Question 1

The jury concluded that the driver of the brown car ran a red light at the intersection of Maple Drive and First Street while proceeding south on Maple Drive. Joan testified that she was driving her blue Toyota and headed west on First Street. She further testified that, as she approached Maple Drive, the light was green and that, as she proceeded through the intersection, a brown car collided with her Toyota. The jury accepted Joan's testimony and concluded that the driver of the brown car negligently caused the collision. Evidence shows that Bob is the owner of the brown car. Based on these facts alone, was Bob negligent?
A)Yes, because Bob is the owner of the vehicle.
B)Yes, because the driver of the brown car was negligent.
C)No, because Joan should not have driven through the intersection at that time.
D)No, because no evidence shows that Bob was the driver of the brown car.

Accepted Answer

No, because no evidence shows that Bob was the driver of the brown car. Based on these facts, the conclusion that Bob was negligent cannot be reached because nothing proves that Bob was driving the brown car at the time of the collision. Here, the test-taker must identify the two facts necessary to answer the question: (1) the driver of the brown car ran the red light (and was negligent), and (2) Bob is owner of the brown car. Without additional facts, mere ownership of the brown car does not prove that Bob was driving the brown car, nor does it prove liability under respondeat superior. Thus, on these facts alone, Bob was not negligent.

Question 2

You work for an attorney who is handling a commercial litigation case involving a contract for the sale of a business. As part of the sale price, the seller agreed to make herself available to the buyer for one year as a consultant on matters related to the business. As your attorney is drafting a motion, she asks you to find a precedent for the proposition that consideration in a contract case does not necessarily need to be in the form of money. Which of the following cases is most analogous to your attorney's case?
A)A case in which a seller of real estate accepted both a cash payment and title to a smaller parcel of land.
B)A case in which a successful plaintiff in a negligence case accepted a new car in satisfaction of the judgment.
C)A bankruptcy case in which all debts owed by the debtor were discharged (cancelled or forgiven).
D)A probate case in which a daughter inherited her parents' home.

Accepted Answer

A case in which a seller of real estate accepted both a cash payment and title to a smaller parcel of land. Answer A is the best answer because, like your attorney's case, it involved a sale contract, and because the transfer of title to the smaller parcel was part of the consideration paid to the seller. Although Answer B involves a transfer of consideration (the new car), it was transferred to pay a judgment and is much less analogous. Answers C and D do not involve contract cases and are not analogous because they do not involve an exchange of consideration.

Question 3

A brown car ran a red light at the intersection of Oak Avenue and President's Way while proceeding south on Oak Drive. Joan was driving her Prius and headed east on President's Way. As she approached Oak Avenue, the light was green and she proceeded through the intersection, but a collision occurred between Joan's car and the brown car. Bob is the owner of the brown car, but Bob was not driving the brown car at the time of the collision. Kara is a paralegal and employed by an attorney who is considering filing a negligence suit on behalf of Joan. The attorney asks Kara to review the facts of Joan's case and determine whether any additional investigation of the facts is necessary. Should Kara report that additional investigation is needed?
A)No, because Bob has no connection with the collision.
B)No, because Kara does not like Joan, who was rude during an intake interview.
C)Yes, because Joan could have been talking on her cell phone when the collision occurred.
D)Yes, because nothing is known about why another person was driving Bob's car.

Accepted Answer

Yes, because nothing is known about why another person was driving Bob's car. More factual information is needed because nothing is known about why another person was driving Bob's car. Here, the test-taker needs to recognize that Kara's employer represents Joan, who may have a negligence claim. Kara's employer will need to consider all the possible defendants, and since Bob is the owner of the brown car, Kara's employer will need to know the connection (if any) between Bob and the driver of the brown car. Answer A is not true. Answer B suggests an inappropriate response to a client. Answer C, even if true, does not focus on identifying all possible defendants.

Question 4

Joe is a paralegal who has worked for an estate planning attorney for seven years and has become acquainted with many of the attorney's clients, and in some cases, the client's family members. A wealthy, longtime client, Alice, met with the attorney to update her estate plan. After discussion, Alice and the attorney decided to prepare an entirely new estate plan. The new estate plan will disinherit Alice's grandchild, Courtney, because she is dating Peter, an unemployed gambling addict. The attorney asks Joe to prepare initial drafts of Alice's new estate plan. Joe knows Courtney because Alice once asked Courtney to assist on a title transfer matter. As he is preparing the draft, Joe receives a call from Courtney. Courtney explains that she spoke with Alice and that Alice has changed her mind about the disinheritance. Courtney claims that Alice instructed her to call Joe and change the estate plan so that Courtney receives the same as all other grandchildren. From the options listed below, what is Joe's best response?
A)Follow Courtney's instructions and change Alice's estate plan.
B)Tell Courtney that he can only speak to Alice herself about the estate plan and then inform his employer of Courtney's call.
C)Tell Courtney that she is trying to steal from her grandmother and hang up.
D)Tell Courtney that she must break off her relationship with Peter.

Accepted Answer

Of the possible responses listed, the best response would be for Joe to tell Courtney that he can only speak to Alice herself about the estate plan and then inform his employer of Courtney's call. In this situation, Joe only has authority to draft the estate plan documents according to the instructions given by his employer. If Joe knows Alice well enough, he may be able to accept a requested change directly from Alice, but even then Joe should report the requested change to his employer. Answer A is incorrect because neither Joe nor his employer have authority to accept the change from Courtney. Answer C would be an inappropriate expression of a personal opinion. Answer D would be both inappropriate and a violation of client confidentiality.

Question 5

Mary is a paralegal who works for Jill. Jill is an attorney who represents clients in business and transactional matters. One of Jill's client's is Gigantic International. Gigantic is selling one of its smaller factories. In addition to selling the real estate and building, Gigantic is selling the factory's machinery, but not selling any small hand tools at the factory. Mary has been assisting Jill with drafting and organizing the sale documents, which are lengthy and include several exhibits and schedules. One of the schedules attached to the main purchase agreement is a listing of personal property that is included in the sale. Gigantic has given Jill an inventory, and some of the items on the inventory need to be added to the personal property schedule. Of the following, which items should Mary NOT add to the schedule?
Industrial-grade lathe bolted to floor
Three standard hammers
Electrical transformer attached to outside of building
Five workbenches with attached vices
12" x 18" tool chest with assorted screwdrivers, wrenches, and ratchet drives
Two personal computers with software for controlling automated assembly machine
A)The lathe, hammers, and workbenches.
B)The hammers, transformer, and computers.
C)The hammers and tool chest (with contents)
D)The hammers, tool chest (with contents), and the workbenches.

Accepted Answer

The hammers and tool chest (with contents). Only the hammers and the tool chest with screwdrivers, wrenches, and ratchet drives are small enough to be hand tools. The tool chest itself should also be excluded because, at 12" by 18", it is small enough to be carried by hand.

Question 6

Jill is a paralegal who works for Matthew. Matthew is an attorney who represents clients in family law and divorce matters. Matthew is representing Wendy in her divorce from Hal. The court has determined that the total value of Wendy and Hal's jointly held property is $300,000 and that Wendy and Hal should each receive one-half of all jointly held property. However, the court has also indicated that Wendy should be awarded the family home because she will have primary custody of their two children. Matthew provides Jill with the following list of Wendy and Hal's jointly held property and asks Jill to determine the most equitable distribution of the property. How should Jill distribute the property?
Asset Value
House $150,000
Family Owned Business $ 75,000
Investment Portfolio $ 50,000
SUV $ 20,000
Checking Account $ 5,000
A)Wendy should be awarded the house, and Hal should be awarded the remaining assets.
B)Wendy should be awarded the house and the SUV, and Hal should be awarded the remaining assets.
C)Wendy should be awarded the house and the checking account, and Hal should be awarded the remaining assets.
D)Wendy should be awarded the family business, and Hal should be awarded the remaining assets.

