2. 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? (Multiple Choice)
| Responses | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percent | Count | |
| No, because he didn't make a direct personal contact or phone call to Kelly. | 22.22% | 6 |
| No. as long as he doesn't pay Basil anything for the referral. | 11.11% | 3 |
| Yes, because he sent his letter on Friday the 13th ( c ) | 51.85% | 14 |
| Yes, because all forms of direct mail solicitation are prohibited. | 14.81% | 4 |
| Totals | 100% | 27 |
3. 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? (Multiple Choice)
| Responses | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percent | Count | |
| No, because he didn't make a direct personal contact or phone call to Kelly. | 0% | 0 |
| No. as long as he doesn't pay Basil anything for the referral. | 20% | 6 |
| Yes, because he sent his letter on Friday the 13th ( c ) | 80% | 24 |
| Yes, because all forms of direct mail solicitation are prohibited. | 0% | 0 |
| Totals | 100% | 30 |
4. The U.S. Supreme Court held that it was constitutional for Ohio to suspend Ohralik from the practice of law because: (Multiple Choice)
| Responses | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percent | Count | |
| Ohio disciplined Ohralik for soliciting a client for pecuniary gain under circumstances likely to pose dangers that Ohio has a right to prevent. ( c ) | 96.43% | 27 |
| Ohio disciplined Ohralik for giving unsolicited advice. | 0% | 0 |
| Ohio disciplined Ohralik based on proof that his overreaching inflicted specific injury on Wanda Holbert. | 0% | 0 |
| All of the above. | 3.57% | 1 |
| None of the above. | 0% | 0 |
| Totals | 100% | 28 |
5. 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? (Multiple Choice)
| Responses | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percent | Count | |
| Primus solicited by letter rather than in person | 0% | 0 |
| Primus was offering free legal assistance without seeking a share of any possible monetary recovery | 0% | 0 |
| Primus was seeking to advance the civil liberties objectives of the ACLU rather than seeking financial gain | 6.9% | 2 |
| All of the above ( c ) | 93.1% | 27 |
| None of the above | 0% | 0 |
| Totals | 100% | 29 |
| Responses | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percent | Count | |
| ABA 7.3 permits in person solicitation of professional employment if the person contacted has a close personal relationship with the lawyer. | 10.34% | 3 |
| ABA 7.3 only prohibits in person solicitation of professional employment if a significant motive for doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. | 10.34% | 3 |
| 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 | 34.48% | 10 |
| All of the above. ( c ) | 44.83% | 13 |
| None of the above. | 0% | 0 |
| Totals | 100% | 29 |
| Responses | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percent | Count | |
| ABA 7.3 permits in person solicitation of professional employment if the person contacted has a close personal relationship with the lawyer. | 0% | 0 |
| ABA 7.3 only prohibits in person solicitation of professional employment if a significant motive for doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. | 13.79% | 4 |
| 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 | 20.69% | 6 |
| All of the above. ( c ) | 65.52% | 19 |
| None of the above. | 0% | 0 |
| Totals | 100% | 29 |
8. 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? (Multiple Choice)
| Responses | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percent | Count | |
| The fee division must be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer. ( c ) | 3.45% | 1 |
| Client must be advised of the share of the fee each lawyer will receive | 3.45% | 1 |
| The total fee must be reasonable. | 6.9% | 2 |
| A, B, and C would all be required if Brazil and Carson divide the fee. | 86.21% | 25 |
| Totals | 100% | 29 |
9. 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? (Multiple Choice)
| Responses | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percent | Count | |
| The fee division must be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer. ( c ) | 57.14% | 16 |
| Client must be advised of the share of the fee each lawyer will receive | 0% | 0 |
| The total fee must be reasonable. | 0% | 0 |
| A, B, and C would all be required if Brazil and Carson divide the fee. | 42.86% | 12 |
| Totals | 100% | 28 |
