Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

Professional Responsibility


A. General (OL I. A.)
1. Model rules and California Rules of Professional Conduct (CRPC)
A. Admission to the Bar (OL II. A.)
1. Two Prohibitions
a. Model Rule 8.1 and CRPC 1-200 - On the application for admission to the bar a la!"er is prohibited from#
(1) ma$in% a false statement of material fact
(2) $no!in%l" failin% to disclose material facts
B. Regulation After Admission (OL II. B.)
1. &nder California rules and Model Rule 8.' it is professional misconduct for a la!"er to#
a. (iolate attempt to (iolate or assist others in (iolatin% the rules of professional conduct
b. commit criminal act that reflects ad(ersel" on honest" trust!orthiness or fitness as a la!"er
c. dishonest" fraud deceit misrepresentation
d. conduct pre)udicial to the administration of )ustice
e. state or impl" an abilit" to improperl" influence
2. California replaces this detailed list#
prohibits acts of moral turpitude

&se the California lan%ua%e of *moral turpitude+ and specif" that it is prohibited b" Model Rule 8.'.
2a!"er passed the bar e3am but is not practicin% as a la!"er. 0nstead he is runnin% a boo$ store. ,e doesn4t
li$e la! students shoppin% in his store so !hen the" ma$e purchases he o(erchar%es their credit cards for
more than the purchase price. 0s this an ethics (iolation under the Model Rules5 &nder the CRPC5
6either the MPR/ nor CRPC limit ethics (iolations to acts committed as a la!"er. ,e is in trouble for
(iolation of Model Rules 8.' and under the CRPC committin% an act of moral turpitude b" en%a%in% in
dishonest" and fraud.

A. Similarities Between alifornia and !odel Rules
1. &nder both rules attorne"s must#
a. super(ise their subordinates 7 both la!"ers and non la!"ers
b. ma$e reasonable effort to ma$e sure that la!"ers follo! rules
Conflict of interest chec$s in la! firms and calendarin% s"stems for statutes of limitations.

.!o common testin% scenarios are# (i) !here the subordinate la!"er ma$es a mista$e9 or (ii) !here a
super(isin% attorne" tells the )unior attorne" to (iolate an ethics rule.
B. #i$arious Res%onsibilit& in Law 'irms(Asso$iations Between Law&ers (OL III. A.)
1. !anagers
a. Three )e& Terms
(1) Order 7 super(isor orders the misconduct.
(2) Ratif" 7 super(isor finds out after the associate destro"s the document
(:) ;ail 7 failure to ta$e remedial actions
2. Subordinates
a. 2a!"ers are protected !hen follo!in% a super(isor4s directions onl"#
it is a reasonable resolution of an ar%uable <uestion of professional dut". 1lso CRPC 1-120 re<uires that an"
ethical (iolation be $no!in%l" made.
=uper(isor tells "ou to lie in court. 6ot reasonable resolution. >ut if conflict of interest <uestion could be reasonable
resolution so protection.
. Sale of Law Pra$ti$e (OL III. B.)
1. 1 la! practice ma" be sold pro(ided that#
a. !ritten notice to the client
b. clients retain confidentialit"
c. fees to clients cannot increase due to sale of la! practice
d. conflict of interest rules appl"
A. Getting the lient (OL I#. A.)
1. Introdu$tion
a. CRPC 1-'00 corresponds primaril" Model Rules ?.1 and ?.2. 0t contains no restrictions on t"pe of media that can be
used for la!"er ad(ertisin%
2. Ad*ertising
a. Prohibitions
(1) Cannot impersonate a la!"er
(2) Cannot %uarantee the outcome of a case i.e. <uic$ settlement or immediate cash
b. 'alse and !isleading Statements
(1) California and the Model Rules both prohibit a la!"er from#
Ma$in% false or misleadin% statements !hich are statements that contain a material
misrepresentation of la! or fact or omission of facts necessar" to ma$e the statement
considered as a !hole not materiall" misleadin%
(a) .he Model Rules additions#
.he statement has to be material. CRPC 1-'00 does not ha(e a materialit" re<uirement
(2) Considerations re%ardin% false or misleadin% factual statements#
(a) must not contain an untrue statement
(b) must not contain matter that is false decepti(e misleadin%
(c) must not omit necessar" facts
(d) must not fail to indicate that it is a communication or solicitation
(d) must not be transmitted in a manner that in(ol(es intrusion coercion duress intimidation threats or

c. 'ields of Pra$ti$e or S%e$iali+ation
(1) 1 la!"er can communicate that he does or does not practice in a field of la! but cannot state or impl" that he
is certified as a specialist in a certain field unless#
he has been certified as a specialist b" an or%ani@ation appro(ed b" the state or accredited
b" the 1merican >ar 1ssociation
d. Presum%tion of #iolation
(1) Certain communications are presumed to be in (iolation of CRPC 1-'00 includin% communications that#
(a) contain %uarantees !arranties or predictions re%ardin% results of the representation
(b) contain testimonials or endorsements re%ardin% a la!"er4s ser(ices !ithout disclaimers
(c) are in the form of a firm name trade name that implies a relationship !ith a %o(ernment a%enc" or
1n %roup of attorne"s cannot name their firm *=tate of California Real /state 1ttorne"s+ as this implies a
relationship !ith the =tate of California.
(d) labelin%# announcements need to bear the !ords ad(ertisement ne!sletter or similar !ords

