Professional Responsibility Professor Barrett Study Group Practice Hypos

A. How to Use These Hypotheticals

The following study-group practice hypotheticals are similar to those found in examinations given
in this class in the past.
They are meant for you to work through in your study-group. Consider doing one or two on
your own, and then comparing your work with others in your group who have done so as well.
Then consider collaborating in order to discuss, and perhaps create, the best of your answers.
Then move on to other hypotheticals as we progress through the course.
You neednt try to do every single one. A sampling in different substantive areas will give you
practice in approaching the type of hypotheticals you will see in the final examination for this
class.
The sole basis for your grade is the final examination. Class time is not spent drafting sample
answers. So you should not walk into your final without having had some practice in what will be
the only basis for your grade in this class.
The professor does not look at, review, or grade your work on these. There are too many
students in the class for that. These are to assist you in practicing on your own. They are
exercises, and like physical exercise, the result comes from doing them yourself, not from
someone else doing them. All the answers are in the cases in the textbook and in the videos.
If after each member in your study-group writes out the answer to a study-hypo and you have
disagreements or specific questions about it, please contact me for an answer or clarification.
B. Another Examination Practice Aid Available To You through the School
Do not overlook another examination practice aid available to you through the school. Part of
your tuition goes to paying for a high-quality practice program: CALI (found on our TWEN
site).
Obtain the password from the school for this service. It will help you as much, or more, than the
hypothetical exercises below. Again, you neednt do every CALI exercise. If you find yourself in
an area where you think you need help, thats a good way to use it.
These are in arranged oldest to newest, so START WITH THE LAST ONE AND WORK YOUR
WAY UP.
The amount of time for each one is suggested only. They may take longer or shorter to complete.

One hour:
A.
On the night you graduate from law school, with a good record and job offer in hand, you are
arrested, after an all-night celebration, for D.U.I., with a blood-alcohol level of .15, nearly twice
the legal limit. Your 16-year-old companion of the opposite sex, in the car with you, was also
drunk. Your driver's license is suspended for one year, you are convicted of misdemeanor drunk
driving, and felony morals charges are pending against you.
Despite worrying about this, you proceed to apply to the State Bar for admission, and pass the
exam. You receive a questionnaire from the Bar containing questions you consider highly
personal, which if answered would reveal the above facts.
Concerned but determined to remain optimistic, the Saturday night after receiving the
questionnaire you catch a bus to your favorite pub, where you run into your friend and sometime
drinking companion, attorney Jane Doe, a tax lawyer. After a couple of hours of drinking and
your maintaining a brave face, Jane nevertheless senses that something is amiss, and asks, "What's
your problem? C'mon, you can tell me anything. I'm a lawyer."
You then describe the facts and questionnaire to her. "Well," she says after a while, "it sounds like
you're in deep yogurt. Those sissies down at the State Bar have never lived. Look at the grief
they've given me about my harmless social drinking. How can you expect them to understand a
little graduation partying? Besides, how will they ever find out?"
Grateful for the advice, you buy the drinks for the rest of the night, and bum a ride home from
Jane. The next day you complete the questionnaire without disclosing the facts about graduation
night. You begin practicing, but the Disciplinary Committee gets wind of the undisclosed facts.
The Bar has set a hearing on charges against you.
Distraught, you call Jane, tell her what has happened, and ask, "What do I do now?" She replies
peevishly, "How should I know? I'm a tax lawyer. Besides, who can recall what we said that
night? I was so high I could barely see. Anyway, I didn't tell you to lie, you dummy. You'd better
get a lawyer."
What issues are raised by these facts? What should you do about the Committee? What about
Jane?
B.
Years later, after having resolved your youthful indiscretions with the Bar, you have a thriving
practice -- so thriving, in fact, that you are considering "dumping" some of your less profitable
clients, taken on in the days when you were just starting out. One in particular is a candidate for
the ash-heap: Professor B, one of your former law professors. You were at first flattered to be
asked to represent him, but lately he has become even more cranky and idiosyncratic than before.
In addition, he pays late when he pays at all.
You represent B in his hotly-litigated tenure/mandatory retirement battle with your former law

school. Trial commences one month from today in Federal court. Recently B has begun to act
even more strangely than usual, and now insists that you move to bring in as additional defendants
the Governor of California and the U.S. Secretary of Education. When you politely question the
wisdom of this tactic, B flies into a rage: "Those tyrants. I hate 'em! They're the ones who make
and enforce these discriminatory policies. Didn't you learn anything in law school? I say sue
them, and it's my lawsuit." You believe his theory is at least arguable, but you haven't done any
research, and you believe the judge will deny your motion at this late date.
You have decided that you've had enough of B. Can you withdraw from representing B? If you
can't, what should you do about his request to bring in new defendants?
C.
The District Attorney is investigating the world-wide, overnight parcel delivery service known as
Fly-By-Nite Delivery, Inc. ("FNB"), a company you helped form when it was just an idea among
one ex-Marine Viet Nam War veteran jet pilot and a few investors. Prez, FNB's president, has
asked for your help. Both he and the company face indictments on "drug-running" and
"conspiracy to transport drugs for sale" charges. He asks you to attend an emergency meeting of
the Board of Directors, where tempers flare and accusations fly among the members. You tell the
Board you will need to investigate further, and get its permission to interview FNB employees.
Outside the Boardroom, Cash, FNB's chief financial officer, pulls you aside and hisses: "The D.A.
is putting the squeeze on me. I need some help, and I won't go down alone. Tell Prez if we don't
hang together, we'll all hang separately."
You determine after independent investigation that Cash is the real culprit, and that he has also
been skimming money from the company accounts, while telling Prez "it's just a temporary cashflow problem." You call a private meeting with Prez in your office, and tell him of your
discoveries. Prez immediately asks you to draft a complaint on behalf of FNB against Cash for
fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. You are about to agree when you recall that you
helped Cash negotiate his employment agreement with FNB.
What issues of representation are presented? How do you respond to Cash's warning? Are there
problems with Prez' request that you sue Cash on behalf of FNB?
_____________________________________________________________________
One hour and fifteen minutes:
Question 1:
You practice in Los Angeles, and are retained by The Heartless Insurance Company ("THIC") to
defend THIC in a suit brought by Hsu/Opra/Perez Enterprises ("HOPE"), a small business whose
store was destroyed during civil unrest that occurred some time ago here. THIC has refused to
pay HOPE under the policy, relying upon a "riot" exclusion, and THIC has told you that the size
and number of such claims may put THIC into receivership.
In the course of preparing to respond to written discovery requests, you learn during an interview
of Ed, a long-time employee of THIC and the adjustor responsible for this account, that HOPE

