UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF LAW
COURSE: LEGAL PROFESSION
FINAL EXAMINATION
Spring 2016
Student Exam No. _______
Law 210, Section 1
Instructor: Steven A. Lewis
INSTRUCTIONS
Open Book: You may use your textbook, a book containing the ABA Model Rules and
Comments, class handouts/slides, any notes you have prepared, and any outline you
have prepared. You may use handouts/slides, notes and outlines only in hard copy.
You may not view electronically stored versions of these materials, and you may not
cut-and-paste from them. You may not consult or otherwise use commercial outlines
during the exam. You may not access the internet during the exam EXCEPT that you
may access the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Comments. You may
access the ABA Model Rules and Comments at:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/mode
l_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_conte
nts.html
Total Time Allowed: 3 Hours
Laptop Users: Create a header in a new Word document that includes your exam
number, course name, instructor name, and semester. Title the document with the
course name, instructor name, and your exam number and save it to your hard drive.
Be sure to format your document with page numbers and double-spacing.
Writers: Write your exam number on the cover of all bluebooks. Write the course name
and instructor’s name on each bluebook. Number your bluebooks to indicate their
order, and state the total number of bluebooks that you are submitting (1 of x, 2 of x,
etc.) Please write only on every other line of the page.
Special Instructions:
1) The exam consists of one problem with three questions. You are required to
answer TWO of the three of the numbered questions posed in the problem.
Label your answers as follows:
a. For question 1, label your answer: Memo 1 (Conflicts)
Page | 1
b. For question 2, label your answer: Memo 2 (State Bar Investigation of
Larry Lawyer)
c. For question 3, label your answer: Memo 3 (State Bar Investigation of
Anna Associate)
2) Please read the entire problem and each of the questions carefully before you
begin to write your answers.
3) Do not waste time writing out the full text of a rule or a comment, or the formal
citation of a case. Instead, limit yourself to referencing the relevant portion of the
rule or comment, or the name of the case.
4) Assume the matter you are handling is in a jurisdiction (State 51) that has
adopted the ABA Model Rules and Comments without any additions, deletions
or modifications. (You do not need to consider or reference California Rules of
Professional Conduct.) Assume that all of the cases we discussed in class were
decided by an intermediate court of appeal in State 51, and that any ethics
opinions (which are persuasive but not binding) we discussed were issued by bar
associations within State 51. Also assume everyone mentioned in the problem
resides in State 51 and that all events occurred in State 51.
All copies of this exam must be turned in to the proctor.
PROBLEM
On May 15, 2014, Paula Plaintiff and her husband, Peter Plaintiff, consulted Larry Lawyer in
connection with serious injuries Paula suffered in an automobile accident that occurred in July
2013. The driver of the other vehicle was 22-year old Ronnie Reckless.
In the initial meeting with Larry Lawyer, Paula, who is an office manager for an accounting firm,
described both physical injuries (neck, back, hip and knee injuries as well as headaches) and
emotional injuries (insomnia and anxiety) resulting from the accident. Paula informed Larry that
she had missed one month of work right after the accident, that she had to work part-time for her
first month back on the job, that she continued to have residual pain, and that her doctor had not
ruled out surgery. Paula also stated that she had been completely exhausted since the accident.
Peter added that ever since the accident Paula had been chronically tired and that their
relationship just hadn’t been the same.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Larry provided Paula with an engagement agreement that
identified Paula as the sole client and that defined the scope of representation as pursuit of all
claims for damages suffered by Paula as a result of the July 2013 accident. The engagement
agreement complied with all rules governing contingency fee agreements. Paula and Peter both
reviewed the agreement carefully, and Paula signed it. Larry then countersigned the agreement
and gave Paula a copy. Peter was not identified as a client, or otherwise mentioned, in the
engagement agreement.
Page | 2
A week later, on May 22, 2014, Paula and Peter Plaintiff met with Larry Lawyer again and went
over a draft complaint to be served on Ronnie Reckless and filed in court. Paula and Peter
confirmed that all of the factual allegations in the draft complaint were correct, and Larry
indicated he would be filing and serving the complaint the next week.
On June 1, 2014, Ronnie Reckless was served with the complaint. On June 8, 2014, Ronnie’s
automobile insurance company assigned the case to Defense & Defense, LLP. On June 15,
2014, Donna Defense, the managing partner of Defense & Defense, LLP, directed her junior
associate, Anna Associate, to go on SocialMedia.com and direct a friend request to Paula.
Donna told Paula the goal was to learn if there were any damaging pictures on Paula’s
SocialMedia webpage. Anna felt uneasy and asked Donna if it was ethical for her to send Paula
a friend request as they knew Paula was represented by counsel. Although there were no ethics
opinions or court opinions in State 51 discussing this issue, Donna assured Anna she would not
be breaking any ethical rules so long as she used her real name in making the request. Anna
went home that night and made the friend request using her real name.
The next day, Paula Plaintiff saw the SocialMedia friend request from Anna Associate. (On her
own page, Anna listed her occupation as defense attorney.) Even though Paula did not recognize
Anna’s name or her picture, they were about the same age and had gone to the same large state
university as undergraduates. Paula assumed she had met Anna through a mutual friend and
accepted the friend request (with Anna becoming friend number 1,840 for Paula).
Anna saw no damaging photos on Paula’s SocialMedia webpage and so informed Donna. Donna
asked Anna to continue to monitor Paula’s SocialMedia webpage and to inform Donna if any
photos of interest ever appeared. No damaging photos ever appeared.