AReferenced in (ideo lecture as (e)B
:. Soli$itations
1mbulance chasin% or handin% out business cards at the scene of an accident or at a hospital
a. 1 soli$itation is an"#
(1) communication concernin% the a(ailabilit" for professional emplo"ment of a la!"er or la! firm in !hich a
si%nificant moti(e is pecuniar" %ain and
(2) that is deli(ered in person or b" phone or directed b" an" means to a person $no!n to the sender to be
represented b" counsel in a matter that is a sub)ect of the communication
b. =olicitation is permitted onl&#
(1) !hen person contacted is a la!"er OR
(2) for pro-bono representation as pecuniar" %ain is not a moti(e
A law&er $an see, to re%resent a $lient in a %ro bono situation sin$e there is no %e$uniar& gain.
c. .he rules prohibit the emplo"ment of#
a prospecti(e client !ho has indicated a desire not to be solicited or if doin% so !ould in(ol(e coercion duress or
1 la!"er cannot pa" a dentist in the office ne3t door a referral fee for sendin% the la!"er malpractice cases that the
dentist comes upon.
'. Referrals(Grou% Legal Ser*i$es
a. Law&er Referrals
(1) CRPC 1-:20(>) and Model Rule ?.2(b) prohibitions#
a la!"er from %i(in% an"thin% of (alue to a person for recommendin% a la!"er4s ser(ices !ith the
e3ception of pa"ment for reasonable ad(ertisin% costs usual char%es for a le%al ser(ice plan
pa"ment of sale of la! practice referral f clients to another la!"er pursuant to a%reement as lon% as
a%reement is not e3clusi(e and client is a!are of the a%reement
B. -ntering into a Relationshi% with the lient (OL I#. B.)
1. 'ees
a. Amount
(1) &nder CRPC '-200(1) a la!"er ma" not#
fees cannot be ille%al or unconscionable. MPR/ uses the lan%ua%e of *unreasonable+ fees.
(2) 'a$tors to onsider to determine whether fee is un$ons$ionable"
(a) amount of fees must be in proportion to (alue of ser(ices performed
(b) relati(e sophistication of firm member and client
(c) no(elt" or difficult" of <uestions s$ill in(ol(ed
(d) li$elihood that acceptance of emplo"ment !ould preclude other !or$
(e) amount in(ol(ed and results obtained
(f) time limitations
(%) nature and len%th of relationship !ith client
(h) the e3perience reputation abilit" of firm member
(i) fi3ed or contin%ent fee
()) time and labor re<uired
($) informed consent of client to the fee

.r" to memori@e all of these factors but the facts should be such as to tri%%er specific red fla%s about specific
thin%s to consider.
b. 'ee Agreement .riting Re/uirement
(1) >oth rules re<uire#
contin%enc" fees to be in !ritin%
(2) California also re<uires#
an"time fees and costs are li$el" to e3ceed C1000 it must be !ritin%
c. ontingen$& 'ees
(1) Sub0e$t1!atter Prohibitions
(a) &nder the Model Rules 1.D(d) "ou cannot ha(e contin%enc" fees for#
1) representin% a defendant in a criminal cases
2) domestic relations if fee is to secure a di(orce amount of alimon" or support or propert" settlement .
(2) .he California rules do not prohibit#
contin%enc" fees in domestic relations matters criminal cases or other situations per se
d. Billing
(1) >illin% must be clear on amount rate and method of fee calculation
e. Retainer 'ees
(1) Cannot $eep unearned fees but can $eep true retainer fees
f. Re$o*er& of 2n%aid 'ees
(1) if fired still entitled to reco(er le%al fees
0f la!"er E&0.= cannot reco(er le%al fees.
%. 'ee1S%litting
(1) Model Rule 1.D(e) restricts di(ision of fees unless#
(a) di(ision is proportional to ser(ices performed
(b) client a%rees in !ritin%
(c) fee is reasonable
(2) Fhile California does not re<uire *proportionalit"+ the client must#
consent in !ritin% to the di(ision and o(erall fee is not increased solel" due to di(ision


-ou recentl" start up a practice in 2os 1n%eles and one of "our la! school classmates starts up a practice in =an ;rancisco. 1
%reat case comes into "our office but re<uires a =an ;rancisco la!"er. =o "ou refer the client to "our classmate and the client
hires her. -our classmate earns a C100000 fee and !ants to %i(e "ou C1000 for sendin% the client to her. 0s this fee-splittin%
permitted under the Model Rules5 &nder the CRPC5
.he fee splittin% is not permissible under the Model Rules bet!een la!"ers !ho are not in the same firm unless the
di(ision is proportional client a%rees in !ritin% and the fee is reasonable. ,ere the fee split is not proportional because
04(e done no !or$ for the client and not earned an" fees so it fails the MPR/ test for proportionalit". ,o!e(er the
California Rules of Professional Conduct ha(e no proportionalit" re<uirement. .he client onl" needs to a%ree in !ritin% to
the fee split and fees must be not be increased to co(er the C1000 fee i.e. the o(erall C100G should not be increased to
pa" me. =o in California 0 can %et C1000 for referrin% a client to another la! firm.
h. 'ee 4i*ision with 5on1Law&ers
(1) 1 la!"er in California ma" di(ide a fee !ith a non-la!"er#
(a) la!"er referral ser(ice established and operated in accordance !ith =tate >ar standards
(b) !hen there is an a%reement to pro(ide mone" upon la!"er4s death to estate or other desi%nated person
2. Arbitration of 'ee 4is%utes
a. &ni<ue rule in California#
la!"er must notif" the client of the ri%ht to mandator" fee dispute arbitration before la!"er ma" sue client for fees