lost its copy of the insurance policy in the fires, and consequently may be unaware that it had
purchased a waiver of the "riot" exclusion when it first bought the policy many years ago. HOPE
has requested (1) copies of all relevant documents in THIC's possession, including a copy of the
policy, and (2) identification of all individuals having relevant information. Ed is the only THIC
employee aware of HOPE's waiver. He is planning to retire from THIC and move to Australia,
and he asks you if he should postpone his move to accommodate THIC in this matter.
You decide that your schedule is too busy for you to respond to the discovery requests
immediately, and ask HOPE's counsel for a 30-day courtesy extension, which is granted. The
response you thereafter prepare contains your objection to the request for a copy of the policy,
based on some cases that hold "documents equally available to the requesting party" need not be
produced. HOPE moves to compel. While researching your opposition to HOPE's motion, you
discover an Oregon Insurance Commission Opinion directly on point, stating that this objection
does not apply to insurance cases. You also find a California appellate case suggesting, but not
deciding, the same thing.
THIC wins at the hearing, and is not required to produce the policy or any further discovery
responses. You later learn that another THIC employee worked on the HOPE account.
What issues are raised? How do you handle them?
Question 1:
You decide to branch out into family law, a new practice area for you. Realizing that marketing
will help, you hire an advertising agency which prepares a hard-hitting T.V. ad for your approval.
In it Zsa Zsa Gabor states: "Had enough of your husband? Go see [your name] for tea,
sympathy, and, best of all, revenge. I've had my share of trouble with men. . . " At this juncture
she takes a fur from a closet and wraps it around her, displaying jeweled rings on her fingers, then
continues, ". . . and [your name] helped me get even!" She turns and points to a logo the agency
has designed for you, which depicts a man standing in court with his pants pockets turned inside
out, next to the slogan "Don't Get Mad -- Get Even!" Zsa Zsa concludes, over the pounding beat
of rap music, "Call (800) 438-3836; that's (800) GET-EVEN, today. Specializing in divorce." A
voice-over announces during the fade that "[your name] does not guarantee results and the
outcome in your case may differ."
The agency proposes that you run print ads concurrently to create an identifiable image in the
public's mind. The ad will contain a promise that "Free tea is served with every consultation, your
initial consultation is free, and you will receive a free bottle of Dom Perignon champagne when
your divorce is final." Finally, the agency proposes that you trademark and use the name "Divorce
is U$" in connection with the above-mentioned logo.
You contact a family law judge you know to ask her advice. She thinks your plan to branch out is
wise, and even offers to assist. The judge says that she comes across many women who need such
services, and she wonders aloud whether you and she could "make some sort of arrangement"
whereby she would send you potential clients.
Realizing your new practice likely would mean appearing before her quite often, you try to think
of something to say, but before you do, she adds, "My law clerk is very good at this sort of thing.
I mean, what with my lecturing on behalf of NOW [the National Organization for Women], my

