Hello. According to the ABA Rules, indicating the corresponding rule and if subsection applies could you help me with the following questions?

1. Andrea Attorney represented Diana Developer in the purchase of property for the development of a shopping mall. In the course of representing Diana, Andrea compared the prices, availability, and suitability of numerous parcels of land. While performing her due diligence, Andrea learned through investigation that there was one parcel of land that, while better situated for business purposes, was situated near a very litigious homeowner's association that had opposed previous developments. In the end, Diana decided to purchase one of the other parcels.

It is now two years after the property was purchased, and Raymond Realty has retained Andrea to represent him, also in the purchase of property for development of a mall. In representing Raymond, can Andrea use the knowledge that she obtained during her representation of Diana about the litigious homeowner's association?

A. Yes, because there is no ongoing duty of confidentiality to Diana.

B. Yes, unless the interests of Raymond and Diana are materially adverse.

C. Yes, so long as she informs Diana that she is doing so.

D. Yes, if she does not use the information to the disadvantage of Diana.

Answer and Model Rule:

2. A former employee hires an attorney to represent her in a wrongful termination case against her former employer. The client and the attorney agree in writing that the attorney's obligations to the client exclude representation with regard to any appeal from a decision by the trial court.

Among the instructions that the client gives to the attorney is that she will not accept an offer for less than a specific dollar amount. Subsequently, the lawyer for the former employer conveys a settlement offer to the attorney, which is below that amount. The lawyer for the former employer indicates that the former employer will not make any further settlement offers, but will proceed to trial. Based on past dealings with the former employer, the attorney has reason to believe that the former employer will adhere to that course of action. In the exercise of his professional judgment, the attorney also believes that his client's case has only a slight chance of success at trial. Consequently, the attorney, reasonably believing that the offer is the best resolution of the case for the client, accepts the offer without consulting her.

Are the attorney's actions improper?

1. Yes, because the attorney failed to convey the settlement offer to the client.
2. Yes, because the attorney accepted the settlement offer.
3. No, because the attorney believed that he was acting in the best interests of the client.
4. No, because the attorney may reasonably limit the scope of his representation of the client.

Answer and Model Rule:

3. John Doe hired an attorney solely to prepare a contract for the sale of the business. Shortly after the sale was completed, the attorney learned from an employee of the business that John had falsified the business's records in order to make the business, which had been losing money for several years, appear profitable. When the attorney confronted John his actions, John acknowledged the fraud but refused to take any action. The attorney contacted the buyer of the business, who had used his retirement savings to purchase the business, and revealed Johns fraud.

Is the attorney subject to discipline for this revelation to the buyer of the business?

1. Yes, because the attorney breached the duty of confidentiality the attorney owed to John Doe.
2. Yes, because disclosure was not necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or bodily harm.
3. No, because the attorney did not learn of John's fraud during the course of a litigation.
4. No, because John had used the attorney's services in the sale of the business.

Answer and Model Rule:

4. Anna Attorney currently represents a building contractor who is the plaintiff in a suit to recover for breach of a contract to build a house. The builder also has pending before the zoning commission a petition to rezone property she owns. The builder is represented by Betty Barrister in the zoning matter.

A neighbor owning property adjoining that of the builder has asked Anna to represent him in opposing the builder's petition for rezoning. The neighbor knows that Anna represents the builder in the contract action.

Is it proper for Anna to represent the neighbor in the zoning matter?

1. Yes, if there is no common issue of law or fact between the two matters.
2. Yes, because one matter is a judicial proceeding and the other is an administrative proceeding.
3. No, because Anna is currently representing the builder in the contract action.
4. No, if there is a possibility that both matters will be appealed to the same court.

Answer and Model Rule:

5. Joe Jurist decided to accept a case although a verdict in favor of his client would cause his own property to decrease substantially in value. Joe explained the situation to the client, and the client consented in writing to the representation. After the court ruled against Joe, the client filed a complaint with the disciplinary board alleging that Joe should not have accepted the case.