. Safe,ee%ing of lient 'unds or Pro%ert& (OL I#. .)
1. 1 la!"er must#
a. deposit funds in trust account and propert" in securities in safe deposit bo3
b. pa" or deli(er promptl"
c. $eep records of disbursements
d. commin%lin% is permitted to the e3tent that funds are needed to pa" ban$ char%es and fund belon% in part to the
la!"er and in part to the client unless there is a dispute
Euestion 1
1pplicants !ere as$ed to anal"@e issues arisin% from 2ou4s representation of =all" in a di(orce action. 2ou4s friend ;ran$ as$ed
2ou to telephone =all" ;ran$4s sister and offer to represent her. 2ou telephoned =all" and the" met the ne3t da".
Fhile discussin% fees =all" told 2ou she had no mone" but )ointl" o!ned !ith her husband art !orth C1000000. 0n a !ritten
a%reement 2ou a%rees to accept D0H of an" assets a!arded to =all".
Fhat ethical (iolations if an" has 2ou committed5
1pplicants must consider !hether solicitation of le%al ser(ices is permissible and discuss the reasonableness of the proposed
fees particularl" in the conte3t of contin%enc" fees.
From the July 2005 California Bar Exam
California and Model Rule 7.3 do not allow soliitation of lients! and soliitation inludes allin" #otential lients out for
#euniary interest. $he only exe#tion is #ro%&ono re#resentation! re#resentation of a family mem&er or former lient. 'ere!
(ou has soliited )ally &y allin" her u# and does not seem to fit into any of the exe#tions of soliitation.
*hile Model Rules do not allow ontin"eny fees! they are allowed in California! e+en for di+ore matters. 'owe+er! there may
&e issues with re"ards to the #ro#ortionality of the ontin"eny fees as the fee of 50, of assets seems rather unonsiona&le
and unreasona&le! whih +iolates &oth CR-C and the M-RE.
Euestion 2
1pplicants !ere as$ed to anal"@e issues arisin% from 2a!"er4s openin% of a personal in)ur" practice. 2a!"er as$s friends and
famil" to *pass the !ord around that 0 ha(e opened a solo practice speciali@in% in personal in)ur" la!.+ 2a!"er4s brother >ert
an emer%enc" room admittin% cler$ at a local hospital %i(es 2a!"er4s business card to patients !ho are admitted !ho appear
to be (ictims of !ron%doin% and su%%ests that the" contact 2a!"er. /ach time 2a!"er is retained b" someone referred b"
>ert 2a!"er ta$es >ert out to lunch and %i(es him CD00.
Fhat ethical duties if an" has 2a!"er breached5
1pplicants must consider the rules applicable to ad(ertisin% in particular pa"ment for referrals solicitation of clients and false
and misleadin% ad(ertisements of a la!"er4s ser(ices. .he si%nificance of the fact that solicitation too$ place in a hospital
should also be considered.
From the July 200. California Bar Exam
/d+ertisin" is "enerally allowed so there are no issues with the lawyer initially as0in" his family mem&ers to s#read the word
a&out his new solo #ratie.
'owe+er! am&ulane hasin" 1 soliitin" lients at the sene of aident or hos#ital %% is a #resumed +iolation of &oth the
Model Rules and CR-C. 'ere! lawyer a##ears to &e soliitin" lients at the hos#ital &y am&ulane hasin"! whih is a +iolation
of &oth California and model rules #rohi&ition on soliitation.
/ lawyer annot enter into a referral ser+ie or soliitation ser+ie with a non%lawyer unless the &oard ertifies the referral
ser+ie. 'ere! it a##ears that the lawyer has a referral ser+ie with Bert! a non%lawyer! whih is a"ainst California rules
#rohi&ition on im#ro#er ad+ertisin" and soliitation.
2t is also misleadin" for the lawyer to state he s#eiali3es in a #artiular area of law when a &oard in that area has not ertified
him. 'ere! lawyer as0s family mem&ers to ad+ertise that he s#eiali3es in #ersonal in4ury law! &ut it is not lear that he has
"round to ertify that. /&sent state ertifiation of his s#eialty! the lawyer has en"a"ed in false and misleadin" ad+ertisin" &y
ad+ertisin" that he is a s#eialist in #ersonal in4ury law.
A. om%eten$e (OL #. A.)
1. Generall&
a. 1 la!"er cannot#
intentionall" rec$lessl" or repeatedl" fail to perform le%al ser(ices !ith competence. Cannot ta$e !or$ "ou cannot
perform competentl".
0n California competenc" is defined as dili%ence learnin% and s$ill mental emotional and ph"sical abilit"
reasonabl" necessar" to perform.
b. Competenc" cannot#
!ai(ed b" the client.
c. Competenc" is not a slidin% scale. .he same standard applies to all cases e(en pro-bono cases
1 client cannot a%ree to a reduced fee or no fee at all in e3chan%e for !ai(in% an attorne"4s competence. Fere this
to occur the attorne" could still be disciplined b" the C1 bar for (iolatin% the ethics rules.
d. 1 la!"er ma" %ain competenc" b"#
(1) associatin% !ith a la!"er reasonabl" belie(ed to be competence
(2) ac<uirin% s$ill and learnin% re<uired for performance
e. -3$e%tionI1 la!"er ma" perform !or$#
in an emer%enc" !here referral or consultation !ith another la!"er is impracticable. /mer%enc" cannot be created
b" the la!"er
(1) Once the emer%enc" has passed#
do !hat is reasonabl" necessar"
2. !al%ra$ti$e
a. Two Im%ortant Rules
(1) Cannot prospecti(el" limit liabilit"
(2) Client must be informed in !ritin% of ri%ht to see$ independent counsel before settlin% malpractice case and
the la!"er cannot %i(e the client a ta$e it or lea(e it offer
b. 0n California if a la!"er (iolates an ethics rule#
.he (iolation is admissible e(idence on the standard of care in le%al malpractice actions
c. 0n California a criminal defendant !ho sues a la!"er for malpractice#
Must ma$e a colorable claim of actual innocence
d. &nder California rules#
2a!"er !ill not be held liable for malpractice to persons outside the la!"er-client relationship unless the la!"er
o!ed a third part" an independent dut" of care
(1) /3amples include#
>eneficiaries of a !ill or trust !hom the client intended to benefit. .his is referred to as the 2ucas
test in California 7 intended beneficiaries $no!n to attorne" can sue for malpractice.
B. onfli$ts of Interest (OL #. B.)
1. The Law&er6s Personal Interest
a. Personal Interests Generall&
(1) 1 la!"er ma" not accept or continue representation of a client !hen he has or had#
business financial le%al or professional conflict !ith the client in the sub)ect matter of

2oo$ out for an" t"pe of interest that could create a rift bet!een attorne" and client. Fhere it is found as$ if it
is enou%h to terminate the representation.
Plaintiff attem%ts to hire Attorne&7 and it turns out that 4efendant is a long1time friend and former
$ollege roommate of Attorne&. This is a %ersonal relationshi% whi$h would $reate a rift7 as this
friendshi% is substantiall& li,el& to influen$e Attorne&6s $ase.
(2) 1 la!"er ma" not represent the seller at a )udicial sale#
!hen someone close to the la!"er is the bu"er
(:) Ge" factor#
client !ants to sell the propert" for the hi%hest price !hile la!"er4s spouse relati(e partner
associate or emplo"ee !ants to pa" the lo!est price. .his is a conflict of interest.
b. Gifts from lients
(1) 1 la!"er cannot#
induce an" substantial %ift from a client unless the client is related to the la!"er. 1 la!"er ma"
recei(e such a %ift if there is no undue influence.
(2) &nder the Model Rules a la!"er cannot#
solicit a substantial %ift or prepare on behalf of the client an instrument %i(in% la!"er the %ift unless
the la!"er is related to the client
Attorne& drafts his mother6s will7 whereb& she lea*es e*er&thing to Attorne&. This is %ermissible under
the !odel Rules. 8owe*er7 if Attorne& drafts his best friend6s will7 whereb& the friend lea*es
e*er&thing to Attorne&7 this would *iolate the rules.
c. 2se of lient Information

(1) Fhile California does not ha(e a rule li$e Model Rule 1.8(b) prohibitin% the la!"er4s use of client information
!ithout informed consent#
such acti(ities could be (iolations of the fiduciar" relationship bet!een la!"er and client

A $lient wishes to e3%and his business and rent or lease a s%a$e ne3t door to sa*e on mo*ing $osts. The
law&er $annot lease that s%a$e with the ho%e of subleasing it to the $lient at a %rofit.
2. A$/uiring an Interest in Litigation
a. Jeneral rule#
2a!"er cannot ac<uire proprietar" interest in cause of action
b. .!o limited e3ceptions#
(1) lien to secure le%al fees
(2) contract for contin%ent fee in ci(il cases
:. Ad*an$ing !one& to a lient
a. &nder Model Rule 1.8(e) a la!"er cannot pro(ide financial assistance to a client in connection !ith pendin% or
contemplated liti%ation e3cept to#
(1) to ad(ance costs or e3penses of the liti%ation
(2) pa" on behalf of indi%ent clients
b. CRPC '-210 permits not onl" costs and e3penses to be ad(anced but also permits loans to clients if#
(1) client a%rees to repa" it and it is in !ritin%
'. Business Transa$tions with lients
a. 'our Re/uirements
(1) fair and reasonable to the client
(2) full" disclosed to client in !ritin%
(:) client %i(es !ritten consent
(') client ad(ised to obtain independent counsel
A law&er $annot %a& a $lient who is a $ar dealer 9: for a brand new $ar as the terms are not fair and
Before a law&er $an sell his anti/ue $ar to a $lient who is an anti/ue $ar dealer7 the law&er must gi*e
the $lient an o%%ortunit& to see, inde%endent $ounsel7 e*en if the %ri$e is fair and the $lient has gi*en
written $onsent.
D. Influen$e b& Persons Other Than lient
a. >oth rules permit a la!"er to accept fees from a third part" if#
(1) there is no influence in the la!"er-client relationship
(2) no (iolation of confidentialit"
(:) client pro(ides informed !ritten consent
K. on$urrent or ;oint lients
a. California rules permits a la!"er to represent t!o clients concurrentl"#
e(en if there is actual or potential conflict !ith informed !ritten consent from each client
b. .he Model Rules re<uires that the la!"er#
reasonabl" belief that the conflict !ill not harm either client
.!o clients come into "our office to set up a business. One has the creati(e talent and the other has the business
mana%ement e3perience. .he client !ith creati(e talent has no mone" to in(est in the business but has special e3perience
that is (aluable. .he business mana%er has (enture capital contacts. 6either has formed a business before. Can "ou
represent both clients5
CRPC permits represent clients concurrentl" e(en if there is an actual or potential conflict in interest so lon% as both
parties pro(ide informed !ritten consent. .he representation ma" also be permitted under the Model Rules if la!"er
reasonabl" belie(es that an" potential conflict !ill not harm either client. .his does not re<uire client4s consent !here the
conflict is onl" potential. .he same facts !ill tri%%er both. Fe need to tal$ about different contributions the person brin%s
to the business. Fe need to discuss potential conflicts that !ill arise as neither of them ha(e done this before Ji(en
these discussions ta$e place and there is informed !ritten consent from client under California rules for an" potential
conflict that ma" arise la!"er can represent both clients
?. 'ormer lients or Personal Relationshi%s
a. .he rules are concerned !ith a la!"er#
thro!in% the former client under the bus in fa(or of a ne! client
b. 0f the pre(ious relationship !ith the former client#
!ould substantiall" affect relationship !ith ne! client !e must %i(e !ritten disclosure to ne! client
c. ;actors to consider in re%ards to *substantiall" affect+ include#
(1) loo$ for o(erlap in the la! or facts
(2) loo$ for confidences the la!"er ma" ha(e that ma" help one or hurt the other
(:) !hat !ould former client be upset about

>e certain to use the ri%ht test for the ri%ht client. 0f the <uestion in(ol(es a former client use the *substantiall"
affects+ test and include that proper !ritten disclosure.
d. 1 la!"er ma" not#
drop one client in order to %et a ne! client. .his is the hot potato doctrine
8. Se3ual Relations with lient
a. .he California rules#
do not prohibit se3ual relations bet!een a la!"er and a client but impose a number of safe%uards
(1) .he la!"er ma" not#
(a) re<uire or demand se3ual relations !ith a client as a condition of representation
(b) emplo" coercion intimidation undue influence in enterin% into se3ual relations !ith a client
(c) continue representation of a client !ith !hom he has had se3ual relations if it !ould cause la!"er to
perform le%al ser(ices incompetentl"
b. .his is a personal conflict of interest
(1) 0t is not imputed to entire la! firm. 1nother la!"er at the la! firm can continue the representation.

L. Im%uted 4is/ualifi$ations
a. Law 'irms
(1) 1 sin%le la!"er4s conflict !ill not dis<ualif" the la!"er4s entire firm !hen#
(a) the conflict is due to a personal interest the la!"er has and does not#
1) Personal conflict i.e. se3ual relationships and no present si%nificant ris$
(b) !hen the enem" is hired# the conflict is due to the la!"er4s former representation in the same or substantiall"
related matter either indi(iduall" or !ith a la! firm the la!"er !as formall" associated !ith pro(ided#
1) Mis<ualified la!"er is screened

2) ;ormer client is notified in !ritin%
:) ;ormer client recei(es periodic certifications of compliance
(2) S$reening
Geepin% the dis<ualified la!"er a!a" from client4s files
1 la!"er at "our firm represents 1>C Oil Compan" preparin% franchise contracts for them. =he lea(es "our firm to %o to another
firm. 1fter she lea(es "ou !ant to represent an en(ironmental %roup suin% 1>C Oil Compan" for dama%e to local !ildlife. .he
la!"er !ho left !as the onl" la!"er at "our firm !ho e(er !or$ed on 1>C4s cases. Can "our firm represent the en(ironmental
%roup that !ants to sue 1>C5
-ou can sue 1>C Oil Compan" former client unless it is the same or substantiall" related matter and an" la!"er !ho
remains at the la! firm has confidences about 1>C. ;or same or substantiall" related test !e need to e3amine if there is an
o(erall in facts or la!. ,ere !e ha(e franchise contracts and dama%es to local !ildlife !hich do not appear to be similar or
substantiall" related to one another from the facts presented. 1s for confidences there are none since there is no other
la!"er !ho has confidences so can sue former client.

. Organi+ation as a lient (OL #. .)
1. Two )e& S$enarios
a. Ro%ue emplo"ee - Fhen an officer or emplo"ee is plannin% to or harmin% the corporation
b. Conflict of interest - Fhere the officers or emplo"ees ha(e a different interest from or%ani@ation
2. Rogue -m%lo&ee S$enario
a. .he Model Rules re<uire#
report up to the hi%hest le(el i.e. usuall" the board of directors
(1) 0f this does not !or$ if there is substantial ris$ of harm to the corporation#
re(eal !hat "ou $no! outside the corporation onl" to the e3tent necessar" to stop the harm usuall"
b" callin% a re%ulator" a%enc"
b. California re<uires a la!"er#
to ur%e emplo"ees to reconsider
(1) 0f this does not !or$#
la!"er has a ri%ht and dut" to resi%n in accordance !ith rules
:. 4ifferent Interest S$enario
a. =olution under both rules#
Ma$e sure that the person understands that la!"er represents the or%ani@ation
4. onfidentialit& (OL #. 4.)
1. 4ut& of onfidentialit&
a. 0n California the onl" e3ception to confidentialit"#
Pre(ent a criminal act that is li$el" to result in substantial ris$ of death or bodil" harm. ,o!e(er it is not mandator"
to ma$e the disclosure. 0t is permissi(e.
b. Conditions to this include#
(1) Ma$e a %ood faith effort to dissuade the client
(2) .ell the client that "ou can disclose
c. .he Model Rules are broader allo!in% re(elation !hen#
(1) 2a!"er reasonabl" belie(es disclosure is necessar" to pre(ent death or bodil" harm
(2) .he client has %i(en informed consent to disclose and the disclosure is impliedl" authori@ed to carr" out
(:) secure le%al ad(ice about the la!"er4s compliance !ith the Model Rules
(') /stablish a claim of self defense in a contro(ers" bet!een la!"er and client
(D) Compl" !ith another la! or court order
(K) =ubstantial financial in)ur" throu%h crime or fraud e3ception#
(a) 1 la!"er can re(eal confidences !here the crime or fraud#
is certain to result in substantial in)ur" to the financial interests or propert" of another and in furtherance
of !hich the client has used or is usin% the la!"er. California does not ha(e this e3ception.
d. California has implied e3ceptions to the confidentialit" rule in the follo!in% instances throu%h case la!#
(1) Mut" of confidentialit" does not e3tend to assistin% the client in e(adin% arrest on felon" char%es
(2) Mefendin% actions brou%ht b" the client a%ainst the la!"er
(:) 1ttempts to collect the la!"er4s fees and pre(entin% the client from causin% death or serious bodil" harm !hen
the la!"er disco(ers his intent to do so
2. Attorne&1lient Pri*ilege
a. Fhen an issue arises in(ol(in% crime-fraud#
6o fraud e3ception in ethics la! but e(idence la!s ha(e this e3ception. 1nal"@e both issues. .he la!"er mi%ht
(iolate ethical dut" of confidentialit" to compl" !ith court ordered disclosure for crime-fraud e3ception under
e(idence rules
Nud%e orders disclosure of somethin% because of crime-fraud e3ception under /(idence but "ou learned it as a
confidence. Nud%e is ri%ht on the one hand but "ou learned it as a confidence and there is no e3ception to re(eal it.
Co(er both.
Client is sittin% in "our office and hands "ou a %un sa"in% he used it to $ill the (ictim then lea(es %un !ith "ou and
%oes home. Confidence is protected that he o!ned the %un and used it to $ill (ictim. Can4t )ust $eep the %un
thou%h9 must turn it o(er. Mon4t resol(e it )ust co(er both rules.
=uestion >
1pplicants !ere as$ed to consider se(eral issues arisin% from 2a!"er4s representation of Client for in)uries sustained !hen she
!as hit b" a truc$ dri(en b" Mri(er. 2a!"er and Client ha(e entered into a (alid !ritten contin%enc" fee a%reement for one-third
of the reco(er".
Mri(er offers C1D000 to settle the case but Client does not !ish to settle. 2a!"er has ad(anced CD000 to Client. 2a!"er
thin$s there is little chance of reco(er" if the case dra%s on.
1fter 2a!"er ta$es Client out for an e3pensi(e dinner durin% !hich the" shared t!o bottles of !ine 2a!"er persuades Client to
accept the settlement offer b" a%reein% to %i(e her the net proceeds after his contin%enc" fee deductin% the amounts
ad(anced. 2a!"er distributes the net proceeds to Client as a%reed.
Fhat ethical (iolations if an" has 2a!"er committed5
1pplicants must consider a la!"er4s dut" of lo"alt" to the client in particular !ith respect to la!"er4s actin% in self-interest and a
client4s ri%ht to ma$e decisions.
From the July 2005 California Bar Exam
Contin"eny fees are +alid in California! so lon" as fees are not unonsiona&le. 6ne%third fee a##ears reasona&le. (awyer
an ad+ane ex#enses related to liti"ation for the lient #endin" a fa+ora&le resolution of the ase! so that is not a #ro&lem
here. 'owe+er! there is a onflit of interest in this ase. $he attorney wants his fee and the money ad+aned to the lient for
liti"ation and wants it now while the lient wants to hold out for more. 2n order to "et the lient to a"ree! the lawyer e+en ta0es
the lient out for an ex#ensi+e dinner. / lawyer may not fore the lient to settle! /78 the settlement a##ears to &e indued in
this ase. )o the lawyer has +iolated duty of loyalty to lient &y atin" self%interested and +iolatin" the lient9s ri"hts to ma0e a
deision re"ardin" settlement.
=uestion ?
1pplicants !ere as$ed to consider se(eral issues arisin% from 2a!"er4s representation of Client for in)uries sustained !hen she
!as hit b" a truc$ dri(en b" Mri(er. 2a!"er and Client entered into a (alid !ritten contin%enc" fee a%reement for one-third of
the reco(er".
>ecause Client !as indi%ent 2a!"er orall" a%reed to ad(ance Client4s liti%ation e3penses and lend her C1000 monthl" in li(in%
e3penses that he !ould recoup from the settlement.
Fhat ethical (iolations if an" has 2a!"er committed5
1pplicants must consider permissible fee arran%ements in particular contin%enc" fees and the rules concernin% ac<uirin% an
interest in liti%ation.
From the July 2005 California Bar Exam
:nder &oth the California and Model Rules! a lawyer may ad+ane liti"ation ex#enses to a lient who is indi"ent whih he an
later reou# from the settlement. 'owe+er! under the Model Rules! the lawyer annot ad+ane money for li+in" ex#enses. 'e
an do so in California &ut the a"reement for the li+in" arran"ements must &e in writin" and the lient must a"ree to re#ay it.
'ere it is not in writin" and the lient has not a"reed to re#ay! so the lawyer has a;uired an interest in liti"ation and +iolated
his duty of loyalty to lient.
A. .ithdrawal from Re%resentation (OL #I. A.)
1. !andator& .ithdrawal
a. Fithdra!al is re<uired#
if the la!"er $no!s that continued emplo"ment !ill result in (iolation of the CPRC or =tate >ar 1ct. Model Rule
1.1K(a) mandates !ithdra!al for other (iolations of professional rules and the la!.
b. Fithdra!al is also mandator" !hen the ph"sical or mental condition of the la!"er#
materiall" impairs the la!"er and pre(ents him from performin% representation
c. California adds mandator" !ithdra!al !here the la!"er#
*renders it unreasonabl" difficult+ for him to perform the representation effecti(el".
d. /(en in cases of mandator" !ithdra!al#
.hat the client4s action is !ithout cause and has the purpose to harass 7 fri(olous lit%ation
(1) if there is proceedin% need court permission and e(en then the court ma" not allo! !ithdra!al
(:) =uch considerations include#
dela" or pre)udice
2. Permissi*e .ithdrawal
a. Fithdra!al is permitted !hen#
(1) the client#
(a) insists on presentin% claim or defense not !arranted under la! and that cannot be supported b" %ood
faith ar%ument
(b) see$s to pursue ille%al course of conduct or insists that la!"er pursue ille%al or prohibited conduct or
conduct contrar" to la!"er4s )ud%ment
(c) renders it unreasonabl" difficult for la!"er to represent client
(2) the circumstances are bad for the la!"er i.e. continued emplo"ment li$el" to lead to bar (iolation inabilit" to
!or$ !ith co counsel la!"er4s mental or ph"sical condition is bad client a%rees to !ithdra!al or other %ood
b. /(en !here !ithdra!al is permitted#
the la!"er needs court4s permission
:. Res%onsibilities of .ithdrawing Law&er
a. notice to client
b. time to emplo" other counsel
c. return unearned fees
d. return client fees and files
e. protect client4s interest
B. S$o%e7 Ob0e$ti*e7 and !eans of Re%resentation (OL #I. B.)
1. Two )e& on$e%ts
a. Fhat is fri(olous
b. Fhat is the client4s decision
2. Attorne&6s Obligation
a. .he purpose of the la!suit#
cannot be fri(olous or sole purpose should not be to harass and in)ure
b. 0t is permitted#
(1) to ar%ue for modification or chan%e or e3tension of la!
(2) to e3plain to client the conse<uences of client of fri(olous liti%ation
c. 0n a criminal matter#
to ma$e the prosecution pro(e e(er" element of the crime
:. lient Right
a. Mecisions belon%in% to the client include#
(1) =ettlement or plea bar%ain
(2) Fhether to testif" in defense
(:) Fhether to !ai(e a )ur" trial
b. .he California rules state#
attorne"4s are obli%ated to pass alon% !ritten settlement offers and plea bar%ains
A. @ealous Ad*o$a$& .ithin the Bounds of the Law (OL #II. A.)
1. 1 la!"er ma" not#
a. ad(ise an"one to (iolate an" la! rule or rulin% of a tribunal unless the la!"er belie(es in %ood faith that the la!
rule or rulin% is in(alid
b. cannot brin% a fri(olous la!suit
2. 1 la!"er ma"#
a. test the la!
b. re<uire prosecution to pro(e e(er" element of the crime
c. e3plain conse<uences of the la!
B. The Law&er as a .itness (OL #II. B.)
1. General Rule
CRPC and Model Rule :.?(a) prohibits la!"er from actin% as both ad(ocate and !itness in the same liti%ation matter