charity work, and my side businesses, I don't even have time to write my own opinions. Thank
goodness he knows what the law is! He could handle a lot of your legal drudge-work for you
cheaply. All you'd have to do is sign documents, like I do. Well, what do you think?"
What issues are raised by the ads, and by the judge's proposals? What "arrangement" could you
make with her? What about the judge's other activities and practices?
_____________________________________________________________________
One hour:
Question 1:
A month ago you concluded a trial in a civil case, winning, you suspect, in large part as a result of
the liquor and pot odors you detected from the direction of attorney Jones at opposing counsel's
table each morning. You read in the local bar journal that Jones is under investigation by the Bar
Discipline Committee, and that same day run into him at a law seminar. He takes you into a
corner, and out of politeness you listen to his somewhat rambling diatribe.
"Hey," Jones says to you, "you're not going to rat me out to the Bar, are you? I respect anyone
who can beat me as soundly as you did at trial. Do you believe those no-good panty-waists down
at the Bar? I've made plenty of money over the years doing good work for my clients, and I'm
ready to spend it to fight if I have to. What do you say? So I take a nip now and again.
Everyone loses once in a while. What's the big deal? Hey, are you listening to me?"
Somewhat at a loss, you gently suggest that maybe he should call the Bar's alcohol and drug
abuse hotline. He explodes: "What are you saying? I thought you were a fighter!"
In order to mollify him, you say that you were only trying to think of ways to help. After he calms
down a bit, he admits that maybe it wouldn't hurt.
He apologizes for his outburst, says he'll call you and wanders away. You shake your head sadly,
and give the matter no further thought. A month later, you receive detailed interrogatories from
the Bar asking for every conceivable kind of knowledge you may have about Jones, and a Notice
of Trial Within 30 Days, and on the same day you also receive an urgent telephone message that
Jones himself called you.
What do you do about Jones? The interrogatories? The Notice of Trial?
Question 2:
Rick, Jane, and Tom, former college friends of yours, come to your office one day regarding a car
accident in which they were involved. You successfully represented Jane in her divorce several
years ago. On this occasion, Tom was driving the car; Rick and Jane (her arm in a cast and her
head bandaged) were passengers. Tom explains that "some jerk ran a red light and side-swiped
us, and then had the gall to sue me. Do you believe the nerve?" Rick and Jane nod in agreement.
"I don't have insurance," Tom continues, "and I'm really worried. We don't have a lot of money,
but we've agreed to chip in to pay your fee if you'll help us."

You come up with a reasonable rate for your friends, Tom gives you a copy of the lawsuit, they
thank you, and leave. You proceed to answer and cross-complain on their behalf, send out some
discovery to the plaintiff, and ask your clients to respond to discovery sent to them. Shortly
thereafter, you get a call from Jane. "I've got a problem with these interrogatories. I know I have
to tell the truth, but if I do, I think that Tom's going to be in a lot of trouble. It was Tom who ran
the red light, not the other guy, and anyway he didn't have his glasses on that night."
While you are digesting this bit of news, Jane adds, "For that matter, Tom lied to me, too. I found
out that Tom has plenty of money from his rich parents, that creep, but he told me and Rick we
would have to cover his share of your fees." You open your mail while listening to her complain,
read in plaintiff's answers to your interrogatories that plaintiff was uninsured, just like Tom, at the
time of the accident. "So what do I do now?" Jane concludes.
What issues are presented? What do you do now?
_____________________________________________________________________
One hour and fifteen minutes:
Question 1:
You have been asked to represent the spouse of an internationally-known recording and movie
star in a bitter divorce and custody battle. The star, who goes by the stage name of "Spanky," has
decided to dump your client "Fish," her mate of ten years, a loving, devoted unknown who gave
up his auto racing business to raise their children and care for their home.
At the trial, Spanky's elderly mother testifies about the solid family values Spanky was raised with,
and with which Spanky is raising her own children. Seeing your chance, you light into the old
lady, your tone alternately self-righteous, or filled with innuendo: "Isn't it true," you thunder,
"that you were divorced twice?" Before she answers, you add in a silky voice, "C'mon, Mom -didn't you work for years at the Red Light Roadhouse as a 'hostess'?" Spanky's lawyer leaps up,
objecting. "Objection! Badgering the witness! No foundation!" Before the judge can rule, you
say, "Oh, I'll withdraw the questions, if counsel finds them embarrassing. You may step down."
Weeping, she departs. You observe the jury staring open-mouthed at her.
Two hours later the jury returns with a verdict giving Fish $1.00 a week in alimony, and custody
of the children to Spanky, who laughs delightedly. Fish mutters angrily to you, "We'll see who
gets the last laugh. What she really loves is that Ferrari of hers. I ought to know; I keep it
running. Well, it's time for a 'special' brake job. Soon she'll be laughing out of the other side of
her face." He rushes from the room.
Shaken, you head for the judge's chambers shortly thereafter. You hear voices inside. Spanky's
Lawyer: "Well, Your Honor, another victory for 'our' side, right?" Judge: "Oh, Jane, don't
pretend this was a feminist victory. Money is money with you. By the way, are you going to the
'Women's Rights in Divorce' fundraiser tonight? I'm on the ballot as a director." Spanky's
Lawyer: "Sure, I'll be there. By the way, I've finished editing your written opinion in the Jones
case summary judgment motion. The husband's lawyer in that case was also a bonehead, wasn't
he? I crushed him, too."

What issues are raised? How should they be resolved?

Question 2:
Looking for a cheap way to drum up some business, you run off a few hundred fliers with your
name and office phone, announcing your availability to handle riot-related insurance claims. You
hire a law student to hand them out. "Hit the 'war zone' in South Central," you say. "They're
hurting for help. I'll pay you a buck for every flier you deliver, if you get their name and address.
And, you get 5% of my share of any riot insurance proceeds."
Next day your student says, "One of the folks I talked to got hit by a bus a month before the riots.
He doesn't have a lawyer. Can you help him?" You do, settling on good terms, and getting a fat
fee. "Well," you tell the student, "you showed some initiative. Here is your 5% of my fee on the
settlement."
Some time later you get a call from one of the people who got a flier. "Do you do corporate
litigation?" the woman asks. "It depends," you answer. "What have you got?" She replies, "I'm
the President of Giant's Department Store. We may be investigated for conspiracy to defraud our
insurer. Can you represent us?" You ask, "How do you know about this?" She answers, "I got a
letter from the D.A. asking me to come in to 'chat,' and to bring Giant's books. The problem is,
the records got trashed in the riots. Some got sooty, some got wet, some got burned. Should I
clean up the mess and save what I can?"
You say you'll call right back. You then call a lawyer you know. "Elaine, I've got a potentially big
corporate matter, maybe too big. You're the corporate expert. How about it?" You explain the
facts, and Elaine responds, "I'm flattered you asked me. What kind of deal do you want? Make
me an offer."
What issues are presented by your flier? Your financial arrangements with the law student? How
should the President's questions be answered? What arrangements can you make with Elaine?
_____________________________________________________________________
One hour:
Question:
Several years have passed since you graduated from law school. You have a successful practice,
and have become moderately active in your local, and California state, bar associations. Knowing
of your interest in professional conduct issues, Linda Jones, Esq., current President of the
California state bar association, has asked for your help in preparing a submission to the California
Supreme Court. The submission will propose a new Rule to govern attorney conduct, where the
client has confided to the attorney the client's plan to commit a wrongful act.
Prepare the written submission, responding to the following requests. Ms. Jones has asked you
to:
1. Set out the current state of the law in California, any authority therefore, and the reasons, if
any, that you see behind this rule;