Accepted Answer

Wendy should be awarded the house, and Hal should be awarded the remaining assets. Because the court indicated the house should go to Wendy as primary custodian of the children, the correct answer must include Wendy receiving the house. Thus, Answer D is incorrect. Of the remaining answer choices, only Answer A can be correct because the combined value of the business, investment portfolio, SUV, and checking account is $150,000, which equals the value of the house.

Question 7

Paula is a paralegal and is reviewing the following transcript of Larry Lawyer's conversation with Clara, a potential client:
Larry: Hello, Clara. How can I help you today?
Clara: Well, I was in an automobile accident yesterday and want to see if I can sue the driver of the black SUV.
Larry: OK. Tell me about the accident.
Clara: I was driving down Main Street in my brand new Ford truck-near the entrance to the Hollywood Shopping Center-and this idiot in a blue cowboy hat driving a black SUV pulled out of the parking lot without stopping. I slammed on the brakes, but couldn't avoid hitting the SUV. You know, that crazy hick had on blue cowboy boots that matched his hat and a turquoise belt buckle that matched his turquoise ring.
Larry: What happened then?
Clara: Well, after he climbed out of the passenger side door, he started yelling at me and wanted to know why I had hit his SUV. Then he said he would be late for an acting job at Silver Screen Studios and blamed me for that too. Like I really cared-I was going to miss the sale at Saks.
Paula needs to identify the key facts of the incident Clara has described. Which of the following best identifies the key facts as described by Clara?
A)The incident occurred yesterday; on Main Street at the entrance to Hollywood Shopping Center; a driver in a blue cowboy hat and a black SUV pulled out of the parking lot without stopping; Clara could have avoided hitting the SUV.
B)The incident occurred on Main Street at the entrance to Hollywood Shopping Center; the driver of the black SUV was an idiot; Clara hit the black SUV; Clara was going to miss the sale at Saks.
C)The incident occurred yesterday; on Main Street at the entrance to Hollywood Shopping Center; the SUV pulled out of the shopping center parking lot without stopping; Clara hit the brakes, but could not avoid hitting the SUV.
D)The incident involved a black SUV that pulled into the street in front of Clara, who was unable to avoid hitting the actor's car.

Accepted Answer

The incident occurred yesterday; on Main Street at the entrance to Hollywood Shopping Center; the SUV pulled out of the shopping center parking lot without stopping; Clara could avoid hitting the SUV. Answer C is the best choice because the remaining choices include irrelevant information. In Answer A, the blue cowboy hat and color of the SUV are irrelevant. In Answer B, Clara's statement that the driver was an "idiot" is her opinion and not a fact, and missing the sale at Saks is irrelevant. Answer D is incomplete.

Question 8

Mary works for an attorney who handles many probate cases, including will contests. Mary's employer represents the sister in a will contest between a brother and a sister who are the only beneficiaries of their mother's estate (their father had passed a few years earlier). After the brother and sister agreed to mediate the dispute, a retired judge acted as the mediator and a settlement was reached. One week when Mary's employer is out of town, she takes a call from the brother's attorney, who is known to be aggressive and rude. The brother's attorney claims the sister is not cooperating in the agreed-upon division of property, and before Mary could object, the brother's attorney connects the mediator in a three-way conference call. Mary advises the mediator that her employer is out of town and cannot be reached. Mary also tells him that she is not an attorney. From the options listed below, what is Mary's best response?
A)Refuse to participate in the conference call and hang up.
B)Calmly listen to the complaint of the brother's attorney and the mediator's comments and offer to relay that information to her employer as soon as possible.
C)Argue that the brother is in breach of the settlement agreement and that the brother's attorney is taking advantage of the absence of Mary's employer.
D)Negotiate a settlement to the dispute and then file bar complaints against the brother's attorney and the mediator.

Accepted Answer

Calmly listen to the complaint of the brother's attorney and the mediator's comments and offer to relay that information to her employer as soon as possible. Obviously, Mary was in a difficult situation. However, paralegals and other law firm employees often play roles as intermediaries between their employer and clients, opposing counsel, court personnel, witnesses, and others. Since Mary told the brother's attorney and the mediator that her employer is out of town and that she is not an attorney, Mary could gather information from the other attorney and the mediator and get it to her employer as soon as possible.