On June 10, 2015, Anna Associate deposed Paula Plaintiff. When Anna introduced herself to
Paula at the start of the deposition, Paula thought Anna looked familiar and wondered if they’d
ever met. But, as Paula was very nervous about her deposition, she just assumed Anna reminded
her of someone else she knew. Paula therefore decided not to ask if they knew each other, and
put all of her energy into concentrating on the deposition questions.
At the conclusion of the deposition, Paula went home, opened her SocialMedia webpage and
discovered that she and Anna Associate were SocialMedia friends. Paula called Larry Lawyer
the next day and explained that right around the time the lawsuit had been filed she had received
a SocialMedia friend request from Anna Associate and had accepted the request. Larry advised
Paula to “unfriend” Anna Associate immediately, and Paula complied.
On August 15, 2015, a settlement conference took place. Larry Lawyer, Paula and Peter were
there on the plaintiff’s side. Ronnie, Ivan the insurance adjuster and Donna Defense were there
on the defense side. At the settlement conference, Larry Lawyer told Donna Defense that he
thought Anna Associate’s conduct in friending Paula Plaintiff on SocialMedia had been
Page | 3
unethical. Donna replied: “Since when have you become Mr. Ethical?” The case settled that day
for $450,000.00.
In December 2015, while at a holiday party, Paula and Peter told their friend, Francine, about the
$450,000 settlement of Paula’s case. Francine asked how much money Peter recovered on his
loss of consortium claim (a claim for damages suffered by a spouse or close family member for
deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship). Paula and Peter indicated they had no idea
what Francine was talking about as they had no idea that Peter could have asserted his own claim
for damages against Ronnie Reckless. Paula also told Francine about being friended by one of
Ronnie Reckless’s attorneys, Anna Associate, at the start of the case. Francine recommended
that Paula and Peter go see Attorney Abel.
Paula and Peter met with Attorney Abel in February 2016. Attorney Abel told Paula and Peter
that Peter would have had a viable claim for loss of consortium but that the time to pursue his
claim had run. In March 2016, Attorney Abel filed a legal malpractice case on behalf of Peter
against Larry Lawyer. Working with Abel, Paula and Peter also reported Larry Lawyer and
Anna Associate to the State Bar.
On April 26, 2016, Larry Lawyer received a letter from the State Bar stating that the Bar had
opened an investigation concerning a complaint filed against him by Paula and Peter Plaintiff
(Investigation No. 135). In that letter, the Bar asked Larry to respond to charges that Larry: (a)
failed to inform Paula and Peter that he was not representing Peter on a loss of consortium claim;
and (b) failed to advise Paula and Peter of the need for Peter to consult with other counsel to
protect his rights to pursue a loss of consortium claim. The State Bar has requested a written
response to the allegations in Investigation No. 135 by May 16, 2016.
On April 26, 2016, Anna Associate received a letter from the State Bar stating that the Bar had
opened an investigation concerning a complaint filed against her by Paula and Peter Plaintiff
(Investigation No. 136). In that letter, the Bar asked Anna to respond to charges that Anna: (a)
sent a friend request to Paula when she knew Paula was represented by counsel; and (b) misled
Paula by failing to identify herself as one of Ronnie Reckless’s attorneys when she sent Paula the
friend request. The State Bar has requested a written response to the allegations in Investigation
No. 136 by May 16, 2016.
Assume that State Bar investigations are confidential and that the State Bar does not make
complaints about a lawyer public during the investigatory stage.
On April 28, 2016, Larry Lawyer contacted your law firm seeking representation to respond to
the April 26, 2016 letter he received from the State Bar. (Larry’s malpractice insurer has
retained other counsel to represent Larry in the legal malpractice case.) On that same day, your
firm agreed to represent Larry in connection with the State Bar Investigation No.135 and
obtained a signed engagement agreement and $5,000 deposit.
Page | 4
On April 29, 2016, Anna Associate contacted your law firm seeking representation to respond to
the April 26, 2016 letter she received from the State Bar regarding Investigation No.136. The
firm has responded to Anna by stating that the conflicts department is checking conflicts and
someone will get back to her soon. The conflicts department has informed the firm’s managing
partner, Maureen Partner, that the State Bar’s investigation of Anna Associate involves the same
litigation and the same complaining party as the State Bar’s investigation of the firm’s new
client, Larry Lawyer.
QUESTIONS
You have just received an email from Maureen Partner with new assignments. Maureen
has asked you to use the ABA Model Rules and Comments, your knowledge of the law of
lawyering, and your sound judgment to write her two memos addressing your choice of two
of the following three questions:
1) Provide your opinion on how the firm should respond to Anna Associate’s request
for representation (in light of the firm’s representation of Larry Lawyer) and the
basis for your opinion.
2) Evaluate the issues raised in the State Bar’s investigation of Larry Lawyer. Your
memo should not be an advocacy piece. Instead, you should provide your objective
assessment of the issues.
3) Evaluate the issues raised in the State Bar’s investigation of Anna Associate. Once
again, your memo should not be an advocacy piece. Instead, you should provide
your objective assessment of the issues. (Note: While Anna is not yet the firm’s client,
Maureen Partner has asked for this analysis stating that even if the firm does not end up
representing Anna, she is sure the issue will surface again and she really wants your
opinion on the issue.)
Page | 5