2. Describe any alternative rules or standards of which you are aware that the Court could
consider adopting, and the reasons, if any, that you see for each alternative; and
3. Identify which rule or standard you believe is best, and set forth the reasons why you think so.
_____________________________________________________________________
One and a-half hours:
Question 1:
Jim Swift is sitting in your office. He is the youthful, entrepreneurial son of Frank Swift. Frank is
President of Frank Swift Realty, Inc. ("FSR"), a small, family-owned real estate company, in
which Jim is a director and officer. Jim tells you that FSR is a defendant in a breach of contract
suit. The Complaint alleges that FSR had executed a five-year lease for some office space, but
that after one year FSR had ceased to pay rent. The landlady, a rich old widow, sued FSR under
the lease for the remaining rent due. It doesn't look good to you.
"Here's the deal," says Jim to you. "As you know, I'm involved in a number of business ventures,
any one of which may put me back on top. I'm going to need legal representation -- lots of it.
First I've got to get rid of this darned mess with my Dad. If you can clear this up for me, I think it
could be the start of a mutually beneficial relationship between you and I."
You nod your head in agreement. You have it on good authority that Jim is poised to close some
very big real estate deals, and that he has substantial financial backing from several banks. He will
be a good client, indeed.
"Well, to get back to the problem at hand," Jim continues, "that miserable landlady won't give my
father any peace. She knows he's old, and very sick, too, the witch. Anyway, Dad's the only
person authorized to sign for FSR, and he never executed that lease on behalf of FSR, or any
other document with the landlady, for that matter."
"Really?" you respond, surprised and hopeful. Maybe you've got a defense for FSR after all. "His
signature was forged?"
"Yep," says Jim.
"Wow," you say softly. "But who did it? And how will we prove it?"
"No problem," replies Jim crisply. "I forged his signature."
"Pardon me?" You try to sound nonchalant.
"Oh yeah, no big deal. I needed that office space for one of my own little companies that I ran on
the side, and the landlady wouldn't lease it to me -- bad credit, you know -- so I just wrote in
Dad's name as President of FSR, gave the name of his bank, and so forth. Dad's got great credit.
Anyway, I was using the space and doing just fine for about a year. Then comes the 'recession' -the Depression's more like it, if you ask me. Besides, the landlady tore up the parking lot a month

after we moved in, but she never finished repaving it. Why, you can't park there to this day. Hey,
for that matter, why can't I sue her?"
You find yourself trying to remember just who it was who told you that Jim was poised to close
some big deals and had banks behind him. After a moment's silence, Jim continues.
"I guess we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Anyway, Dad's pretty mad at me, as you
can imagine. I told him I'd pay the legal expenses. By the way, this lawsuit's got him and Mom
really upset. I'm afraid for his health. Please call me instead when we need to talk, and send me
all the mail, too. I'll handle it from here, since I'm paying the bills."
With that Jim hands you a copy of the Complaint. You tell him that you'll look it over and call
him back with an answer about representation. After he's gone you try to sort out this troubling
scenario. Write a legal memorandum to your law partner explaining the professional responsibility
issues involved.
Question 2:
Your firm decides to take the case. Despite your best efforts at settlement, it is going to trial.
Discovery has been aggressively pursued and resisted on both sides. Your first hearing concerns
(i) FSR's Motion to Compel further responses from the landlady to FSR's document demands, and
(ii) the landlady's Cross-Motion to Compel responses from FSR to the landlady's interrogatories.
(i) FSR's Motion
The landlady has refused to produce rental records of other tenants on the grounds of relevance.
Although you know there are some cases generally supporting the landlady's position, you feel
that FSR can make some valid arguments.
You read the landlady's Opposition to your Motion, realizing that her lawyer failed to cite several
cases that you believe support her position. You would have at least mentioned them had you
been her lawyer. However, in your written Reply to the landlady's Opposition, you "forget" to
cite those cases. Instead, you point out the lack of legal authority for the landlady's position.
(ii) Landlady's Motion
The landlady has filed her own Motion to Compel. She alleges that FSR has improperly refused
to answer interrogatories concerning FSR's banking records and financial history. You feel better
about winning this motion, for two reasons. First, your Opposition argues that the interrogatories
are so poorly drafted that no one, not even a judge, can understand them. Second, you know that
FSR doesn't really care about the banking records. However, the distraction created by fighting
over the bank records apparently has caused the landlady's lawyer to overlook asking about
witnesses to the signature on the lease. If she did, Jim would be flushed out of hiding.
In court, you argue that civilization as we know it would come to an end if the judge grants the
landlady's Motion, but you bring copies of all the banking records in your briefcase just in case.
You never mention Jim or witnesses to the lease signature. At the conclusion of the argument, the
judge asks you: "Anything to add, counsel?" You state, "No thank you, Your Honor." FSR wins

