Review questions on GRPC 4.1, 4.2,7.1 and 7.3

A. Jack is negotiating on behalf of Simon with the attorney for the Housing Authority. The only difference from Jack’s videotaped meeting is that you should assume Simon told Jack he is reluctantly willing to accept one year probation to avoid immediate eviction. Which of the following statements by Jack to opposing counsel IS permitted under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct? [Hint: review GRPC 4.1 and the comments] 1.Gordon was at home with his father on Sunday night. 2.Simon is not willing to agree to probation. 3.I haven’t talked to Gordon about where he was Sunday night. 4.None of the above.

A. Jack is negotiating on behalf of Simon with the attorney for the Housing Authority. The only difference from Jack’s videotaped meeting is that you should assume Simon told Jack he is reluctantly willing to accept one year probation to avoid immediate eviction. Which of the following statements by Jack to opposing counsel IS permitted under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct? [Hint: review GRPC 4.1 and the comments] 1.Gordon was at home with his father on Sunday night. Jack knows this is a false statement of material fact. 2.Simon is not willing to agree to probation. Correct. See 4.1 Comment [2] 3.I haven’t talked to Gordon about where he was Sunday night. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of a material fact since Jack’s investigator did talk to Gordon and give him a report. 4.None of the above.

B. Assume that when John Monroe, the lawyer who handled the adoption for the DeBoers in Iowa, asked Cara to waive the three day waiting period, Cara said she had discussed this with her family’s lawyer and then tried to get the lawyer on the phone. The lawyer was out of her office, so Cara then said to Monroe, “I want to get the adoption finished now so why don’t you just explain what you want me sign.” Monroe is PERMITTED to explain the waiver to Cara: 1.Because he has told Cara he only represents the DeBoers. 2.Because Cara has waived her right to consult with independent counsel. 3.If he makes no false statement of material fact or law. 4.None of the above.

B. Assume that when John Monroe, the lawyer who handled the adoption for the DeBoers in Iowa, asked Cara to waive the three day waiting period, Cara said she had discussed this with her family’s lawyer and then tried to get the lawyer on the phone. The lawyer was out of her office, so Cara then said to Monroe, “I want to get the adoption finished now so why don’t you just explain what you want me sign.” Monroe is PERMITTED to explain the waiver to Cara: 1.Because he has told Cara he only represents the DeBoers. 2.Because Cara has waived her right to consult with independent counsel. 3.If he makes no false statement of material fact or law. 4.None of the above. Correct. Monroe knows that Cara is represented by counsel but discusses the subject matter of that representation without getting consent of her lawyer in violation of 4.2 Neither (1), (2) nor (3) justify this misconduct.

C. Assume that during the Iowa adoption litigation, Cara files a separate lawsuit against both the DeBoers and the hospital, claiming that the nurse should never have allowed John Monroe to meet with Cara because she was still under sedation from a difficult delivery. Monroe has referred the case to you since he would have to be a witness in that case. Can you interview the nurse without first getting permission from the hospital’s lawyer? [Hint: read the comments to 4.2] 1.Yes, because the nurse is not a named party to the lawsuit. 2.Yes, because the nurse is not an officer of the hospital. 3.Yes, if the nurse calls you at her own initiative. 4.None of the above.

C. Assume that during the Iowa adoption litigation, Cara files a separate lawsuit against both the DeBoers and the hospital, claiming that the nurse should never have allowed John Monroe to meet with Cara because she was still under sedation from a difficult delivery. Monroe has referred the case to you since he would have to be a witness in that case. Can you interview the nurse without first getting permission from the hospital’s lawyer? [Hint: read the comments to 4.2] 1.Yes, because the nurse is not a named party to the lawsuit. 2.Yes, because the nurse is not an officer of the hospital. 3.Yes, if the nurse calls you at her own initiative. 4.None of the above. Correct. Nurse is an employee whose acts in connection with the matter can be imputed to hospital for purposes of civil liability. 4.2 Comment [4A]

D. The website of Roy Kaminshine states: “Make sure you don’t lose your case. Hire the best trial lawyer in Atlanta. I have never lost a jury trial.” In fact, he has never conducted a jury trial. 1.He can be disbarred because he omitted a material fact from the statement on his website. 2.He can be disbarred because he cannot substantiate his claim to be the best trial lawyer in Atlanta. 3.He can be disbarred for creating an unjustified expectation about the results he can achieve. 4.All of the above.

D. The website of Roy Kaminshine states: “Make sure you don’t lose your case. Hire the best trial lawyer in Atlanta. I have never lost a jury trial.” In fact, he has never conducted a jury trial. 1.He can be disbarred because he omitted a material fact from the statement on his website. Failure to disclose never having conducted jury trial makes “never lost” misleading. 7.1(a)(1) 2.He can be disbarred because he cannot substantiate his claim to be the best trial lawyer in Atlanta. 7.1(a)(3) 3.He can be disbarred for creating an unjustified expectation about the results he can achieve. “Make sure you don’t lose” creates unjustified expectation. 7.1(a)(2) 4.All of the above. Correct

E. On Friday, April 13, 2012 attorney Steve Sobelson mails a letter to Kelly Hensel saying: “I was very sorry to hear from our mutual friend Basil about the injuries you suffered last week when a FedEx truck struck you while you were riding your bike on DeKalb Avenue to law school. If you are interested in suing FedEx, give me a call when you are feeling better.” Is Steve subject to disbarment ? 1.No, because he didn’t make a direct personal contact or phone call to Kelly. 2.No, as long as he doesn’t pay Basil anything for the referral. 3.Yes, because he sent his letter on Friday the 13 th. 4.No, if the letter is plainly marked “Advertisement.”

E. On Friday, April 13, 2012 attorney Steve Sobelson mails a letter to Kelly Hensel saying: “I was very sorry to hear from our mutual friend Basil about the injuries you suffered last week when a FedEx truck struck you while you were riding your bike on DeKalb Avenue to law school. If you are interested in suing FedEx, give me a call when you are feeling better.” Is Steve subject to disbarment ? 1.No, because he didn’t make a direct personal contact or phone call to Kelly. 2.No, as long as he doesn’t pay Basil anything for the referral. 3.Yes, because he sent his letter on Friday the 13 th. Correct. 7.3(a)(3) 4.No, if the letter is plainly marked “Advertisement.”