FINAL EXAMINATION
PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
1.
You
have two (2) hours to complete this exam.
2.
This
is a closed book exam. Students may not
use any outside materials or confer with each other during the exam.
3.
The
exam consists of two essay questions. Time limits are suggested for each
question. The overall value of each
question is also indicated.
4.
Please
write your responses in the blue books provided. If you are using exam software, complete the
required information on the disk and remember to save the exam to the disk.
5.
Write
your exam number on your exam envelope.
Put your correct class section and student exam number at the top of
this page, each page of questions and each blue book. Do not use your name, student ID
number or Social Security number on any exam materials.
6.
Apply
the California Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable provisions of the
California Business & Professions Code and the American Bar Association
(ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct to the examination’s factual
situations.
7.
In
each, identify the issues, apply the applicable authorities and identify the
differences, if any, between the analysis or result obtained under the
8.
At
the conclusion of the exam, turn in all exam materials including
blue books, computer disks, scratch paper and the exam in the envelope provided
and submit them to the exam proctor. Do
not seal the envelope. Students who
do not return all exam materials at the end of the exam may not be graded.
PART I
Time: 1 HOUR (60
minutes)
Value = 50%
Albert is an attorney originally admitted to practice in
Albert performs so well for Louise that Louse invites Albert to become a partner in her law firm. Louise renames her firm and prepares business cards and stationery that contain the following:
The
Defenders
Specialists Certified in
Criminal Defense
Satisfaction Guaranteed
Call 1-800-AND-WIN$
Albert starts hanging out at the local county jailhouse. He hands his business card out to jailhouse visitors. He also recruits and pays Len, a law student working for the District Attorney’s office, to obtain and give to him the list of all recent bookings into the jail. The list is supposed to be confidential. But Albert uses it to send his business card to new jail inmates upon their being booked into jail, with a message to call him.
On her way to visit Chuck, recently jailed for drunk driving, Zandra sees Albert and recognizes him from years ago when they dated. Zandra and Albert talk about “old times.” Zandra then invites Albert to join her in her visit to Chuck, which Albert does. He introduces himself to Chuck and offers to defend him. Chuck says that the public defender has already agreed to defend him. Albert says that he can do much better than the public defender. Chuck agrees to work with Albert. Chuck then admits to Albert and Zandra that he was drunk when the police arrested him. He asks Zandra to say she was with him at the time of the arrest and that he was not drunk. Albert says that this is a great idea and they should all work together to make it look like the police are lying.
Discuss the conduct of the above individuals under the
1 HOUR (60 minutes)
Value = 50%
Albert then says he needs $5,000 to start work. Chuck says he has no money, but Zandra agrees to pay it. Zandra and Albert leave. Albert then suggests to Zandra that the $5,000 cost will be less if Zandra renews her old romantic relationship with him. Zandra then gives Albert $1,000 and agrees to meet him later. Albert immediately pockets the money.
At the hearing on Chuck’s case, Albert enters a “not guilty” plea for Chuck. Albert also calls a press conference and announces that his client is “innocent” and is being “railroaded” by a corrupt police force. He calls for a corruption investigation of the police and demands that his client’s “good name” be cleared of wrongdoing.
Albert also calls District Attorney Dilly, who is assigned to prosecute the case. Albert explains his defense theory: i.e., that Zandra was present at all times and that the police have fabricated the whole thing. DA Dilly says she wants to interview Zandra to see if this is true. Albert then asserts that he represents Zandra and Chuck both and that they will soon be filing claims against the DA’s office and the police unless the criminal charges are withdrawn. Dilly hangs up on Albert.
Albert updates Louise on all of this. Louise says she is uncomfortable with Albert representing Zandra as Louise confines her law practice to defending men whom she believes do not get fairly treated in the justice system. Albert agrees to terminate his representation of Zanda and concentrate on Chuck. Louise accepts this.
DA Dilly locates Zandra and interviews her, without Albert knowing. Zandra confirms the defense theory. Dilly then calls Albert and offers to reduce the charge from drunk driving to reckless diving. Albert rejects the offer and says that only complete exoneration will be acceptable. Dilly then proceeds to prepare the case for trial.
At trial, Albert presents Chuck and Zandra as witnesses. They each testify supporting the defense theory they developed. DA Dilly presents the prosecution. She also takes the stand herself and testifies that she believes Chuck and Zandra are lying, and that the jury should not believe them.
Discuss the conduct of the above individuals under the