both motions.
(iii) Trial
Despite your pre-trial motion victories, you are worried about the trial. You know that juries
don't like landlords, but they do like old ladies. Moreover, Frank Swift is an arrogant, "self-made
man" type whose worst enemy is his own mouth. You are afraid that, despite his innocence, the
jury will find against FSR just because Frank is so unlikable. He is a physically sick man anyway,
so in an effort to "soften" his image, you insist, over Frank's enraged objections, that Jim wheel
Frank into the courtroom in a wheelchair.
At trial, the landlady's lawyer calls Jim to the witness stand in his capacity as a director and officer
of FSR. You sit silently during Jim's testimony, which you know contains a number of falsehoods.
The landlady's lawyer seems to overlook several opportunities to catch Jim in his lies, but you say
nothing, and try to avoid the judge's eyes.
To your horror, in the middle of Jim's testimony you hear the judge say, "Counsel, approach the
bench. I want to ask you something. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you shall retire to the jury
room for a moment." You and the landlady's lawyer stand before the judge. "I am having some
trouble with this witnesses' testimony," says the judge. "Don't either of you find it terribly
inconsistent?" You nod your head, shrug your shoulders, and raise your eyebrows in a manner
you hope the judge finds generally supportive, but which you know cannot be transcribed by the
court reporter.
The jury finds for FSR. Several weeks later your secretary gives you a telephone message: "State
Bar Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Committee called re: FSR matter. Please call back."
Before you do, write a legal memorandum outlining the issues you think the Committee has in
mind, and how they may be resolved.
_____________________________________________________________________
One hour:
Question:
You recently opened your own law office, renting space and secretarial help from a firm of ten
other lawyers. A friend sends you your first potential large matter: Mr. and Mrs. X, who are the
owners of a small dry cleaning business called "X Corp.," and their long-time employees A and B,
seek your help in a lawsuit naming X Corp., Mr. X, Mrs. X, A, and B as defendants.
The suit alleges that plaintiff Q, a swimsuit model, suffered severe skin burns, nausea and
dizziness after wearing clothing negligently cleaned by X Corp. Q claims that he may be
permanently disabled for purposes of his career if the burns scar. The lawsuit also alleges that A
and B conspired to mishandle the dry cleaning fluids because they have opened their own shop on
the side and hoped to divert customers to it. The X's, A, and B deny this, but Mr. X says he's
heard rumors that other customers may have been injured, so this may be just the beginning of
larger problems for X Corp. (and more work for you).
In your office, Mr. X, Mrs. X, A, and B all state that they have carefully followed industry safety

practices in the fifteen years that the company has existed. X Corp. has never been sued before,
and has no insurance against this kind of claim. Recently, however, X Corp. changed to a new
cleaning fluid supplier, E-Z Kleen. You hope you have the beginnings of a good defense, and
agree to help.
Before they leave your office, you wish to establish the terms of the attorney-client relationship,
and so you tell them that you will require a $10,000 retainer to defend such a substantial case.
They ask how you can charge so much, considering that you are a new attorney. Understanding
their concern, you offer to reduce your retainer to $5,000, if they will waive any claims for
professional negligence against you. They agree, and you are secretly relieved, as you know
nothing at all about this kind of case. You print out a copy of your "waiver of negligence" retainer
on your computer, which they promise to read carefully before signing.
Because the Answer to the Complaint, and any Cross-Complaint against E-Z Kleen, are due in ten
days, you also insist that they give the $5,000 retainer check before they leave, which they do.
You thank them graciously, and deposit the check.
Excited, you commence work, only to discover during your research in the firm's law library a
host of complex federal and state statutes and cases concerning product liability, hazardous
materials, environmental protection, and business licensing that may apply, and with which you are
totally unfamiliar. One of the lawyers in the firm from which you rent space sees you worriedly
searching the U.S. Code, and asks if she can help. You tell her a little about the case, and she
says, "Not to worry. Our firm does a lot of product liability hazardous chemicals defense work.
Ask me anything."
Gratefully you tell her all about the case, making certain not to reveal the identity of your clients,
the plaintiff, or the potential cross-defendant. You and she talk in great detail about the claims
and defenses in this setting, and you ask how you can return the favor. "Just make enough money
from this one to pay the rent," she answers, laughing good-naturedly. On the way back to your
office later, you see a stack of files on her desk, marked "E-Z Kleen Corporation -- 'Corporate
Formation'; 'Product Injury Claims'; and 'Hazardous Waste Compliance Program.'" You resist the
urge to look at them.
You continue drafting your Answer and Cross-Complaint, which turn out to be very complex
documents, and which you complete on the day they are due in court. Your are starting to feel
pretty good when you get a call from your bank: The $5,000 check bounced. Suddenly you
realize you never received back the signed copy of your retainer agreement, either. You call the
company, but A says the X's are out of town, and that she knows nothing about the check, but she
will give them your message. You hang up the phone and stare out of your office window,
wondering what to do next.
Identify the professional responsibility issues raised by these facts, and suggest possible
resolutions or outcomes.
_____________________________________________________________________
One hour:
Question 1:

Zebra Company ("Z") breeds exotic animals for zoos and private collectors. For the past three
years you have been defense counsel to Z in its bitter litigation in the Los Angeles Superior Court
against plaintiff Sam Shooter ("Shooter"), a California rancher. Shooter sued Z for breach of
contract when Z refused to deliver a herd of zebra to Shooters's ranch. Z claims it refused to
deliver the herd because Z learned at the last minute that Shooter planned to hold illegal zebra
hunts for rich patrons, and Z wanted no part of it.
Two weeks before trial, you are waiting for the doors of Department A to open after lunch for the
pretrial conference. You overhear the following conversation taking place between two people,
who you recognize as Judge Jane Jones, and Susan Smith, Shooter's lawyer:
Judge: Good to see you, Susan. I'm glad some of my former clerks still drop by to see me from
time to time. How's your practice going?
Smith: Good to see you too, Your Honor. My practice is booming, thanks to you. I don't know
what I'd do without all of those referrals from you.
Judge: Please, Susan. Call me Jane. And it's my pleasure to send those cases to you. Someone
has to handle them, don't they? Those people are lucky to get you. I know the quality of your
work from the opinions you used to write for me. You never got reversed -- that's a better record
than mine!
Smith: You're too modest, Jane.
Judge: And it's awfully kind of you to send over those nice little negotiable "thank you" notes to
me and my husband after you've been paid on those cases, but really, you shouldn't.
Smith: Oh, you mean the checks -- they're just tokens of my appreciation. Don't give them a
second thought.
Judge: I'll try not to. By the way, are you going to the Bar Association meeting tonight? I'm
running for President, you know, and I need all the votes I can get. I plan to give a little speech
on case management, too -- I've got some real winners on my docket, like this crazy "zebra" case,
that you lawyers should hear about.
Smith: You don't mean Shooter v. Z, do you? I'm plaintiff's counsel on that matter.
Jones: Really? I am trying the case. You must be here for the pretrial conference in Department
A, my new assignment.
The doors open to Department A, and you enter with Smith and Jones. During the pretrial
conference, some remaining discovery issues are handled, and other preliminary matters are
resolved. You say nothing about the conversation you overheard, for fear of offending the Judge.
Prepare a brief memorandum outlining the professional responsibility issues raised, and how they
might be resolved.

Question 2:
A week later Ms. Beatrice Brown, President of Z, receives a subpoena from plaintiff's counsel, for
Z's documents which "refer or relate to" the contract for sale of zebras in issue in the case. You
interpret the subpoena strictly in favor of your client to mean that the subpoena seeks only
documents which expressly "refer" to the contract, or "relate" to it, but which are not "copies" or
"drafts" of the contract.
You then have Ms. Brown produce all documents which refer or relate to the contract. However,
you tell her not to produce any copies or drafts of the contract, some of which contain
handwritten notations by some of Z's employees suggesting that Z knew what Shooter planned to
do with the zebras, but went ahead with the contract anyway.
You tell Ms. Brown that such documents are potentially damaging to Z, and while you believe
that your interpretation is defensible, she should be aware that if their existence comes to light, Z
may have to produce them. She gives you a knowing smile, and nods her head.
At trial, one of Shooter's ranch-hands mentions seeing some drafts and copies of the contract with
handwriting on them, before the contract was signed. Ms. Smith seems confused by this
information, and calls Ms. Brown to the stand. "Where are these copies and drafts? You didn't
produce them when I subpoenaed them." Ms. Brown replies, "Oh, they were just drafts, so we
got rid of them in our regular cleaning of the files. Our lawyer said it was OK."
Furious, Smith asks the Court if she can call you as a witness, outside the presence of the jury.
Judge Jones excuses the jury, turns to you, and says, "Well, counsel?" You ask for a brief
continuance, which the Court grants.
Prepare a brief memorandum outlining the professional responsibility issues that may come up
when the Court resumes hearing on this issue, and possible outcomes.
Question 3:
Against all odds, the trial concludes with a jury verdict in favor of Z. Several weeks later, you
receive the ultimate compliment: Susan Smith calls to ask if you can handle a case for her.
"Congratulations on the verdict," she says. "You're good. That's why I'm calling. I do plaintiffs'
work, and Judge Jones just sent me a defense matter. The client is big-time, and so is the case.
What kind of deal can we make?"
Prepare a brief letter to her answering her question.
_____________________________________________________________________
One hour:
Question:
Upon graduation from law school you open your own law firm. Your cousins Clem and his
brother Reginald (two law students), generously offer to help you move into your leased office