Question 9

Bill works for the law firm of Matheson & Gilbert, which mainly focuses on commercial transactions and litigation. Bill, who was hired only one month earlier, has been assigned to work on the Miller lawsuit. Sandra Jackson, a junior partner in the firm, is the primary attorney on the Miller case, but Bill is aware that George Wilson at the Lewiston firm is co-counsel on the case. Bill gets a telephone call from Jill, who states she is a paralegal at the Lewiston firm. Jill then says that George Wilson would like a copy of the most recent draft of a motion that Sandra is working on in the Miller case and asks that Bill fax or e-mail a copy. Bill does not know Jill and has never communicated with anyone at the Lewiston firm. Can Bill fax or e-mail a copy of the draft without Sandra's permission?
A)Yes, because Bill knows George Wilson is co-counsel on the case, but as a recently hired employee, Bill could also politely check with Sandra.
B)No, because all matters pertaining to a client's case are confidential and cannot be shared with anyone outside the office, except for filings with the court.
C)Yes, but only if he first contacts George Wilson and confirms that Jill is an employee of the Lewiston firm.
D)No, because Jill must ask Sandra for the copy to be faxed or e-mailed.

Accepted Answer

Yes, because Bill knows George Wilson is co-counsel on the case, but as a recently hired employee, could also politely check with Sandra. Bill can fax or e-mail the draft without Sandra's permission because Bill knows George Wilson is co-counsel on the case. Generally, all information regarding a case can be shared between co-counsel working on the same case. As a new employee, however, Bill may not be familiar with Wilson's role in the case, so Bill could choose to check with Sandra.

Question 10

Bill is a senior paralegal with the law firm of Matheson & Gilbert, which mainly focuses on commercial transactions and litigation. Bill is a longtime employee of the firm and has been assigned to work on the Miller v. Cohen lawsuit. Sandra Jackson, a partner in the firm, represents Joel Cohen, one of the defendants in the case. George Wilson, an attorney at the Lewiston firm, represents Phil Philby, another defendant in the case. Bill gets a telephone call from Phil Philby, who asks Bill to e-mail a copy of a draft motion to dismiss that Sandra is working on in the case. Bill knows that Joel Cohen may have claim against Philby and that Sandra wants to file a cross-claim against Philby. Can Bill e-mail a copy of the motion without Sandra's permission?
A)Yes, because Bill knows George Wilson represents Phil Philby, and Philby and Joel Cohen are both defendants.
B)No, because e-mail is not a secure form of communication and using e-mail to send the draft motion would violate the confidentiality rules.
C)Yes, but only if George Wilson waives the attorney-client privilege on behalf of his client.
D)No, because George Wilson and Sandra Jackson represent different clients, and Sandra's client may have a claim against George's client.

Accepted Answer

Bill cannot e-mail the draft without Sandra's permission because George Wilson and Sandra Jackson represent different clients, and Sandra's client may have a claim against George's client. Here, the test-taker must recognize both client confidentiality and the work product discovery rule and the attorney-client privilege. Sandra Jackson owes a duty of confidentiality to Joel Cohen, and if Bill sends the draft motion, doing so would breach Jackson's duty of confidentiality. Since the litigation has already started, sending the draft motion would reveal Jackson's mental impressions about her client's case. Because it's likely that Jackson and Cohen have discussed the draft motion, sending the draft would also breach the attorney-client privilege. It is irrelevant that Cohen and Philby are both defendants (Answer A). Use of e-mail is not a violation of the confidentiality rule (Answer B). Philby's attorney-client privilege is not at issue, and Wilson could not waive it on behalf of his client (Answer C).

