If an unrepresented criminal defendant has not received court approval to proceed pro se, the prosecutor may ask the defendant to waive a preliminary hearing--

An attorney represented a landlord in a dispute with her long term tenant, who had recently decided to not renew his lease. The landlord wanted to retain the security deposit for extensive damage to the carpet, while the tenant insisted that it was normal wear and tear. The attorney and the tenant’s attorney negotiated for days, but neither would settle for less than two-thirds of the security deposit. Finally, the landlord telephoned the attorney and said, “the tenant asked if I want to talk about the security deposit. We’ve known each other for years, and I think we’d have better luck to work things out ourselves.” The attorney encouraged the landlord to speak with the tenant but advised her not to finalize any agreement until both parties could consult with their respective counsel. After a productive discussion, the tenant’s lawyer called the attorney and said that the tenant would accept half of the security deposit. The attorney communicated the offer to the landlord, who agreed, and returned the funds to the tenant.

Is the attorney subject to discipline?

In an unrepresented criminal defendant has not received court approval to proceed pro se, the prosecutor may ask the defendant to waive a preliminary hearing —

. A state legislature conducted open hearings concerning a bill pending before it that would make it much more difficult for corporations chartered in the state to be taken over by corporate raiders. By making unfriendly takeovers more difficult, the proponents of the bill hope to save jobs in the state and to encourage corporations now chartered in the state to obtain state charters, which would bring added revenue to the state. An attorney who is seeking senior partner in a prestigious law firm asked to testify at the hearings. The attorney had been retained by a large corporation and was asked by its president to testify against the pending legislation at the legislative hearings. The corporation’s president also told the attorney that under no circumstances was he to tell the legislature who hired him or mention the name of the corporation in his testimony. The attorney complied with the corporation’s strictures and never mentioned that he was being retained to give testimony against the pending legislation.

The attorney’s testimony before the legislature committee was effective and hard-hitting. After his testimony, the attorney was asked a few questions by committee members, but he was never asked if he was appearing on some other party’s behalf.

Was the attorney’s conduct at the hearing proper?

Under the Due Process Clause, the prosecution must turn over evidence favorable to the defense upon request if the evidence is material to either culpability or punishment.

A defendant is entitled to a new trial under Brady v. Maryland, if the prosecution withheld multiple pieces of favorable evidence that, taken together, undermine the confidence in the verdict.

The Model Rules prohibit a lawyer acting as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness –

A woman visits an attorney whom she hires to bring a breach of contract action on her behalf. The client tells the attorney that she originally hired another lawyer about a year ago, but that as far as she knew hadn’t filed the papers yet. According to the client, the other lawyer never returned her phone calls, and when she went to see him about the status of her case, he was drunk and verbally abusive. She told her friends and family about the lawyer’s treatment of her, and when her brother failed to get information from him, he advised her to seek other counsel. Because her prior attorney never returned her calls, she sent him a certified letter notifying him that he was discharged. The current attorney knows that the statute of limitations on a contract action is one year and quickly checks the dates. She discovers that she only has a few days to file. She calls the previous attorney to get information from the client’s file. The previous attorney doesn’t recall the letter of discharge and is very cooperative and agrees to messenger the attorney’s office with the client’s file. The previous attorney tells her that he feels terrible about the situation and that his wife has been seriously ill (and as a result, hasn’t been himself). He asks her to apologize to the client on his behalf and to keep this conversation “between the two of us.” He says that with his wife’s illness, he cannot afford to lose any other clients.

The attorney files the papers in her client’s suit on time and did not report the other lawyer to the disciplinary authorities.

Were the attorney’s actions proper?

The attorney represented the plaintiff in an auto accident. Before the accident, the defendant had been to a friend’s birthday party. The attorney called the friend and identified herself as an officer of the court. She asked the friend whether the defendant had been drinking at the party. The friend was not represented by counsel and had no potential liability for the auto accident. The friend truthfully told the attorney that the defendant had not been drinking at the party.

Is the attorney subject to discipline?

A potential client consulted an attorney, hoping to hire her to represent him as plaintiff in a medical malpractice action against his doctor. Without mentioning the doctor’s name, the client described the alleged acts of malpractice and said that they happened more than two years ago. Only at that point did the potential client mention his doctor’s name. The attorney immediately stopped the potential client and said she could not represent him b/c she was already representing the doctor in an unrelated matter, and she urged him to consult another lawyer. That was the end of the conversation. The potential client did nothing further for 15 months, at which point he consulted another lawyer. By that time, the statute of limitations had run on the potential client’s claim against the doctor. The potential client then sued the first attorney for legal malpractice, alleging that the attorney was negligent in not warning him about the statute of limitations.

The ethics rules prohibit attorneys from starting sexual relations with a client while representing that person.

An actual conflict of interest arises if an attorney simultaneously holds both a prosecutorial position and a defense counsel position in the same jurisdiction.

A lawyer is defending a marine supply company in a civil action brought by the State Attorney General under a statute that makes it a civil offense for any person or business entity to bribe or give a kickback to a state official. The statute authorizes fines of up to $100,000 per transaction for any violation. The marine supply company has a strict corporate policy that prohibits its employees from bribing or giving kickbacks to anyone. Employees who violate the policy are subject to immediate discharge and are required to indemnify the marine supply company for any loss it suffers as a consequence of the violation.

The Attorney General has noticed the depositions of dozens of the marine supply company’s employees. One of these employees, prior to his recent retirement, was the sales manager of the marine supply company. The lawyer met with the employee to prepare him for his deposition. At the outset of the interview, the lawyer agreed to represent the employee without charge, and the lawyer told the employee that anything else said between them would be confidential. During the interview, the lawyer asked the employee whether he had ever bribed any state officials. The employee confessed that he had, but said it had been necessary because all of the company’s competitors were doing it too.

