MPRE — Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam — All Questions

How does the duty of confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6 differ from the attorney-client evidentiary privilege?

• a.It is broader, covering information from any source✓
• b.The privilege is broader than the duty of confidentiality
• c.The two are identical in scope
• d.The duty of confidentiality applies only to statements made in court

The comment to Rule 1.6 explains that the confidentiality rule "applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source." The privilege applies when evidence is sought from the lawyer by compulsion.

Under Model Rule 1.6(b), a lawyer is permitted to reveal client information to the extent reasonably necessary to:

• a.Satisfy the curiosity of a third party
• b.Prevent reasonably certain death✓
• c.Win any case for the client
• d.Advance the lawyer's business interests

Rule 1.6(b)(1) permits disclosure "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm." None of the other purposes is an exception to confidentiality.

Which body of law protects client information that a lawyer learns from a public court file?

• a.The ethical duty of confidentiality.✓
• b.None, because public information is unprotected.
• c.The attorney-client privilege.
• d.The work-product doctrine.

The comment to Rule 1.6 explains that the confidentiality rule "applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source." The privilege covers only confidential communications.

Lawyers in the same firm discuss a client's case with each other while working on it. Is this a violation of Rule 1.6?

• a.Yes, unless the client consented in writing.
• b.No, unless the client told the lawyer to confine the information.✓
• c.Yes, because each lawyer must keep files separate.
• d.No, because firm lawyers owe no confidentiality to each other's clients.

The comment to Rule 1.6 says "lawyers in a firm may, in the course of the firm's practice, disclose to each other information relating to a client of the firm, unless the client has instructed that particular information be confined to specified lawyers."

A lawyer wants advice from an ethics expert at another firm about whether she may withdraw. May she reveal client information to that expert?

• a.Yes, and without any limit on detail.
• b.No, because the expert is not the client's lawyer.
• c.No, unless a court orders it.
• d.Yes, as reasonably needed to get compliance advice.✓

Rule 1.6(b)(4) permits disclosure "to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules," limited to what the lawyer reasonably believes necessary.

A lawyer sues a former client for unpaid fees. May the lawyer reveal information about the services performed?

• a.No, unless the client consents.
• b.No, because the duty of confidentiality survives the representation.
• c.Yes, as reasonably necessary to prove the claim.✓
• d.Yes, and any information about the client.

Rule 1.6(b)(5) permits disclosure "to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client," and the comment says a lawyer entitled to a fee may prove "the services rendered in an action to collect it."

A lawyer's decision NOT to disclose information that Rule 1.6(b) would have permitted him to disclose is:

• a.A violation of Rule 8.3.
• b.A violation only if someone is later harmed.
• c.A violation of Rule 1.6.
• d.Not a violation of Rule 1.6.✓

The comment to Rule 1.6 says "a lawyer's decision not to disclose as permitted by paragraph (b) does not violate this Rule," although other rules, such as Rule 3.3, may require disclosure in some circumstances.

Joint clients in a business formation later sue each other over the same deal. Are their communications with their shared lawyer privileged against each other?

• a.Ordinarily not, as between those joint clients.✓
• b.No, and the lawyer may testify for either side.
• c.Yes, unless the lawyer waives it.
• d.Yes, because each spoke to the lawyer in confidence.

The comment to Rule 1.7 says "as between commonly represented clients, the privilege does not attach," so if litigation arises between them the privilege "will not protect any such communications." Rule 1.9 still limits the lawyer's own role.

In a federal case, a party intentionally discloses one privileged memo. When does that waiver extend to other, undisclosed communications on the same subject?

• a.Always, to every privileged communication in the case.
• b.Only if fairness requires it.✓
• c.Only if the court finds bad faith.
• d.Never, because waiver covers only the document disclosed.

FRE 502(a) extends an intentional waiver to undisclosed communications on the same subject only if they "ought in fairness to be considered together" with the disclosed material.

A client admits to his lawyer that he failed to file tax returns for past years and asks how to fix the problem. The IRS later subpoenas the lawyer. Is the admission privileged?

• a.No, because the crime-fraud exception applies to any crime.
• b.Yes, because it concerns past conduct and was made to get advice.✓
• c.No, because tax matters are never privileged.
• d.Yes, but only until the client is charged.

The privilege protects confidential communications to obtain legal advice; *Upjohn* explains it protects "the giving of information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice." The crime-fraud exception reaches communications "in furtherance of future illegal conduct," not advice about past conduct.

When transmitting client information by ordinary email, what does the comment to Rule 1.6 require?

• a.Written client consent to any use of email.
• b.Reasonable precautions, more only if warranted.✓
• c.Encryption of every message.
• d.No precautions, because email is private.

The comment says the duty "does not require that the lawyer use special security measures if the method of communication affords a reasonable expectation of privacy," but "special circumstances, however, may warrant special precautions."