Question 11

For the past ten years, Carolyn has been employed by Jeffrey, a sole practitioner who has practiced in family law for over thirty years. Carolyn knows that Jeffrey sometimes takes on cases that are emotionally charged and hotly contested, and that Jeffrey has a reputation as an aggressive litigator. In one case, Jeffrey represents the wife of a former mayor of Akron. Last Friday, Jeffrey filed a motion on behalf of the wife to dispute the former mayor's financial disclosure, which did not include the mayor's sailboat and $500,000 investment portfolio. Jeffrey now asks Carolyn to call the judge's assistant and ask about the hearing date for the motion. Carolyn knows that the judge will not set the hearing date until after a response to the motion has been filed, which is not due for another twelve days. She also knows that calling the judge's assistant will only irritate court personnel and the judge. From the options listed below, what is Carolyn's best response?
A)Call the judge's assistant and explain that Jeffrey is demanding that the hearing date be set.
B)Politely refuse to call the judge's assistant, even if it means she will be fired.
C)Remind Jeffrey that a response to the motion has not been filed.
D)Agree to make the call, but delay doing so until the response has been filed or Jeffrey again asks about the hearing date.

Accepted Answer

Of the answer choices given, the best is to agree to make the call, but delay doing so until the response has been filed or Jeffrey again asks about the hearing date. How a paralegal responds to this situation will likely change depending on how long and/or how well he or she knows Jeffrey. Here, Carolyn is an experienced family law paralegal and has worked for Jeffrey for ten years. She has probably been in this situation before and recognizes the need to maintain professional working relationships with court personnel (both for herself and for Jeffrey). If Carolyn is confident that Jeffrey values her work as a paralegal, Carolyn probably has enough leeway to delay calling the court, and maintain professional relationships with both Jeffrey and the judge's assistant. Answer D is a better choice that Answer C because Jeffrey is an aggressive litigator and the reminder may aggravate Jeffrey.

Question 12

Tina is a paralegal at a mid-size firm that provides legal services to small- and mid-size businesses. Tina works for Patricia Wilson, who provides legal services to start-up companies. One of the firm's client's is Robert Hammersmith. Under Patricia's direction, Tina has arranged for the formation of three companies owned by Hammersmith, all of which are telephone sales operations. Patricia stated to Tina, however, that she does not trust Hammersmith and thinks he is "scummy." Three months later, Tina receives a call from Tom Billings, who was hired by Hammersmith to manage the companies. Tina assisted Billings with routine corporate status matters, but Billings also mentioned that neither he nor any of the other employees have been paid by Hammersmith. One week later, Billings shows up at the firm and asks to speak with Tina. When Tina meets with Billings, Billings states that he and all of the employees have quit the company, and Billings asks Tina if she or the firm can assist in wage claim and/or lawsuit against Hammersmith and the company. From the options listed below, what is Tina's best response?
A)Arrange for Billings to meet with Patricia to discuss the claims against Hammersmith and the company.
B)Arrange for Billings to meet with an employment law attorney in the firm to discuss the claims against Hammersmith and the company.
C)Advise Billings that the firm represents Hammersmith and his companies and that neither she nor anyone else at the firm can speak with Billings about the claims.
D)Advise Billings that Hammersmith is not trustworthy, but that neither she nor anyone else at the firm can speak with Billings about the claims.

Accepted Answer

Tina should advise Billings that the firm represents Hammersmith and his companies and that neither she nor anyone else at the firm can speak with Billings about the claims. Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney has a duty of loyalty and a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. As employees of the attorney, paralegals are subject to these duties. Here, Billings has requested legal assistance with a claim against Hammersmith and his companies, but Tina's firm is ethically prohibited from giving any legal advice to Billings on his claim because the firm represents Hammersmith and his companies. The only permissible advice Tina can give is to tell Billings to obtain legal advice from another law firm. Answers A and B directly violate the two ethical rules mentioned above, and Answer D would breach client confidentiality.

