CLASS 4 QUIZ-
Annotations
1. On Friday, April 13, 2012 attorney
Steve Sobelson mailed a letter to Kelly Hensel
saying: "I was very sorry to hear from our mutual friend, Basil, about the
injuries you suffered last week when a FedEx truck struck you while you were
riding your bike on DeKalb Avenue to law school. If you are interested in suing
FedEx, give me a call when you are feeling better." Is Steve subject to
disbarment?
A.
No, because he didn't make a direct personal contact or phone call to Kelly.
B.
No. as long as he doesn't pay Basil anything for the referral.
✓ C. Yes, because he
sent his letter on Friday the 13th
Rule
7.3(a)(3) 30 day cooling-off period. GLE p. 103
D.
Yes, because all forms of direct mail solicitation are prohibited.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court held that it
was constitutional for Ohio to suspend Ohralik from
the practice of law because:
✓A. Ohio
disciplined Ohralik for soliciting a client for
pecuniary gain under circumstances likely to pose dangers that Ohio has a right
to prevent.
At
*449 “ the State--or the Bar acting with state authorization-- constitutionally may discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the State has a right to prevent.”
B.
Ohio disciplined Ohralik for giving unsolicited
advice.
At
*458 “The [Ohio] Rule does not prohibit a lawyer from giving unsolicited legal
advice; it proscribes the acceptance of employment resulting from such advice.”
At
*464, “...appellant errs in assuming that the constitutional validity of the
judgment below depends on proof that his conduct constituted actual
overreaching or inflicted some specific injury on Wanda Lou Holbert....”
D.
All of the above.
E.
None of the above.
3. In holding that S. Carolina violated
the Constitution by disciplining Edna Smith Primus, which of the fallowing
factors did the Supreme Court find distinguished its decision upholding
discipline against Albert Ohralik?
A.
Primus solicited by letter rather than in person
B.
Primus was offering free legal assistance without seeking a share of any
possible monetary recovery
C.
Primus was seeking to advance the civil liberties objectives of the ACLU rather
than seeking financial gain
✓ D. All of the
above
At
*422, “Unlike the situation in Ohralik, however,
appellant’s act of solicitation took the form of a letter to a woman with whom
appellant had discussed the possibility of seeking redress.... This was not
in-person solicitation for pecuniary gain.
Appellant was communicating an offer of free assistance by attorneys
associated with the ACLU, not an offer predicated on entitlement to a share of
any monetary recovery. And her actions
were undertaken to express personal political beliefs and to advance the
civil-liberties objectives of the ACLU, rather than to derive financial gain.”
E.
None of the above
4. What are differences between ABA
Model Rule 7.3 and GRPC 7.3?
[See side-by-side comparison of 7.3 posted on Resources]
A.
ABA 7.3 permits in person solicitation of professional employment if the person
contacted has a close personal relationship with the lawyer.
GRPC
7.3(b) allows WRITTEN contact with a person that has a close relationship, but
in person solicitation is prohibited by GRPC 7.3(d) without a “friend”
exception unlike ABA 7.3. Compare
GRPC 7.3(b) Written
communications to a prospective client, other than a close friend,
relative, former client or one whom the lawyer reasonably believes is a former
client...
GRPC 7.3(d) A lawyer shall not solicit professional
employment as a private practitioner for the lawyer, a partner or associate through
direct personal contact or through live telephone contact, with a non-lawyer
who has not sought advice regarding employment of a lawyer.
ABA
7.3(a)(2)
A lawyer shall not by in-person ... solicit professional employment from a
prospective client ..., unless the person contacted... has a family, close personal, or prior professional
relationship with the lawyer.
B.
ABA 7.3 only prohibits in person solicitation of professional employment if a
significant motive for doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain.
Compare
GRPC 7.3(d) with ABA 7.3(a). GRPC does
not have pecuniary gain exception.
GRPC 7.3(d) A lawyer shall not solicit professional
employment as a private practitioner for the lawyer, a partner or associate
through direct personal contact or through live telephone contact, with a
non-lawyer who has not sought advice regarding employment of a lawyer.
ABA
7.3(a) A lawyer shall
not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit
professional employment from a prospective client when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's
pecuniary gain...
C.
GRPC 7.3 requires that the word "Advertisement" appear on the top of
each page of a written communication to a prospective client for the purpose of
obtaining professional employment
GRPC
7.3(b), ABA 7.3(c)
GRPC 7.3(b) Written communications to a prospective client, ... for the purpose of obtaining professional
employment shall be plainly marked “Advertisement” on the face of the
envelope and on the top of each page of the written communication in type
size no smaller than the largest type size used in the body of the letter.
(c) Every written... communication from a lawyer
soliciting professional employment ... shall
include the words "Advertising Material" on the outside envelope, ....
✓ D. All of the above.
E.
None of the above.
5.
Brazil and Carson are each solo practitioners. Client has signed a written
agreement to allow Brazil and Carson to share joint responsibility for
representing Client and to divide the fee between them. Which of the following
is NOT required for Brazil and Carson to divide the fee?
✓ A. The fee
division must be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer.
Rule
1.5(e)(1) “the
division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer OR, by written agreement with the client,
each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation” GLE p. 19
B.
Client must be advised of the share of the fee each lawyer will receive
Rule 1.5(e)(2) GLE p. 19
C.
The total fee must be reasonable.
Rule
1.5(e)(3) GLE
p. 19
D.
A, B, and C would all be required if Brazil and Carson divide the fee without a written agreement with the client under which they agree to share joint responsibility..