By what standard should Joe Jurist's action be judged to determine whether he violated the conflict of interest rules?

1. Joe must have honestly believed that he could provide competent and diligent representation to the client.
2. Joe must have reasonably believed that he could provide competent and diligent representation to the client.
3. The client must have believed that Joe could provide competent and diligent representation to him.
4. Joe must have provided competent and diligent representation to the client.

Answer and Model Rule:

6. Rachel Representative was retained by a passenger on a bus who had been injured in a collision between the bus and a truck. The passenger paid Rachel a retainer of $1,000 and agreed further that Rachel should have a fee of 25% of any recovery before filing suit, 30% of any recovery after suit was filed but before judgment, and 35% of any recovery after trial and judgment. Rachel promptly called the lawyer for the bus company and told him she was representing the passenger and would like to talk about a settlement. Rachel made an appointment to talk to the lawyer for the bus company but did not keep the appointment. Rachel continued to put off talking to the lawyer for the bus company. Meanwhile, the passenger became concerned because she had heard nothing from Rachel. The passenger called Rachel's office but was told by the secretary that Rachel was not in but would call back when she was free. The passenger was told not to worry because Rachel would look after his interests.

After four months had passed, the passenger went to a different attorney for advice. The different attorney advised the passenger that the statute of limitations would run in one week and, with the passenger's consent, immediately filed suit for him. Rachel, upon the passenger's demand, refunded the $1,000 the passenger had paid.

Has Rachel Representative acted unethically during her representation of the passenger?

1. Yes, unless her time was completely occupied with work for other clients.
2. Yes, because she neglected the representation of the passenger.
3. No, because the passenger's suit was filed before the statute of limitations ran.
4. No, because she returned the $1,000 retainer to the passenger.

Answer and Model Rule:

7. Carl Counselor is widely regarded as an exceptionally competent practitioner in the field of criminal law. A client of Carl named Jerry became the subject of a grand jury investigation in a matter that could result in a felony indictment. Jerry lacked sufficient funds to pay for Carl Counselor's services beyond the grand jury stage. He asked Carl to provide limited representation for a flat fee. Under the arrangement Jerry proposed, Carl would advise Jerry concerning the grand jury investigation, but the representation would end when an indictment was returned or the grand jury decided not to indict. Carl fully advised Jerry of the practical and legal aspects of the client's proposal.

Is it proper for the Carl Counselor to accept this limited representation?

1. Yes, because the client, Jerry, and not Carl Counselor suggested this arrangement.
2. Yes, because Carl and Jerry may agree to limit the scope of the representation so long as the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances.
3. No, because Carl should not limit the scope of the representation based on Jerry's ability to pay.
4. No, because the scope of the representation may not be limited in a criminal case.

Answer and Model Rule:

8. Amy Advocate represented a landlord in a variety of matters over several years. An elderly widow living on public assistance filed suit against the landlord alleging that the landlord withheld without justification the security deposit on a rental unit that she vacated three years ago. She brought the action for herself, without counsel, in small claims court. Amy investigated the claim and learned that it was legally barred by the applicable statute of limitations, although the plaintiff's underlying claim was meritorious. Amy told the landlord of the legal defense, but emphasized that the plaintiff's claim was just and that, in all fairness, the security deposit should be returned to her. Amy told the landlord:

"I strongly recommend that you pay the plaintiff the full amount with interest. It is against your long-term business interests to be known in the community as a landlord who routinely withholds security deposits even though the tenant leaves the apartment in good condition. Paying the claim now will prevent future headaches for you."

Was Amy's conduct proper?

1. Yes, if the landlord did not object to the attorney's advice and paid the plaintiff's claim.
2. Yes, because the attorney may refer to both legal and non-legal considerations in advising a client.
3. No, unless the attorney's engagement letter informed the landlord that his advice on the matter would include both legal and non-legal considerations.
4. No, because in advising the landlord to pay the full claim, the attorney failed to represent zealously the landlord's legal interests.