Question 13

Melissa is a paralegal at a mid-size firm that provides legal services to small- and mid-size businesses. Melissa works for Jack Samuelson, who assists small- and mid-size businesses with corporate transactions. One of Jack's clients is Central City Flooring, Inc. One day, Melissa takes a call from Sharon, who is the executive assistant to Peter Johnson, the president of Central City Flooring. Sharon asks Melissa to e-mail copies of the deed for a parcel of land that Central City purchased last year and the construction contract for a new building that Jack helped negotiate. Melissa remembers working on the transactions and knows Sharon from previous matters. Can Melissa send electronic copies of the documents without getting Jack's permission?
A)Yes, because the client's file belongs to the client.
B)Yes, because Sharon works for the president of Central City Flooring.
C)No, because all matters pertaining to a client are confidential.
D)No, because neither the deed nor the construction contract are public documents.

Accepted Answer

Melissa can send the electronic copies because the client's file belongs to the client. Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the client's file is deemed property of the client, and the client has a right, upon reasonable request, to copies of documents in the file, to possession of the file itself, or to transfer of the file to a different law firm. Answer B is helpful, since Melissa should only send the documents if requested by someone with appropriate authority, such as a corporate officer. But Answer A is better because it directly gives the rule to follow. Answer C is not correct because client confidentiality does not prevent the client from seeing documents in the client's file. Answer D is not correct because it is irrelevant whether either of the documents are public.

Question 14

Peter is a paralegal at a three-attorney law firm that provides legal services to small- and mid-size businesses. Peter works for Hillary Talbot, who assists small- and mid-size businesses with corporate transactions. One of Hillary's clients is C.L. Ballard, Inc. One day, Peter takes a call from Sally, who is the executive assistant to John Peterson, the president of C.L. Ballard, Inc. Sally asks Peter to e-mail copies of the purchase agreement for the small distribution company that C.L. Ballard, Inc. purchased last year. Peter remembers working on the purchase agreement and knows Sally from previous matters. Hillary, however, has told Peter never to send anything to C.L. Ballard, Inc. without discussing it with Hillary first. Can Peter send an electronic copy of the document without getting Hillary's permission?
A)Yes, because Sally works for the president of C .L. Ballard, Inc.
B)Yes, because the client's file belongs to the client.
C)No, because all matters pertaining to a client are confidential.
D)No, because Hillary has told Peter never to send anything without discussing it first.

Accepted Answer

Peter cannot send the electronic copy of the document because Hillary has told Peter never to send anything without discussing it first. Here, Hillary has limited Peter's authority to act by telling him not to send anything to C.L. Ballard, Inc. without discussing it with her. The rule stated is Answer B is correct, and C.L. Ballard, Inc. has a right to the electronic copy, but Peter must also follow Hillary's instructions. Hillary may have other (quite legitimate) reasons for staying informed about requests from her client.

Question 15

A former client has been trying to get in touch with James Clarkson, an attorney at Clarkson & Jones. Shauna is a paralegal at Clarkson & Jones who regularly assists Clarkson with litigation cases. Shauna knows the former client, Dalia, because Shauna worked on Dalia's breach of contract case two years earlier. Dalia finally calls and asks to speak with Shauna. Dalia explains that she sold some land in a rural county of the state and now holds a mortgage given by the buyer. The buyer, however, has stopped making payments, and Dalia wants to foreclose on the mortgage. Dalia says that she thinks Clarkson is avoiding her calls because he does not want to take the case, and then Dalia asks Shauna if she would take the case. How should Shauna respond?
A)Accept the case if Shauna has the experience and time to handle it.
B)Discuss the case with Dalia, and accept it if Clarkson agrees to let Shauna handle it.
C)Advise Dalia that she is not a licensed attorney and is prohibited from taking the case.
D)Decline the case because Clarkson does not want to take the case.

Accepted Answer

Advise Dalia that she is not a licensed attorney and is prohibited from taking the case. Only a licensed attorney is authorized to accept legal work on behalf of a client. If a non-attorney contracts to provide legal services, the non-attorney is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. A paralegal can only provide legal services under the supervision of a licensed attorney. Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and other rules, Shauna is obligated to explain that she is not a licensed attorney and cannot accept the work. Answers A and B would both violate the UPL rule, and Answer D does not state the best way for Shauna to respond.