2. -3$e%tions
a. &ncontested matter
b. Oalue of le%al ser(ices i.e. to establish dama%es for clients
c. =ubstantial hardship on client
(1) .his is an e3ception under the Model Rules
d. client4s informed !ritten consent
(1) California adds this e3ception
. S%e$ial Res%onsibilit& of Prose$utors (OL #II. .)
1. 1 prosecutor#
a. must not institute char%es !hen he $no!s char%es are not supported b" probable cause
b. must ensure accused has been ad(ised of ri%ht to counsel and %i(en reasonable time to obtain counsel
c. must not see$ to obtain from unrepresented accused !ai(er of trial ri%hts
d. must timel" disclose certain e(idence that !ould miti%ate the defendant or ne%ate %uilt and not subpoena
proceedin% about past or present client
4. Im%artialit& and 4e$orum (OL #II. 4.)
1. Im%ro%er Influen$e on ;udges
a. 6ot %i(e the %ift to )ud%e unless )ud%e is related
b. 0t is alri%ht to ma$e campai%n contributions
c. 6o communication !ith the )ud%e unless it is in open court !ith consent of other counsel in presence of all other
counsel in !ritin% !ith cop" to other counsel and in e3 parte matters
2. Ex Parte ommuni$ations with ;urors
a. Model Rule :.D prohibits a la!"er from#
(1) see$in% to influence a )uror or prospecti(e )uror
(2) communicatin% e3 parte !ith a )uror durin% proceedin%s
(:) cannot harass after trial
b. 1 la!"er must#
re(eal improper conduct to the court promptl"
:. Prohibited onta$t with .itnesses
a. 1 la!"er is forbidden#
from offerin% to induce an" !itness to testif" or bribe them
b. 1 la!"er ma"#
pa" reasonable e3penses but cannot be contin%ent on content of testimon"
-. ondu$t in the ourse of Litigation (OL #II. -.)
1. 4ut& to -3%edite Litigation
a. California prohibits and criminali@es !illful dela" of a client4s suit for the la!"er4s o!n %ain. Model Rule :.2 sa"s
la!"er must ma$e reasonable efforts to e3pedite liti%ation
2. Pursuing 'ri*olous or #e3atious Litigation
a. la!"er has a dut" to brin% onl" le%al or )ust claims and defenses and ma" not file or pursue le%al actions or tactics
for corrupt moti(es
. Testimon& and -*iden$e
a. cannot suppress conceal or destro" e(idence
'. 'airness to O%%osing Part& and ounsel
a. 1 la!"er cannot tric$ hide somethin% from or cheat their opponent#
(1) .ric$#
Mo not assert personal $no!led%e
(2) ,ide#
Mo not obstruct or hide e(idence
(:) Cheat#
Mo not $no!in%l" ma$e fri(olous disco(er" re<uests fail to obe" the tribunal
D. Inad*ertent 4is$losure
a. 0f a la!"er inad(ertentl" recei(es confidential documentation#
,e must notif" the sender and cannot use it
'. 'raud or Per0ur& (OL #II. '.)
1. 'alse Statements to Tribunal
a. Jeneral rule#
California and MPR/ !ill impose sanctions for concealment of material facts and false statements of fact to tribunal

b. &nder the Model Rules there is a limited e3ception#
Mut" to tell the tribunal if the testimon" if la!"er $no!s the e(idence or testimon" is false
c. California instead adopts a *loo$ the other !a"+ approach. &nder this approach attorne"s must#
(1) a(oid !illfull" procurin% another person to commit per)ur"
(2) refrain from line of <uestionin% on !hich he $no!s the client intends to lie
(:) not offer false e(idence in either criminal or ci(il proceedin% !hich is a felon"
-ou represent Mennis !ho is char%ed !ith a crime. Mennis and his mother ha(e created an alibi that Mennis !as home !ith
his mother at the time of the crime. Mennis tells "ou his la!"er that he and his mother are l"in% and that he !as not !ith her.
Can "ou <uestion Mennis at the trial5 Can "ou <uestion his mother5
&nder Model Rules per)ur" or intent to commit per)ur" creates a dut" to tell the tribunal. &nder CRPC there is a *loo$
the other !a" approach+ !hen faced !ith the same conflictin% dut" of confidentialit" to client and dut" of candor to the
court. &nder CRPC the la!"er must simpl" a(oid <uestionin% the client and a(oid !illfull" procurin% the testimon" of
another person !ho intends to commit per)ur". ,o!e(er Mennis has a ri%ht to testif" so the la!"er cannot refuse to call
Mennis to the stand. .here is no such ri%ht for Mennis4 mother. =o under California rules la!"er must <uestion Mennis
but a(oid the line of <uestionin% that !ould enable Mennis to commit per)ur".
2. andor Toward the Tribunal
a. 2a!"er ma" not intentionall" mis<uote to a tribunal the lan%ua%e of a boo$ statute or le%al decision or cite as
authorit" a decision that has been o(erruled b" statute
b. 1 la!"er ma" not#
mislead the court about authorit"
(1) .he Model Rules#
disclose controllin% ad(erse controllin% authorit"
(2) 0n California#
same rules implied throu%h case la!
c. Model Rule :.: states that a la!"er ma" not $no!in%l"#
(1) do not lie to court
(2) do not mislead
(:) do not offer false e(idence
G. ommuni$ations in ourse of Re%resentation (OL #II. G.)
1. Trial Publi$it&
a. California rules prohibit a la!"er from ma$in% a media statement#
if there is a substantial li$elihood that it !ould result in material pre)udice
b. 1 la!"er ma" ma$e media statements#
if la!"er needs to protect the client from undue pre)udice of recent publicit" as lon% as la!"er did not start it
c. -3$e%tionsI1 la!"er ma" state#
(1) .he claim offense defense identit" of the people
(2) 0nformation that is in the public record
(:) 0n(esti%ation is in pro%ress and !arnin% of dan%er of persons in(ol(ed
(') =chedulin% or result of liti%ation
(D) Re<uest for assistance in %ettin% e(idence
8. ommuni$ations with Third Parties (OL #II. 8.)
1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others Generall&
a. .he Model Rules prohibit a la!"er from#
(1) use means that ha(e no substantial purpose other than to embarrass dela" or burden third part"9 or
(2) use methods to obtain e(idence that (iolate a person4s le%al ri%hts
An attorne& $annot tell a witness that the attorne& has si3 other %eo%le who saw a street light turn red
if the attorne& does not a$tuall& ha*e them7 or if the& did not a$tuall& sa& the& saw the light turn red.
b. &nder California >PP Code Q K0K8#
use onl" means consistent !ith the truth.
2. ommuni$ations with Re%resented Parties
a. California and Model rules prohibit a la!"er from communicatin% !ith a part" the la!"er $no!s is represented b"
another la!"er in a matter about the sub)ect matter of the representation !ithout the permission of the represented
part"4s counsel or as authori@ed b" la!
2a!"er is representin% Client in a di(orce case. Client4s spouse has her o!n la!"er. Client4s spouse lo(es social net!or$in%
sites. 2a!"er %oes onto the sites and as$s Client4s spouse to be a *friend+ !hich lets him see personal con(ersations and
information about Client4s spouse and lets him e3chan%e short messa%es !ith Client4s spouse. 0s 2a!"er (iolatin% ethics rules5
>oth California and Model Rules prohibit the la!"er from communication !ith a part" that the la!"er $no!s is represented
b" another la! in the sub)ect natter of representation !ithout the e3press permission of counsel. /mail social net!or$in% is
communication !ith a client. .he la!"er is also misleadin% the third part" b" not re(ealin% his identit"
:. ommuni$ations with 2nre%resented Persons
a. &nder the Model Rule#
,a(e to re(eal role as ad(ocate and cannot su%%est that la!"er is impartial
b. Fhile California does not ha(e a similar rule#
6o e3press rule but !ill not permit this beha(ior
'. Threatening harges
a. California rules#
Cannot threaten criminal administrati(e or disciplinar" char%es but can threaten ci(il char%es
-ou cannot threaten to report an attorne" for ethics (iolations in order to obtain a le%al malpractice settlement.
I. Other Roles of the Law&er (OL #II. I.)
1. Primar& Rule
C1 does not contain e3press rules but under the Model Rules a la!"er must e3ercise independent professional
)ud%ment and render candid ad(ice. 0f actin% as a mediator ma$e sure the parties understand that "ou do not represent
A. Re%orting Professional !is$ondu$t of Others (OL #III. A.)
1. &nder the Model Rules a la!"er !ho $no!s that another la!"er has committed a (iolation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct !hich raises a substantial <uestion as to the honest" and fitness of an attorne" has an obli%ation to report
a. Im%ortant -3$e%tions
(1) Must ha(e actual $no!led%e of (iolation
(2) 6o obli%ation to report if attorne"-client confidence is onl" !a" that the la!"er $no!s of the (iolation
Attorne& wants ad*i$e about whether or not the&6*e *iolated the rules7 so the& go to another law&er
and e3%lains it. This is an attorne&1$lient $onfiden$e.
2. &nder California rules#
