Final Examination

Summer 2003
July 17, 2003
Professional Responsibility
Instructor - Robert A. Hawley

Instructions:

1. This is a CLOSED BOOK examination designed to take TWO HOURS.

2. There are TWO QUESTIONS ON THREE PAGES based on an ongoing fact pattern. Time limits are suggested for each question and the time value of each is indicated.

3. Answer the questions in examination "blue books,” including your examination number on every book used and the exam. If you are using Exam Soft, please compute the required information on the disk and remember to save your exam on the disk. Do not use your name, student ID number or Social Security Number on any exam materials.

4. Apply the California Rules of Professional Conduct, relevant provisions of the California Business and Professions Code and the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct to the following factual situations.

5. In each, identify the issues, apply the applicable authorities and identify the differences, if any, between the analysis or result obtained under the California and ABA authorities.

6. At the conclusion of the exam: Turn in all "blue books," computer disks, scratch paper and the exam in the envelope and submit them to the proctor. Do not seal the envelope.

1.
(60 Minutes)
(50%)

City Mayor Mary, who happens to be an attorney, is sued in federal court, along with co-defendant the City, by Client Charles, a former City employee, for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Charles is represented by Lawyer Ligi. Mary, before being elected Mayor, was a law partner of Ligi’s. Mary currently has no relationship with Ligi or Ligi’s law firm. But she does frequently refer legal business to the firm, including the City’s legal business. Ligi and Mary have an understanding that Mary gets 5% of what Ligi earns in fees on any of the business Mary refers to Ligi and her firm.

Ligi represents Charles on a contingent fee basis, the terms of which are casually understood to be that Charles must pay Ligi 50% of any settlement had before trial and 60% of any settlement or recovery had during or after trial. Ligi is covering all costs, the repayment of which are to come out of any settlement in the case. Ligi is also helping Charles pay his personal bills with her own money, as he has been unable to find employment after being terminated by the City and is without an income.

Mayor Mary is represented by the City Attorney Alexis, who is defending both Mary and the City jointly in the matter. Alexis has filed, on behalf of the City and Mary, a motion to dismiss Mary from Charles’ lawsuit on the basis that Mary has no individual liability under the ADEA. Briefing and oral argument has been completed in the case and the parties are awaiting the decision of the court.

Before the court’s decision, Ligi, while doing research in another case, discovers a recent not-yet-published state appellate court opinion which holds that, under state law, City officials like Mary are immune from suits like Charles’ and are entitled to be dismissed as parties from such lawsuits. This is directly contrary to the legal position Ligi argued and briefed before the court.

Curious about whether the City has discovered this new case, Ligi calls Mary. Mary, upset at being sued by her former law partner, reminds Ligi of Ligi’s fraudulent conduct in a case they worked on together when they were partners in the law firm. Mary states that she will refrain from reporting this conduct to the authorities if Ligi dismisses Mary from the case. Ligi, in return, accuses Mary of blackmail and asserts that Ligi will not only continue the age discrimination case against Mary but will amend the complaint to add fraud and punitive damage claims against Mary whether they are warranted or not.

Discuss the conduct of the above individuals under the ABA and California authorities.

2.
(60 Minutes)
(50%)

After this conversation, Mary tells Alexis of Mary’s exchange with Ligi whereupon Alexis writes Ligi as follows:

“Cease all contact with my client. Any further contact with my client will result in a complaint to the State Bar.”

Alexis sends the letter to Ligi with copies to Mary and to Charles to assure that the parties are aware of Ligi’s behavior.

Upon receiving Alexis’ letter, Charles calls Ligi to find out what the letter is about. Ligi dismisses the letter as unimportant but uses the opportunity to tell Charles that he is behind in paying Ligi for legal fees and demands that he pay her $2,500.00 or she will cancel Mary’s deposition which is scheduled for the following week. She also says she needs Charles to pay back the money she has loaned him for his personal expenses.

Charles, taken aback by this, says he can not afford Ligi, wants to terminate her, and demands his file. Ligi replies that he cannot have his file until he pays her what he owes her. She also tells Charles that unless he complies with her demands, she will reveal to Mary and the City what she has learned in representing him to date, i.e., that he is an idiot and the City was wise to fire him! Charles scrapes together $500 and sends it to Ligi who pockets the money.

In light of Charles’ payment, Ligi decides to proceed with Mary’s deposition. But to save costs, Ligi has Paralegal Paul conduct the deposition without Ligi present. Paul was an attorney but resigned from the bar in the face of State Bar disciplinary charges. Ligi employs Paul as a paralegal in the firm and regularly has him handle depositions and court appearances for Ligi.

During the deposition, Mary denies, under oath, that she had any personal involvement in the termination of Charles. Alexis knows, however, that Mary sent a memorandum to the City personnel director recommending that Charles be terminated because he was an “old geezer.” To date, Alexis has hidden this memorandum from Charles and Ligi.

Discuss the conduct of the above individuals under the ABA and California authorities.

THE END