Question 16

Wilkey, Wendell & Waxman is a three-attorney law firm that practices in family and juvenile law. John Wendell, one of the partners, has accepted a case representing Gwendolyn Alexander, a prominent actress known for her roles in several romance films. Alexander wants to file for divorce from her husband, Jason House, a successful movie producer. Wendell asks Jordan, his paralegal, to review the file, prepare initial drafts of pleadings, and work up an initial spreadsheet estimating the marital estate. Cary is a legal secretary in the firm who works for another attorney. Cary stops by Jordan's office and asks if Jordan is working on the Alexander file and whether she can look through it to see if there's anything "interesting." Which of the following is the best way for Jordan to respond?
A)Tell Cary she is welcome to look through the file, but cannot tell anyone else anything about the case.
B)Remind Cary that all client matters are confidential and that it's better for her not to look at the file.
C)Let Cary look at the file, but report the incident to her supervising attorney.
D)Tell Cary she can look at the file if she gets permission from John Wendell.

Accepted Answer

Of the answer choices given, the best way for Jordan to respond is to remind Cary that all client matters are confidential and that it's better for her not to look at the file. Cary works for another attorney in the firm and does not have any direct responsibility for anything related to the Alexander case. Because of Alexander's prominence, the Alexander case could be especially sensitive, so to protect client confidentiality and avoid inadvertent disclosures, Jordan's best approach is to prevent Cary from seeing the file.

Question 17

Paula is a trial paralegal working with attorney Lisa Osaka on a three-week trial. Paula worked many long hours preparing trial exhibits, an electronic database, and trial notebooks. Once the trial started, Paula helps Lisa with the jury-selection process and a PowerPoint® presentation used during opening statements. As the trial progresses, Lisa finds that Paula is quite skilled and adept at anticipating her needs-so that she (Lisa) can present a strong, polished case to the jury. On a personal note, Paula also enjoys socializing with friends and family through her Facebook® page. On the evening before closing statements, Paula posts a comment on her public Facebook® page stating that she has been working on a trial and thinks that one of the jurors is quite attractive. Did Paula use good judgment when she posted that comment?
A)Yes, because Paula's comment on her Facebook® page is protected as a form of free speech.
B)Yes, because no one will take a paralegal's comments on a Facebook® page seriously.
C)No, because she did not discuss the posting with Lisa before she posted it on her Facebook® page.
D)No, because the Facebook® posting was public and could be viewed as an attempt to influence the juror.

Accepted Answer

Paula did not use good judgment because the Facebook® posting was public and could be viewed as an attempt to influence the juror. During trial, the parties, the employees of parties, the attorneys, and the employees of attorneys are prohibited from communicating with the jury outside the courtroom and prohibited from any activity outside the courtroom that could potentially influence the jury-including public comments. A public comment on Facebook® related to an ongoing trial is prohibited under this rule. Answer A is not correct because courts have authority to limit free speech if it disrupts the decorum of the proceeding or undermines fairness or the trial process. Answer B is not correct because a paralegal's action reflect on his or her employing attorney. Answer C is not correct because the comment would have been inappropriate even with Lisa's permission.

Question 18

Paul is a paralegal with the firm of Chew & Bacca. Paul has been assigned to work with Hannibal Solo, who is representing Darth Vader in a products liability case against the manufacturer of the Death Star. Paul worked many long hours preparing the Vader case for trial, and he is now assisting Mr. Solo during trial. After a long day of trial and a full evening of preparing for the next day, Paul decides to relax a bit by catching up with his friends and family on Facebook®. While on Facebook®, Paul discovers the Facebook® page of one of the jurors on the Vader case. The juror posted a fully public comment on his Facebook® page about the Vader case. The comments are critical of the manufacturer and favorable to Mr. Vader's case. What is Paul's best course of action?
A)Do nothing, because the comments are favorable to Mr. Vader's case.
B)Inform Mr. Solo, because Mr. Solo must speak to the juror about the comments before trial resumes the next day.
C)Inform Mr. Solo, because Mr. Solo has an obligation to inform the court and insure a fair trial.
D)Post a reply on Facebook® informing the juror that he cannot comment on the trial while it is ongoing.

