1. An attorney is employed in the legal department of a large retail clothing company and represents that company in litigation. A group of current and former employees of the company filed a class action alleging that the company has and continues to engage in racial and gender discrimination. After discussing the lawsuit with the attorney, the board of directors of the company instructed the attorney to defend the case. Accordingly, the attorney filed (on behalf of the company) an answer in which the attorney asserted a defense to the plaintiffs’ claims. Although the attorney was aware that in the prior year, the U.S. Supreme Court had rejected the use of that defense for all racial and gender discrimination claims, the attorney maintained in good faith that the Supreme Court’s rejection of that defense should not apply to the factual circumstances of this case. The plaintiffs’ lawyer moved for summary judgment and for sanctions against the attorney for asserting a frivolous defense. Four weeks later, the court granted the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, rejecting the attorney’s defense based on the Supreme Court precedent. The court has not yet ruled on the motion for sanctions. Is the attorney subject to litigation sanction and discipline? 
2. 
   
3. (A) No, because in asserting the company’s defense, the attorney had a good faith argument for a modification or reversal of existing law. 
4. 
   
5. (B) No, because the attorney was following the instructions of the board, which is authorized to direct the attorney in legal matters. 
6. 
   
7. (C) Yes, because the attorney should have withdrawn the defense within the time limits prescribed by Rule 11, which is 21 days after service of a motion for sanctions. 
8. 
   
9. (D) Yes, because the attorney never should have asserted the defense in light of the Supreme Court’s recent rejection of that defense.