Answer and Model Rule:

9. Lex Lawyer is representing Elizabeth, a 32 year-old woman with severe diminished mental capacity as a result of a brain injury she suffered in a car accident. Lawyer was contacted by Elizabeth's doctor who is treating her for cancer. A dispute has arisen between Elizabeth and her parents about the ongoing treatment for Elizabeth's condition. The doctor has recommended a mastectomy and the parents are very much in favor of Elizabeth undergoing the procedure. But Elizabeth is clearly reluctant to undergo the procedure. Although she has difficulty speaking she understands what she hears and has shaken her head "no" repeatedly when asked how she feels about having the procedure.

Which of the following is the appropriate way for Lex Lawyer to proceed in his representation of Elizabeth?

A. Consult with the doctor and other medical professionals to determine the best course of treatment for Elizabeth and authorize that treatment on her behalf.

B. Consult with Elizabeth's parents to determine what they believe is best treatment for Elizabeth and authorize that treatment.

C. Make his best efforts to ascertain what Elizabeth wants to do in regard to the treatment and authorize that course of action even if he is not certain that he has properly determined her intentions.

D. Make his best efforts to ascertain what Elizabeth wants to do in regard to the treatment and authorize that course of action only if he is reasonably certain that he can and has properly determined her intentions.

Answer and Model Rule:

10. Crystal Counselor handles wills, trusts and estates matters in Capital City. She is currently representing Dana Daughter in a contested will matter. In an unrelated matter, Crystal is also representing Emma Expert in preparing Emma's will. In Dana's case, Dana is alleging that her mother's will, which left all two million dollars of the family's savings to Dana's brother, Brock, is invalid. Dana believes that her mother's signature was forged.

Crystal finds out that Brock has hired Emma Expert, who is an expert in handwriting, to look at the signatures and offer an analysis. Prior to the trial in Dana's case, Crystal also finds out that Emma will be testifying that, in Emma's expert opinion, the signature of Dana's mother was not forged. Can Crystal continue to represent both Dana and Emma?

A. No, because the two representations are directly adverse.

B. No, unless Emma provides informed consent, confirmed in writing.

C. Yes, as long as Crystal reasonably believes she can provide competent representation to both Dana and Emma.

D. Yes, because Emma is only a witness in Dana's case, and not an adverse party.

Answer and Model Rule:

Short Essay Questions

Instructions:For each short essay question:

1. You will receive one point simply by clearly and briefly answering the question with a "yes" or "no" or "it depends."
2. You will receive up to three points for identifying the applicable rule(s)and the relevant language of the rule(s).
3. You will receive the remaining six points for properly applying the rule(s) to the scenario in the question.

Note: I will be giving feedback on the short essay questions at a date to be announced.

1. A company's president telephoned his city's best-known employment attorney, Shelley Solicitor, and asked her to represent the company in a dispute that had just arisen with the company's chief financial officer. Shelley, who had never previously represented the company, agreed. At the president's insistence, she immediately commenced the representation.

A few days later, during a meeting with the president, Shelley first revealed the amount of her customary hourly fee and then explained that the company would also be responsible for reimbursing her expenses. The president responded that her fee was higher than he had expected but that he would be happy for the company to pay it, given her excellent work to date. Although Shelly intended to follow up with a confirming letter, she never did so.

For several more months, Shelly assisted the company in resolving its employment dispute. Afterward, she sent the company a bill accurately reflecting her hourly fee and expenses, which were reasonable.

Has Shelly acted properly in her representation of the company?

Answer:

1. Rustie West meets with Larry Lawyer to tell him about concerns she has about her job situation. Last summer, Rustie became the assistant women's basketball coach at Brookline State College. Rustie has overheard several of the older players refer to financial payments from boosters of the basketball program. Rustie believes that she should talk to Jackson Phil, the NCAA compliance officer at the college. As Larry interviews Rustie, he realizes that two years ago he represented Jackson Phil when Jackson divorced his first wife. That representation has concluded.

Can Larry Lawyer now represent Rustie?

Answer: