Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) Exams 4 – Sample

Judge Jackman is a full-time judge in State A. Her father lives in a retirement home in State B. Judge Jackman’s father told her on the telephone that several of his friends in the retirement home had employed attorney Abbott to write wills for them, that in each will attorney Abbott had included a bequest to himself, and that each bequest was approximately .5% of the estimated total value of the person’s probable estate. The friends told Judge Jackman’s father that they did not really want to leave Abbott anything; they had assumed it was merely a matter of routine, a part of the lawyer’s compensation for drafting the will. Attorney Abbott is admitted to practice in State B, but not in State A. Judge Jackman did not talk personally with any of her father’s friends, but she believes that her father’s rendition of the story is entirely accurate. Would it be proper for Judge Jackman to communicate directly with attorney Abbott about the matter, and if that does not satisfy her, to communicate with the attorney disciplinary authority in State B about the matter’?

Lawyer Long, three years out of law school, had never set foot in a courtroom. Long was on the board of directors of the Community Nursery School (“CNS”), a nonprofit preschool for underprivileged children. One of the CNS teachers was charged with felony child abuse for allegedly molesting three of the CNS pupils. After conducting its own careful investigation, the CNS board of directors concluded that the criminal charge was totally unfounded, and the board resolved to provide defense counsel for the teacher. Long volunteered to do the work without a fee. A few days before the trial was to begin, Long got cold feet and became convinced that he was incompetent to serve as the teacher’s trial counsel. He asked the trial judge for permission to withdraw. After thoroughly questioning Long about his preparation for trial, the judge said: Mr. Long, I understand your anxiety, but you are perfectly competent to handle this case. Your motion to withdraw is denied; I will postpone the trial for seven days to allow you to complete your preparation. Now go do your job. Instead of doing what the judge ordered, Long advised the teacher that he would not defend her. He handed her all of the files in the case and advised her to retain another lawyer. Is Long subject to discipline?

During a brief recess in jury deliberations in a criminal case, juror Jimmerson telephoned a friend of hers, attorney Aulet, and asked for help in understanding a legal concept that was puzzling the jury–the meaning of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Aulet explained the term as best he could, given the circumstances and shortness of time. Is Aulet subject to discipline?

Duffy graduated from law school, but he never took the bar examination and was never admitted to practice. He works as an investigator and paralegal for the law firm of Schnell & Gao, a professional corporation. Which of the following statements are true? I. On Duffy’s recommendation, one of Duffy’s friends retained lawyer Gao to represent her as plaintiff in a personal injury case. It would be proper for Schnell & Gao to pay Duffy 10% of its fee in the case as compensation for the referral. II. Lawyer Schnell frequently assigns Duffy to draft wills for Schnell’s estate planning clients. Schnell supervises Duffy’s work, revises Duffy’s drafts, and is ultimately responsible for the final product. Schnell is subject to discipline for assisting a nonlawyer to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. III. Schnell & Gao established a retirement plan that is funded partly by legal fees earned by the Finn�s lawyers. The firm may include Duffy as a beneficiary of the retirement plan. IV. Schnell & Gao established a stock option plan to compensate its personnel for hard work. The options allow recipients to purchase shares of stock in the law firm at a reduced price. It would be proper for Duffy to acquire stock in the firm through the stock option plan.

Client Chason hired lawyer Lucero to do the legal work in connection with a complex public securities offering. Lucero agreed to do the work for $160 per hour. Lucero did a great deal of legal research, prepared numerous memoranda of fact and law, and drafted most of the documents needed for the public offering. At that point, Chason became angry with Lucero for no apparent mason and fired him. Chason paid Lucero at the agreed rate for the work Lucero had done, and Chason demanded that Lucero turn over to him the papers that Lucero had prepared, including the legal and fact memoranda and the document drafts. What papers must Lucero turn over to Chason?

Judge Jeffery serves on a State A trial court that has nine other judges. Her husband, Horace, is a life insurance salesman for the Amalgamated Life Insurance Company. Amalgamated is occasionally a litigant in the court on which Judge Jeffery sits. Every year Amalgamated runs a national sales contest in which the person who sells the most life insurance during the year receives a valuable prize. Horace has just learned that he is the winner this year. The prize is an all-expense-paid vacation in Europe for two people. May Judge Jeffery urge Horace to accept the prize and take her on the European vacation?

Seymour is applying for admission to the State A Bar. When Seymour was in high school, he and his parents lived in State B, next door to attorney Azevedo. Azevedo is admitted to practice in State B, but not in State A. Seymour seemed to be a promising lad, and Azevedo was disappointed to learn that during his senior year in high school he was convicted of burglarizing a liquor store. After serving his sentence, Seymour went to college and later to law school. Azevedo has had no contact with Seymour since his high school years, but so far as Azevedo knows, Seymour has not done anything since high school that would reflect badly on his character. The Bar of State A sent Azevedo a routine questionnaire, asking a series of questions about Seymour’s character. Azevedo does not know whether Seymour disclosed the burglary conviction on his bar application, and she does not know where to contact him to find out. How should Azevedo respond to the questionnaire?

Attorney Anderson received her law degree two years ago from Flatland College of Law and Technical Sciences. Last summer she attended a three-day trial practice seminar at the Harvard Law School. During her brief career, she has tried five cases–two jury trials and three bench trials. She won both of the jury trials and two of the three judge trials. Anderson placed an ad under the subject heading “Trial Lawyers” in the classified pages of the local phonebook. Her ad states in relevant part: Arlene Anderson, Trial Attorney Harvard Trained/Never Lost a Jury Trial/Which of the following make Anderson subject to discipline? I. Placing her ad under the heading “Trial Lawyers” in the phonebook classified pages. II. Describing herself as a “Trial Attorney” in her ad. III. Describing herself as “Harvard Trained” in her ad. IV. Stating “never lost a jury trial” in her ad.

Two years ago, Weaver obtained a divorce from her husband Hubbard in State A. The court awarded Weaver custody of the three children and ordered Hubbard to pay Weaver $3,000 per month in child support and alimony payments. The lawyer who represented Weaver in the divorce proceedings died. Hubbard failed to make the $3,000 payments for 17 months in a row. Weaver ran out of money and in desperation hired attorney Avilla to represent her in a proceeding to collect the past due payments from Hubbard. State A has no law or court rule that requires the loser to pay the winner’s attorney fees in domestic relations matters. Because Weaver had no money to pay Avilla a regular fee, Avilla agreed to do the work on a contingent fee basis for 10% of whatever amount Weaver was ultimately able to recover. Avilla won an award for Weaver of the entire amount due ($51,000), and by tracking down and attaching Hubbard’s secret bank account, he got the full amount paid to Weaver. He then sent Weaver a bill for his share, $5,100. Is Avilla subject to discipline?

Lawyer Lohman (age 34) regularly represented client Cruikshank (age 78) in matters relating to the investment of Cruikshank’s considerable wealth. Cruikshank told Lohman that he wanted to put $500,000 into a sound, income-producing investment. Lohman suggested that the two of them pool their money and talent and buy an attractive new apartment house. Lohman would put up $75,000 and do the legal work, and Cruikshank would put up $500,000 and serve as the live-in manager of the apartment house. Cruikshank enthusiastically agreed to the arrangement and told Lohman to draw up the papers. Lohman drafted an agreement between himself and Cruikshank, negotiated the purchase of the apartment house, and drafted a deed from the seller to himself and Cruikshank as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Lohman gave Cruikshank a carefully written explanation of the terms of the transaction, but he forgot to explain the significance of the joint tenancy, i.e., that upon the death of one joint tenant, the property would pass automatically to the other joint tenant. Lohman urged Cruikshank to have an outside lawyer look over the transaction, but Cruikshank said he trusted Lohman and signed all the papers without further ado. Lohman and Cruikshank operated the apartment house successfully for several years, until Cruikshank died at age 83. The executor of Cruikshank’s estate sued Lohman to have the apartment house declared part of Cruikshank’s estate, but the court concluded that the joint tenancy created a gift to Lohman, effective on Cruikshank’s death. Were Lohman’ s actions proper?