space. While you and your "significant other," Terry, are unpacking boxes in your new office, you
hear the screech of tires and a crash. Running outside, you see that Clem has backed the moving
van you rented into the large glass entrance doors of the building. The rear of the van is crushed.
Reginald, riding illegally in the back of the van, has blood dripping from his nose, which looks
broken. You smell liquor on Clem's breath.
The landlord emerges from the lobby of building. "Uh-oh," says Clem to you, "I think we're
gonna need a lawyer."
"Just shut up," you hiss under your breath, "and let me take care of this." You trot over to the
landlord who is examining the damage to his building, and say, "Hi. Can we talk?"
The landlord takes one look at you, Clem, and Reginald, and says "My lawyer will call you," and
storms back into the building. You get a similar response from the owner of the van when you
return it that afternoon.
That evening, as you sit in your apartment, alternately steaming with rage at Clem and sweating
with fear about how you will pay for all the damage, you get a call from your Uncle Lou (the
father of Clem and Reginald). "I guess I'm going to be your first paying client," he says. "What's
your retainer?"
You suddenly realize that you have never been asked this question before. "Um, well, there's a lot
of damage to the van and the building," you say, "and Reginald had to go to the hospital. I'll need
at least" -- you look at your watch and notice it's 5 p.m. -- "$5,000, up front."
Lou responds, "Well, I can handle that. Your mother -- my sister -- would kill me if I didn't. But
don't listen to anything that bum Clem says. His judgment is as bad as his driving. Keep me
posted on what's going on." You tell Lou that you agree this would be the prudent course to take.
"By the way," Lou adds, "I have a business question for you. Do you have another minute?"
"Sure," you say. You know Lou has extensive real estate and other holdings, and while you
haven't had much experience yourself, you were a good business law student in school.
Lou goes on: "A woman I know wants to open up a cosmetics telemarketing business with me.
It would require a large cash investment from both of us. She trusts me completely, probably
because I've helped her make a lot of money in my deals. This is a very hot concept. No one's
doing it yet, and if we move quickly and quietly, we could beat the market. Could you advise us
about how to proceed? You know, I feel bad about what happened with Clem and Reginald. You
deserve better than that, and this telemarketing thing could be a real matter for you."
"Sure," you say, hardly able to believe your good fortune. "I'd be glad to handle it."
"Great," says Lou, "I'll call you tomorrow at your office to set up a meeting for the three of us.
Your mom will be proud of you, and she won't kill me. Thanks again."
You hang up the phone, immediately dial Terry with the exciting news, and then go to bed,
exhausted but happy. In the middle of the night, however, you wake up with a vague sense of
misgiving about possible ethics issues raised by the events of the day. You get out of bed, sit

down at your kitchen table, pour yourself a cup of black coffee, and get a pad and a pen.
Write down your concerns, and possible resolutions.
_____________________________________________________________________
Two hours:
1. Mrs. and Mrs. Smith, an elderly couple, ask you to draw up mutual wills for them. They have
relatively small estates. Each one wishes to leave the other their assets. They dont want to pay
for two lawyers for this uncontested matter. What principles determine whether you can help
them?
2. You meet with the Smiths and draw up the wills. The next day Mr. Smith visits you. You take
notes of the conversation. He tells you he fathered an illegitimate child with another woman many
years ago. He wants to leave part of his estate to the child, and he does not want Mrs. Smith to
know about it. What principles might keep Mrs. Smith from learning about these things from
you?
3. Mrs. Smith visits your office the following week. She tells you that she just learned she has
cancer that her doctor failed to discover. You tell her that you lack the expertise to handle the
case. She begs you to help her and stay involved. You tell her that you might be able to have
another lawyer handle the case while you remain involved, but that you cannot afford to work for
free. She wants to know what you could arrange. What principles determine whether you could
have another lawyer handle the case while you stay involved and get paid?
4. You send Mr. Smith the bill for the wills. He calls you, saying that you overcharged him, and
he will sue you for malpractice and report you to the Bar if you dont cut his bill in half. What
principles determine whether you could be disciplined for your fee?
5. Mr. Smith does sue you. You learn that Jones, one of your former associates, left your firm
and is now working at the firm Smith hired to bring his lawsuit against you. What principles
determine whether Jones can do that?
6. You represent X Corporation (X) in its acquisition of a warehouse in an industrial park. You
learn in dealing with Y, who is the real estate agent, that land adjacent to the warehouse can be
bought cheaply. You ask Xs President if X has any expansion plans, and the President says No.
What principles determine whether you can buy the land as an investment for yourself?
7. You represent X in a suit against Y, because the warehouse collapsed in the first rainstorm after
X moved in. Unbeknownst to you, Ys lawyer is the daughter of the judge trying the case. What
principle determines whether the judge must recuse herself from the case?
8. The judge announces on the day of trial that her daughter is Ys lawyer. What principle
determines if, and how, the judge may hear the case anyway?
9. The trial goes forward. Before the President of X takes the stand, he reveals his intention to
lie. What options do you have to handle the situation?

