The striving for achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
Navigation

Sign up for Rigos

Get started with your Rigos course today; you won't regret it!

Register for a Course

Rigos in Pictures Rigos in Pictures Rigos in Pictures Rigos in Pictures Rigos in Pictures Rigos in Pictures Rigos in Pictures Rigos in Pictures Rigos in Pictures Rigos in Pictures

MPRE Sample Question

 

RIGOS UNIFORM BAR REVIEW SERIES
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAM (MPRE) REVIEW
CHAPTER 1 Client Relations

 


Client Relations - Competence, Scope of Representation, and Fees
QUESTIONS

1. Lawyer Nancy Negotiator received a call from Mike, who was in jail for possession of an illegal substance. Mike wanted Nancy to bail him out and represent him in the matter. Mike told Nancy he didn't care what Nancy had to do, as long as he was cleared of the charges and maintained his good reputation.

In a pre-trial conference, the prosecutor offered a plea bargain to Nancy - enter a guilty plea to a lesser charge - in exchange for a reduced sentence. Nancy turned down the offer on the spot as she was sure that she could convince the jury not to convict. Unfortunately, Mike was convicted at the trial.

Was it proper for Nancy to reject the plea?
(A) No, because Mike was later convicted.
(B) No, because Nancy did not advise Mike of the plea.
(C) Yes, if Mike would have rejected the plea anyway.
(D) Yes, because Nancy has a duty to advocate zealously for her client.

2.Terry Thief made an appointment to discuss a matter with Deloris Defender. Terry arrived at the lawyer's office in a Porsche she had stolen the previous day. Terry parked the car in the law firm's parking lot. In the meeting with Deloris, Terry freely admitted that she had stolen the Porsche and was selling it to Sally Stripper, who specialized in stripping down stolen vehicles.

Deloris told Terry she owed a $200 fee for the meeting and that she had to pay a $1,000 retainer towards future representation. Terry said she would return later with the money. Terry left the state, but a police spotter reported the stolen Porsche as having been in the law firm's parking lot. An investigator questioned Deloris about the whereabouts of the Porsche and her involvement with the theft.

May Deloris disclose the information given to her by Terry?
(A) No, because the details of the Porsche do not involve a future crime.
(B) No, unless there were criminal charges commenced accusing Terry of theft.
(C) Yes, if the disclosure is necessary to establish a defense on Deloris' behalf.
(D) Yes, if Terry Thief did not pay the $200 fee to Deloris.

3. Olive Optimistic hired Albert Attorney to file a lawsuit for defamation and agreed to pay his standard hourly fee for all time spent. Olive believed her case was worth $500,000. After most of the case was dismissed on summary judgment, Albert strongly recommended that Olive accept the defendant's settlement offer of $50,000. Olive reluctantly accepted, and the defendant paid the $50,000 into Albert's trust account. Albert sent his bill for fees of $30,000 to Olive, who disputed half his bill.

It is proper for Albert to
(A) Give Olive the $50,000 and let her decide how much to pay Albert.
(B) Give Olive $20,000 and transfer $30,000 to his operating account.
(C) Give Olive $20,000, transfer $15,000 to Albert's operating account, and retain $15,000 in the trust account.
(D) Keep the $50,000 in the trust account pending a final resolution of the fee dispute.

4. Attorney represented Joe in a personal injury case against Gary's Bed and Breakfast. Joe had fallen on an icy patch of sidewalk leading to the outdoor hot tub, breaking his wrist. The case hinged on whether Gary knew the sidewalk was icy and was thus negligent in not warning his guests.

Attorney called Gary to the witness stand. Attorney asked Gary, "Isn't it true that you knew the sidewalk was icy?" Gary responded, "No, I didn't know it was icy until I heard Joe fall." "You're lying!" shouted Attorney. "You knew the walk was icy because it had been icy the last three nights. How could you say such a blatant falsehood to me and this court?"

Is Attorney subject to discipline?
(A) Yes, because his shout intimidated the witness.
(B) Yes, because he expressed his personal opinion that Gary was lying.
(C) No, because his shout was a natural reaction to the witness lying.
(D) No, if Attorney could prove that Gary was lying.

5. Larry Lawyer agreed to create a corporation for Shawn Shifty. Shawn told Larry he was going to use the new entity to purchase a bowling alley owned by an estate that was being probated by sitting Judge Grant Anderson, who had been "milking" the estate for five years. Shawn said it was a secret and "don't tell anyone." He further explained that the bowling alley purchase agreement was for $50,000 less than market value, but Shawn had to pay a bank $40,000 to retire the Judge's debt on a new Cadillac. Larry was shocked that a sitting judge would operate in such a manner.

Regarding the duty to report the judge's conduct to the Judicial Commission,
(A) Larry must report the offense because it raises a substantial question about the Judge's fitness for office.
(B) Larry may report the offense because it raises a substantial question about the Judge's fitness for office.
(C) Larry must not report the offense.
(D) Larry may not report the offense even though it raises a substantial question about the Judge’s fitness for office.

6. Jamie Ernest was the state senate majority leader of Evergreen state. A senior member of the Evergreen State Supreme Court had a stroke and upon his doctor's advice resigned effective immediately. Governor Pattie Political owed Senator Ernest many political favors and appointed her to fill the then vacant seat on the state supreme court. The appointment had to be approved by a bipartisan committee established by the state bar association to evaluate judicial appointments.

Jamie appeared before the election committee. Evergreen had an abortion case currently on appeal. One of the questions asked was if she would follow the law allowing abortions even though it conflicted with her personal views. Jamie answered that "the supreme court has recently upheld a case convicting a doctor of homicide who performed an abortion. I would follow that precedent."

Was the remark made by Judge Jamie proper?
(A) Yes, because Judge Jamie did not refer to a matter pending or that might come before her court.
(B) Yes, because Judge Jamie was compelled to testify before the bipartisan committee.
(C) No, because her remarks included statements about a position she would take in a case or controversy.
(D) No, because a judge should not discuss political philosophy.

Last updated on 8/22/2011 4:49:56 PM