6o e3press dut" to report misconduct of other la!"ers or )ud%es. 2a!"ers ha(e to report their o!n misconduct i.e. three
or more malpractice suits !ithin 12 months entr" of )ud%ment for fraud breach of fiduciar" dut" ne%li%ence )udicial
sanctions o(er a C1000 indictment char%in% felon" con(iction professional discipline
B. 2nauthori+ed Pra$ti$e of Law (OL #III. B.)
1. 2a!"ers are onl" permitted#
to practice !here the" are licensed
2. 1 la!"er cannot#
aide others in unauthori@ed practice of la!
Permittin% a parale%al to si%n "our name or !or$ in "our name !ithout actuall" authori@in% them or bein% there.
:. 1 la!"er ma" hire a disbarred attorne". .he hirin% attorne" must#
%i(e !ritten notification to the bar
a. .he disbarred attorne"#
must not act as a la!"er else there is &P2 problem
. Pro Bono .or, (OL #III. .)
1. >oth rules#
6o re<uirement but encoura%ement
2. -our obli%ations to the client#
all ordinar" ethics and duties are tri%%ered for nonpa"in% clients
4. Grou% Legal Ser*i$es Organi+ations (OL #III. 4.)
1. .he rules permit#
ser(in% in le%al ser(ices or%ani@ations
=uestion :
1pplicants !ere as$ed to anal"@e issues arisin% from 1le34s representation of >oo$er and his hirin% of Male a recentl"
disbarred attorne". 1le3 a recentl"- licensed attorne" !ith a solo la! practice !as contacted b" >oo$er a colle%e friend !ho is
a successful publisher. >oo$er as$ed 1le3 to perform the le%al !or$ to form a partnership bet!een >oo$er and Clare a
creati(e !riter of boo$s for children. 0n a brief meetin% !ith >oo$er and Clare 1le3 a%reed to represent both of them and set up
the partnership for a fee of CD000. 1le3 had no e3perience !ith formin% partnerships so he hired Male as a parale%al at a
!a%e of C2D0 an hour. 1lthou%h Male had no parale%al trainin% he had decades of e3perience in la! practice includin% the
formation of partnerships. 1le3 notified the =tate >ar about hirin% Male and disclosed Male4s in(ol(ement and disbarred status
to both >oo$er and Clare. Male spent four hours on his o!n preparin% the partnership documents and meetin% !ith >oo$er and
Clare about them. 1le3 paid Male C1000 for his !or$. 1le3 spent a total of t!o hours on the partnership matter includin% the
initial meetin% !ith >oo$er and Clare readin% the partnership documents in order to learn about partnerships and a final
meetin% to ha(e >oo$er and Clare si%n the documents.
Fhat ethical (iolations if an" has 1le3 committed5 1ns!er accordin% to California and 1>1 authorities.
1pplicants must consider a la!"er4s dut" of lo"alt" and confidentialit" !hen representin% multiple clients as !ell as a la!"er4s
dut" of competence the unauthori@ed practice of la! and issues re%ardin% fees.
From the July 200< California Bar Exam
:nder /B/ rules! lawyers may not re#resent multi#le #arties who may ha+e an atual or #otential onflit of interest unless the
lawyer reasona&ly &elie+es that the onflit won9t hurt the lient. $here is no suh rule under California ethis! &ut the lient
must &e informed of #otential or atual onflit of interest and "i+e written informed onsent. /lex has failed to do so in this
ase &y not ex#lainin" the onflitin" issues that may arise for Boo0er and Clare in formin" a #artnershi#.
(awyers may not en"a"e in unauthori3ed #ratie of law. /lex has en"a"ed in :-( &y hirin" 8ale! a dis&arred attorney! to do
wor0 that "oes &eyond lerial or administrati+e! into atual #ratie of law. E+en with written notifiation to the state and
#arties! 8ale is en"a"in" in :-(! and thus /lex is lia&le for :-( as his #rini#al.
/ lawyer must not re#resent lients in matters where he is not om#etent. 'ere! /lex is not om#etent a&out #artnershi# laws
so he should ha+e refused to ae#t the ase or "ain om#etene. 'e definitely should not ha+e hired a dis&arred attorney to
do the wor0= $his is not the way to "et om#etent. By hirin" the dis&arred attorney! he is +iolatin" duty of om#etene under
&oth /B/ and CR-C.
Finally! /B/ rules do not #ermit fee s#littin" outside of law firms unless the s#lit is #ro#ortional! the lient onsents in writin"
and the fee is reasona&le. California does not ha+e #ro#ortionality re;uirement &ut does re;uire lient to ha+e informed written
onsent. /lex did not ma0e these arran"ements in this ase when he "a+e 8ale >?000 for ser+ies. 7ot #ro#ortional under the
/B/ and no informed written onsent under &oth /B/ and CR-C rules. 'e is thus! in +iolation of &oth /B/ and CR-C.
=uestion A
1pplicants !ere as$ed to anal"@e issues arisin% from 2a!"er4s representation of Paul !ho suffered head in)uries !hen struc$
b" e<uipment at Mino!orld the local amusement par$. 2a!"er and Mino!orld4s attorne" a%ree to set a deposition date for
Mino!orld4s C;O in the ne3t L0 da"s. 2a!"er attends a pass-holder-onl" e(ent at Mino!orld at the in(itation of his brother-in-
la! !here the C;O leads a tour and ma$es a presentation. 2a!"er does not !ear a name ta% and does not introduce himself
to the C;O but as$s <uestions about Mino!orld4s finances and ma$es notes about his responses.
Fhat ethical duties if an" has 2a!"er breached5
1pplicants must consider a la!"er4s dut" of fairness to opposin% parties and to persons represented b" counsel. 1lso the
a(oidance of ma$in% material misstatements of fact or omission should be considered.
From the July 200. California Bar Exam
(awyer may not ommuniate with the lient of a re#resented #arty in a matter that is su&4et matter of liti"ation without
onsent of the other ounsel or law. 'ere! lawyer has +iolated duty of fairness to the other #arty &y ommuniatin" with the
o##osin" #arty in a matter that is the rux of the urrent liti"ation without see0in" onsent of the o##osin" #arty9s ounsel.
Further! lawyer has misled 8inoworld &y not re+ealin" his identity! whih is a material misre#resentation or omission of fat.