TWO SAMPLE "MPRE-STYLE" QUESTIONS

The following questions are written to resemble in style and content sample exam questions for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBEX). A 60-question, annotated online practice exam, equivalent in length to the actual MPRE and containing questions and annotations written by the drafters of the MPRE, can be purchased from the NCBEX web site for $24: www.ncbex.org

Assume the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (as amended through 2009) apply unless otherwise specified. MUST or SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE asks whether the conduct referred to or described in the question subjects the attorney to discipline under one or more provisions of the Model Rules. MAY, PERMITTED OR PROPER asks whether the conduct referred to or described in the question is professionally appropriate in that it would not subject the attorney to discipline under one or more provisions of the Model Rules.

Be prepared to answer the following by “clicker” in class:

A) The Campus Cola Corporation recently changed law firms for handling all outside work, switching from Queen & Nike to the Southernland Group. Southernland immediately began giving all lawyers in the firm detailed descriptions of the work particular lawyers were doing for Campus Cola, both in written memos and at staff meetings. When the General Counsel of Campus Cola learned that lawyers at Southernland not working on its account were privy to detailed information about its upcoming marketing plan against Pepto Cola, she complained to Southernland’s managing partner that the firm had violated the duty of confidentiality. Was it proper for the law firm to give detailed descriptions of the work being done for the corporation to other lawyers in the firm who had no responsibility for the account?

1. Yes, because, absent client instructions to contrary, lawyers may discuss client information with other lawyers in the firm.
2. Yes, because lawyers may discuss client information with other lawyers in the firm, regardless of client instructions to the contrary.
3. No, because sharing the information increased the risk of disclosure to third parties outside the firm.
4. No, because lawyers may not disclose client information, even to other firm lawyers, unless the disclosure furthers the representation.

B) Attorney Kaminshine represented both Sobelson, a used car dealer, and Timmons, owner of a motorcycle repair shop. On August 4 Sobelson paid an outstanding bill for Kaminshine’s services in $450 cash: two $100 bills and five $50 bills. On August 6, Timmons paid her outstanding bill in $250 cash: one $100 bill and three $50 bills. On August 7 Kaminshine made a single deposit in his bank account of $700, all in cash. On August 10 Kaminshine was contacted by the FBI and told that one of the $100 bills deposited on August 7 was counterfeit. Kaminshine told the FBI agent that all of the cash deposited on August 7 had been received from clients as payment for services rendered, but declined to identify any of the clients. On August 21 Kaminshine received a subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury which specifically indicated that Kaminshine himself was NOT the target of any criminal investigation. If asked at the grand jury who could have given him the counterfeit bill, would it be proper for Kaminshine to provide the names of both Sobelson and Timmons? {Hint: re-read MR 1.6, Comments [3] and [13], and the assigned reading from McCormack on Evidence.}

1. Yes, because negotiation of a counterfeit bill is a criminal act.
2. Yes, because under the circumstances neither client’s identity is privileged.
3. No, because counterfeiting is not a crime that involves an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
4. No, because the attorney has no way of knowing which of the two clients gave him the counterfeit bills.