Free MPRE Exam Flashcards

(1) The lawyer reasonably believes competent, diligent representation of each client is possible; (2) the representation isn't prohibited by law; (3) the clients aren't asserting claims against each other in the same litigation; and (4) each client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

No. Direct representation of adverse parties in the same litigation or proceeding is a non-waivable conflict — no amount of disclosure or informed consent can cure it.

Terms must be fair and reasonable and fully disclosed in writing in a way the client can understand; the client must be advised in writing to seek independent counsel; and the client must give informed consent in a signed writing.

Generally no, but exceptions exist: a lawyer may advance court costs and litigation expenses with repayment contingent on the outcome, and a lawyer representing an indigent client may pay court costs and litigation expenses on the client's behalf (no repayment required, not limited to pro bono). Separately, Rule 1.8(e)(3) allows modest humanitarian gifts only in pro bono/nonprofit/clinic representation.

Each client must give informed consent in a signed writing after the lawyer discloses the existence and nature of ALL the claims or pleas involved and each client's share — a blanket 'whatever the others agree to' consent is not enough.

No, prospective limits on malpractice liability are barred unless the client is independently represented in making that agreement. An EXISTING malpractice claim may only be settled with an unrepresented client if advised in writing to get independent counsel and given a reasonable chance to do so.

The new matter must be the SAME or SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED to the former representation, AND the new client's interests must be materially adverse to the former client's — absent the former client's informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Timely screen the lawyer from any participation in (and fee share from) the matter, and give prompt written notice to the former client. Screening cures imputed former-client conflicts on lateral moves — it does not cure a lawyer's own current-client (Rule 1.7) conflicts.

Legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Whether to plead guilty, whether to waive a jury trial, and whether to testify. The lawyer controls tactical and strategic means, but these fundamental rights belong to the client.

Rule 1.3 requires reasonable diligence and promptness; a single instance of ordinary negligence (e.g., one missed deadline) is not itself an ethics violation, but a pattern of neglect or a client-harming failure to act is.

Reasonably keep the client informed about the status of the matter, and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. The lawyer must also consult about the means used to accomplish objectives when necessary.

Domestic relations matters, where the fee is contingent on securing a divorce or on the amount of alimony, support, or property settlement, and criminal defense representation.

Continued representation would violate the rules of professional conduct or other law; the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the ability to represent the client; or the client discharges the lawyer.

The client fails to pay fees after reasonable warning, the client insists on a repugnant or fundamentally disagreeable course of action, or continuing would impose an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer — withdrawal still requires reasonable notice and steps to protect the client's interests.

Take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal — even if that means revealing information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. This duty continues until the proceeding concludes.

Yes — if it is directly adverse controlling legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction and opposing counsel has not disclosed it, the lawyer must disclose it to the tribunal, even though it damages their client's position.

When there is a good-faith, nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A basis in law and fact is required, but novel arguments against precedent are permitted.

A lawyer may pay a witness's reasonable expenses and reasonable compensation for lost time, and may pay an expert witness a reasonable fee for study and testimony — but may never pay any witness a fee contingent on the content of testimony or the case's outcome.

A lawyer may not make an extrajudicial statement they know or should know will be publicly disseminated and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding — but stating information already in the public record generally falls within the safe harbor.

Refrain from prosecuting a charge not supported by probable cause, and timely disclose to the defense all evidence or information known to negate guilt or mitigate the offense (a Brady-type duty) — including newly discovered evidence of innocence after conviction.

No. Ex parte communication with a juror or prospective juror during the proceeding is barred unless authorized by law or court order, regardless of the lawyer's intent.

When the lawyer knows another lawyer has committed a violation that raises a substantial question about that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice — subject to Rule 1.6 confidentiality limits.

Harassment or discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics (e.g., race, sex, religion, disability) in conduct related to the practice of law.

Admission pro hac vice for a specific proceeding, and temporary practice reasonably related to the lawyer's home-jurisdiction practice (arbitration/mediation and in-house counsel work are also carved out).

Rule 5.1 covers supervision of OTHER LAWYERS in the firm; Rule 5.3 applies the same standard to NONLAWYER assistants (paralegals, staff). A supervisor is responsible for a subordinate's violation if they ordered or ratified it, or knew of it with authority to act and failed to take remedial measures.

The rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless that tribunal's rules provide otherwise. For all other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred govern, unless the predominant effect is in a different jurisdiction.

Rule 1.6 covers ALL information relating to the representation, from any source, and survives the client's death and the end of representation — far broader and longer-lasting than privilege, which covers only confidential attorney-client communications.

Seven exceptions (e.g., preventing death or bodily harm, preventing or rectifying client fraud, securing ethics advice, self-defense, complying with law, and detecting lateral-move conflicts) — all are PERMISSIVE ('may reveal'), not mandatory, unless other law or a court order independently compels disclosure.

No. It requires a showing that the specific communication was made in furtherance of an ongoing or future crime or fraud — it is not a mechanical rule, and it defeats evidentiary privilege, not the separate ethical duty of confidentiality.

An attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal theories, and trial-preparation materials — protection that can extend to documents prepared in anticipation of litigation even without a client communication.

No — per the Rules' own Scope/Preamble, a rule violation does not itself create a civil cause of action or a presumption of breach, but it may be admitted as evidence of the applicable standard of care in a separate malpractice suit.

Duty (arising from the attorney-client relationship), breach of that duty, causation (the breach caused the harm, often requiring a 'case within a case'), and damages.

The ordinary skill, knowledge, and care commonly possessed by a reasonably competent lawyer in similar circumstances — not perfection, and not a guarantee of a favorable outcome.

Yes — the two consequences are independent and parallel. Discipline addresses the profession's regulatory interest; malpractice compensates the client's actual harm. One does not substitute for or preclude the other.

The lawyer may refer to moral, economic, social, and political considerations relevant to the client's situation, in addition to the law, when giving candid advice.

That the lawyer is NOT representing them; if the party appears not to understand the lawyer's role, the lawyer must explain the difference between a neutral and a lawyer who represents a client.

The organization itself, acting through its authorized constituents — not any individual officer, director, or employee. If a constituent's action threatens substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer must act in the organization's best interest, which can include reporting up to its highest authority.

Informed consent from the appropriate government agency, confirmed in writing. Without it, the new firm can still avoid imputed disqualification through timely screening, no fee-sharing from the matter, and written notice to the agency.

Any communication containing a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or one that omits a fact necessary to keep the statement, taken as a whole, from being materially misleading.

Advertising reaches the general public and is broadly permitted (the lawyer may pay reasonable costs). Solicitation is a targeted, live, real-time approach to a specific known individual motivated by pecuniary gain, and in-person or live-phone solicitation is barred — except toward family, other lawyers, or people with a prior professional relationship to the lawyer.

Removed one — written, recorded, and electronic solicitations no longer need to be labeled 'Advertising Material.' Before 2018, that label was mandatory on the outside of the envelope or at the start of the communication.

A person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter — unless that lawyer consents or the communication is authorized by law or a court order.

Stating or implying that the lawyer is disinterested; failing to correct a known misunderstanding about the lawyer's role; and giving the person any legal advice beyond suggesting they obtain their own counsel, if their interests may conflict with the lawyer's client.

Deposit them into a separate trust (IOLTA) account, never commingled with the lawyer's own funds; promptly notify the client; and promptly deliver funds the client is entitled to receive.

The disputed portion must be kept separate in the trust account until the dispute is resolved; any undisputed portion must still be promptly distributed to the party entitled to it.

Canon 1 — independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary; Canon 2 — impartial and competent performance of duties; Canon 3 — minimizing conflicts from extrajudicial activities; Canon 4 — refraining from inappropriate political and campaign activity.

Personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or the party's lawyer, and having a family member (or a person within the third degree of relationship) who is a party, lawyer, or material witness — among other grounds like a financial interest in the matter or prior service as counsel in it.

Yes, for most grounds — parties and lawyers may agree, on the record and without the judge present, to waive disqualification after full disclosure. The one exception: disqualification based on the judge's PERSONAL BIAS is never subject to remittal.

No — Rule 6.1 is purely aspirational; failing to meet it triggers no discipline. Rule 6.2, by contrast, is a real limit: a lawyer may decline a court APPOINTMENT only for good cause, such as a rule/law violation, unreasonable financial burden, or a client or cause so repugnant it would impair the relationship.