What course of action may the lawyer pursue at this point?

A lawyer was representing a class of persons who claimed that they overpaid for the plane tickets due to collusion in the airline industry. The class action had named three major airlines as defendants. The litigation had been ongoing for five years, and the lawyer had been deeply involved in every facet of discovery. Three days before trial was set to begin, the lawyers father died suddenly. The lawyer suddenly asked the court for one-week postponement for the trial so that he could attend the services.

Is the lawyer’s request for a postponement consistent with his duty under the Model Rules to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation?

What can an attorney do to prep a witness? Choose all that apply.

Why are witnesses prepped? Choose all that apply.

The Dept. of Children’s Services (“DCS”), a state agency, has removed a woman’s children from her home and is attempting to terminate her parental rights. The woman retains a lawyer to fight DCS’s actions. Prior to the first hearing on the matter, a lawyer from DCS contacted the woman’s brother to set up an interview. The lawyer told the brother that he wanted to speak to him about his sister, and that the interview would last about an hour. The brother, who is childless, had never had any contact with DCS before then, and didn’t know what his duties were. He told the lawyer he would get back to him. The brother then called his sister’s lawyer and told him that he didn’t want to speak with DCS because he’s afraid he might inadvertently say something that will hurt his sister’s case. He asked his sister’s lawyer how he should proceed, and she advised him that he wasn’t required to talk to them, and his sister would be better off if he didn’t.

Is the lawyer subject to discipline?

An attorney is prosecuting a complex tax case. After two government witnesses testified, the defendant took the stand in his own defense. He asserted that he always complied with all tax rules and regulations. He also testified that the two government witnesses had falsified his IRS records because the witnesses belong to a Satanic Cult which bore a long-standing grudge against him.

Which of the following statements about the defendant’s testimony, if made by the prosecutor in her closing argument, would make her subject to discipline?

Judge cannot talk about the case unless both parties are present. EXCEPT:

Choose all that apply.

If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.

) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially notice.

A judge approved an attorney’s request to appear via zoom at a hearing regarding opposing counsel’s motion for a protective order against certain interrogatories propounded by the attorney’s client. At the end of the hearing, the judge issued a ruling granting the request for a protective order. Shortly after the judge issues her ruling, opposing counsel signed off zoom. A moment or two after that, the attorney sai the following:

“Your Honor, I hope you had a chance to read the decision in Williams v. Washington before today’s hearing. Because if you look at it, I’m pretty sure you’ll conclude that opposing counsel’s arguments in favor of the protective order are not valid.”

To which the judge respond:

“I’ll take another look at Williams. If you’re right, I’ll reconsider my ruling.”

Did the judge act properly?

A lawyer was unable to attend a scheduling conference in a divorce case because she was involved in a minor traffic accident on the way to court. Opposing counsel appeared ex parte at the conference, and truthfully informed the judge that the parties’ agreed to a hearing should be set on the father’s motion to change child custody. Opposing Counsel suggested October 14th for the hearing. What opposing counsel knew, but didn’t tell the judge, was that the other lawyer would be out of the country on vacation at that date. The judge set a hearing for October 14th as requested by opposing counsel.

Is the judge suspect to discipline?

An attorney represented a defendant in a criminal trial. After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the defendant was taken to jail and the jury was discharged. While walking to his car, the attorney spots one of the courtroom spectators in the parking lot and recalled that she’d been a member of the jury pool (that was dismissed by a peremptory challenge by the defense.) Despite not being selected as a juror, he’d developed an interest in the case and attended the entire trial.

In an attempt to determine whether her instinct during voir dire was correct, she approached the spectator and asked whether he would’ve voted to convict the defendant. The spectator said, “I’d rather not talk about it.” When the attorney explained that he was simply looking for constructive feedback, the spectator changed his mind and agreed to a brief interview. The attorney and spectator spoke for a few minutes, and the communication didn’t involve misrepresentation, coercion, duress, or harassment.

Is the attorney subject to discipline?

● After a verdict has been returned, it is improper for an attorney who has participated in the trial to tell the jury about information that was not presented at trial, if such information is disclosed to the jury with the intention of, or in the spirit of, criticizing the jury’s decision, influencing the actions of jurors in future jury service, harassing the jury, or otherwise behaving improperly towards jurors in any manner prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility.

If an attorney becomes aware of improper communication with a juror by any attorney, they have an obligation to “make a prompt report to the court regarding such conduct.”

A lawyer, who primarily limits his practice to bankruptcy, accepts court-appointed criminal defense matters on a pro bono basis. He has taken approximately one such pro bono case each of the past 10 years, but has only won two of them. The day after tomorrow, he will start the jury trial of a defendant charged with indecent exposure. This morning, the ADA held a press conference, at which he told reporters that this defendant had been accused of various sex offenses on six prior occasions. The ADA’s statements are correct, but none of the prior incidents are admissible in the trial. The defendant’s lawyer believes that the ADA was simply trying to poison the venire by degrading his client. The lawyer is planning to call his own press conference at which he will give the reporters the rest of the story … on all six prior occasions, the defendant was arrested but never charged, and all six arrests were made by the same police officer, who holds a personal grudge against the defendant.

Which of the following is correct?

After a series of brutal muggings, the police captured a person whom they charged with the crimes and the person was eventually ordered to stand trial. Two days before jury selection for the case began, a local newspaper reporter cornered the ADA on the case in the cafe. The ADA said she was certain the defendant was the right man because, among other things, they discovered he was previously convicted three times for brutal muggings in other states.

Is the ADA subject to discipline for making the statement to the reporter?