Accepted Answer

Paul's best course of action is to inform Mr. Solo, because Mr. Solo has an obligation inform the court and insure a fair trial. Attorneys in a litigation case owe a duty to the court to insure a fair trial process, and this rule extends to employees of litigation attorneys. Since jurors are prohibited from discussing a case prior to the verdict, the juror's comments may have unfairly prejudiced the trial process. Answer A is incorrect because it could take advantage of the unfairness. Answer B is incorrect because, as counsel for one of the parties, Mr. Solo cannot speak with jurors before the verdict. Answer D is incorrect because Paul, as Solo's employee, is also prohibited from speaking to jurors.

Question 19

Shelly is a paralegal with the in-house legal department of General Auto Insurance (GAI). Allison Attorney is a lawyer in the legal department. Paula Plaintiff filed a claim with GAI after Dennis Defendant ran into Paula's car in a parking lot, causing damage to her car. Allison has filed suit against Dennis on behalf of GAI and Paula, and has just taken the deposition of Wendy Witness, who saw the incident, but is also Dennis's co-worker. Wendy claims that Paula suddenly pulled out of a parking space and contributed to the accident. Allison has reason to think that Wendy and Dennis were drinking heavily at a bar before the incident. She also believes that Wendy posted photos of Wendy and Dennis at the bar on her Facebook® page, but has learned that only "friends" can see that area of her Facebook® page. In her deposition, Wendy stated that she grants virtually all requests to be "friended." If Allison asked Shelly to do so (because Wendy does not know Shelly is Allison's paralegal), could Shelly go on to Facebook®, request that Wendy "friend" her, and download copies of any photos of Dennis drinking at the bar before the accident?
A)No, because Allison, through Shelly, would be engaging in deceptive conduct.
B)No, because Allison's belief that Wendy has posted incriminating photos is not sufficient reason.
C)Yes, because Allison's belief that Wendy has posted incriminating photos is sufficient reason.
D)Yes, because Dennis gave Wendy permission to post his photos on Facebook®.

Accepted Answer

Shelly cannot request that Wendy "friend" her and download copies because Allison, through Shelly, would be engaging in deceptive conduct. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers are prohibited from engaging in conduct involving deception, misrepresentation, or fraud. Moreover, a lawyer cannot ask a non-attorney employee to engage in conduct that is prohibited to the lawyer. Answer B is incorrect because photos are discoverable, but Allison may need to serve a subpoena on Facebook® and/or Wendy to obtain copies. Answer C is incorrect because it does not consider Allison's ethical obligations. Answer D is incorrect because the scenario does not state that Dennis gave Wendy permission to post his photos.

Question 20

Katrina is a lawyer with Gotcha & Payup, a law firm in Springfield. After spending the morning in trial, Katrina has just returned to the office. The trial will resume tomorrow because the judge will be hearing motions in other matters during the afternoon. Katrina has a brief conversation with Patty Paralegal and Sharon Secretary, and Katrina comments the trial went very well that morning. About an hour later, Sharon stops by Patty's office and says "We should have the firm's social media coordinator send out a tweet on Twitter® and let everyone know that the trial is going well." What is the best way for Patty to respond out of the following options?
A)Tell Sharon that she has a good idea and tell her to suggest it to Katrina.
B)Tell Sharon that a tweet cannot be sent out because lawyers generally cannot make public comments on ongoing trials.
C)Tell Sharon that tweeting about the trial a bad idea and then suggest the idea to Katrina.
D)Tell Sharon that a tweet cannot be sent out unless the judge grants permission to Katrina.

Accepted Answer

The best response is for Patty to tell Sharon that a tweet cannot be sent out because lawyers generally cannot make public comments on ongoing trials. Answer A is incorrect because lawyers generally cannot make public comments on ongoing trials. Answer C is incorrect for the same reason. Answer D is incorrect because the judge is unlikely to grant permission if the comment would create unfairness or prejudice the trial process.

Quiz 3: Judgement