10. You handle the President of X properly. X recovers a substantial sum from Y at trial, which
you place in your Trust Account pursuant to your contingency fee agreement with X. Now X
disputes the amount of your fee. What principle determines how much money, if any, you must:
(a) give to X, (b) leave in your Trust Account, and (c) take out for yourself?
_____________________________________________________________________
Two hours:
1. Mrs. and Mrs. Jack and Jane Jones come to you seeking an amicable divorce. Besides the
family bank account, Jack has told you, but not Jane, about his private bank account. They dont
want to pay for two lawyers as theyve agreed on most things. What principles determine
whether you can represent both of them? What conclusions do you reach about representing
them?
2. You agree to represent them. The next day Mrs. Jones visits you. You take notes of the
conversation. She tells you she had an illegitimate child with another man many years ago. She
put the child up for adoption, and now she wants you to help her find her child. She does not
want Mr. Jones to know about it. What principles might keep Mr. Jones from learning about this
from you? What conclusions do you reach about his ability to learn it?
3. The following week Mrs. Jones tells you that she just learned she has cancer that her doctor
failed to discover. You tell her that you lack the expertise to handle the case, but that you could
have another lawyer do it while you stay involved. What principles determine whether you could
have another lawyer handle the case while you stay involved with it and get paid?
4. You send Mr. Jones the bill for the divorce. He calls you, saying that you overcharged him,
and that he will sue you for malpractice, and report you to the Bar, if you dont cut his bill in half.
What principles determine whether you could be disciplined for your fee?
5. Mr. Jones does sue you. He retains the firm of Black & White. You learn that Smith, one of
your former associates, left your firm and is now working for Black & White. What principles
determine whether you can disqualify Black & White?
6. You represent X.com in its acquisition of Y.com, a competing website. In the course of this
representation you learn that the name Z.com has not been reserved. You think it might be
valuable to own all three domains (X, Y, and Z). You ask Xs CEO if X has any further
acquisition plans. Xs CEO says Not now. What principles determine whether you can reserve
Z.com for yourself?
7. You represent X.com in a suit against the former owners of Y.com for their alleged preacquisition lies about Y.coms finances. The former Y.com CEO is the trial judges daughter.
What principle determines whether the judge must recuse himself or herself?
8. The judge announces on the day of trial that the judges daughter is Y.coms former CEO.
What principle determines if, and how, the judge may hear the case anyway?
9. The trial goes forward. Before X.coms CEO takes the stand, he reveals to you his intention
to lie about his claimed lack of knowledge of Y.coms finances. What options do you have?

10. X.com succeeds at trial and recovers $120,000. You place the money in your trust account.
You believe your contingency fee agreement entitles you to 1/3 ($40,000). X.com disputes this
and believes you are only entitled to1/4 ($30,000). How much money, if any, must you: (a) give
to X.com, (b) leave in your trust account, and (c) take out for yourself?
_____________________________________________________________________
Two hours:
Rockwell The Rocket Edwards, a retired sports star turned broadcaster/product-endorser, is
accused of the murder of his ex-wife Chere. Rocket has a history of violent tantrums and wifebeating. He is temporarily free on bail.
Rocket hires Linda, a criminal defense attorney, to represent him. A young actor named Plato
who rents a guest-house on the Rockwell property, is also a suspect. Linda, working late at the
office one night, gets a visit from Rocket. He is very agitated. I hear that Plato plans to tell the
prosecutor I did it, he sputters. The prosecutor told Plato that if he testifies against me, she'll
give him immunity. Well, counselor, that ain't gonna happen. Rocket pulls a pistol from his
pocket and waves it in the air. I know where that creep Plato lives, and he won't live there for
long.
Now wait a minute, says Linda calmly. As it stands now, the prosecutor may have a case
against you. If you murder Plato, she'll have a case for sure. Rocket wavers, but then says, I
have nothing to live for anymore. Neither will you, he adds ominously, pointing the gun at her,
if you call the police. Then he storms out the door.
Question 1: What are Lindas options?
One day Linda gets a panicked telephone call from Buford Wayne Allen, a 30-year-old, slowtalking man whose wealthy parents take care of him. Please, Lawyer, you gotta help me. My
folks said for me to call you if I ever got in trouble, and theyd pay you. Well, I was walkin down
in the woods this mornin and there was these two little girls, and . . . . Before he can say
anything else Linda tells him, Whoa, Buford. Come down to my office. And dont you talk to
anyone else before you get here, understand? When Buford arrives, Linda sees what looks like
fresh blood on his shirt. Without a word, Buford pulls a hunting knife from his pocket and drops
it on Linda s desk. It too appears to have fresh blood on it.
Question 2: What are Lindas options?
Buford tells Linda where the girls are in the woods. Linda goes there. They are lying in a ditch,
covered up by some leaves and brush. It is a very remote location, and it is highly unlikely that
anyone will find the girls. Linda sees the hand of one of the girls twitching and scraping at the
ground.
Question 3: What are Lindas options?
One of the two girls die, and Buford is accused of killing her. Buford tells Linda he wants to
testify in his own defense at the trial. He says he plans to say that, on the day of the killing he
forgot to take the medications his psychiatrist gave him, and now he cant remember anything that

happened that day. Buford has already described that days events in detail to Linda, and has
never mentioned forgetting his medications before. Linda recommends against Buford testifying
at trial, but Buford insists.
Question 4: What are Lindas options?
Buford was convicted of murder. Linda is handling the appeal. Linda then learns that Mary, one
of the lawyers who worked at Lindas firm while Linda defended Buford against the murder
charges, has gone to work for the prosecutors office involved in the appeal.
Question 5: What are Lindas options?
On the day of arguments in the appeal, one of the appellate justices announces from the bench that
Diane, the attorney arguing the case for the prosecutors office, used to be the justices law clerk.
The justice then takes Linda and Diane into chambers and says, I dont know if thats grounds for
recusal, but in the interests of avoiding even the appearance of partiality Im disclosing this to
defense counsel. Please let me know if you will agree to remittal of disqualification in this
instance.
Question 6:
What are Lindas options?
Bufords parents deposited a $100,000 retainer with Linda to pay for the costs of Bufords
defense and appeal on an hourly rate basis, which Linda placed in her Trust Account. But at the
conclusion of the case, the parents disputed the charges. Lindas billing set forth the time spent
and the tasks performed, which had expended $90,000 of the retainer. The parents now claim that
Linda over-billed the case and she is entitled to only $20,000. They demand return of $80,000.
Question 7:
What are Lindas options?