is insufficient because the Model Rules specifically require that informed consent for conflicts of interest must be confirmed in writing to be valid.

Takeaway: Lawyers must obtain written informed consent when a representation is materially limited by obligations to another client, even if the parties are subsidiaries.

Correct: Under ABA Model Rule 1.14, a lawyer must maintain a normal relationship with a client with diminished capacity as much as possible. However, if the lawyer reasonably believes the client is at risk of substantial harm and cannot act in their own interest, the lawyer may take protective action. This includes consulting with people who can protect the client or seeking a guardianship. Rule 1.14(c) provides an implied waiver of confidentiality to the extent necessary to protect the client.

Incorrect: Choosing to withdraw immediately fails to fulfill the lawyer’s duty to protect the client’s interests during a period of vulnerability. Simply following the instructions of a client who clearly lacks capacity and is being exploited ignores the lawyer’s duty to assess the client’s ability to make decisions and the risk of harm. Opting for broad disclosure to police and family without limitation ignores the requirement that disclosures must be limited to what is reasonably necessary to protect the client and must be part of a specific protective action plan.

Takeaway: Lawyers must maintain normal relationships with diminished-capacity clients but may take limited protective actions if the client faces substantial harm.

Correct: Under ABA Model Rule 7.3, the prohibition on solicitation only applies to live person-to-person contact, which excludes text messages and other written communications that a recipient can easily disregard. Because the lawyer’s outreach was text-based and lacked real-time audio or visual components, it does not constitute the type of coercive, live interaction that the rules prohibit.

Incorrect: Relying on the source of the contact information is misplaced because the Model Rules do not inherently prohibit using legally obtained records to identify potential clients for non-live outreach. Simply targeting individuals known to need legal services does not violate the rules, as the Supreme Court has protected the right to send truthful, non-coercive targeted communications. The requirement for Advertising Material labels reflects an outdated version of the Model Rules, as the 2018 amendments removed this specific labeling requirement for written and electronic communications.

Takeaway: ABA Model Rules permit targeted text-based solicitation because it lacks the coercive nature of live, real-time person-to-person contact.

Correct: According to ABA Model Rule 3.3 regarding Candor Toward the Tribunal, a lawyer is prohibited from knowingly offering false evidence. If a client insists on testifying falsely, the lawyer must first seek to persuade the client to testify truthfully. If persuasion fails, the lawyer should attempt to withdraw from the case. If withdrawal is not possible or would not prevent the perjury, the lawyer has an affirmative duty to disclose the matter to the tribunal. This duty of candor overrides the general duty of confidentiality found in Rule 1.6.

Incorrect: The strategy of using a narrative testimony format is not the preferred method under the ABA Model Rules, as it often fails to fully satisfy the lawyer’s duty of candor to the court. Choosing to remain silent while the client commits perjury violates the ethical prohibition against knowingly allowing false evidence to be presented to a tribunal. Focusing only on the closing argument does not remedy the initial introduction of false testimony. Opting for immediate notification of the prosecution is inappropriate because the lawyer’s primary duty is to the court and the client, and disclosure should be made to the judge rather than the opposing party.

Takeaway: The duty of candor to the tribunal requires lawyers to disclose client perjury if persuasion and withdrawal fail to prevent it.