2013 (Legal Ethics) Bar Exam Questions: Multiple Choice Question 17

[Answer/discuss the question below. Or jump to Legal Ethics Essay Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10; Legal Ethics Multiple Choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 1618, 19 and 20; See also Instructions and 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]

XVII.

Under the same essential facts as the preceding Question XVI, assume that you have resigned from ABLE Law Office and that you were never impleaded as a co-defendant, but during your stay with the firm, you assisted in handling the Cobra Co. account, which is largely owned by Cable Co.The prosecutor handling the case against Santino and the law firm asks you,as a former law firm member, if you can help strengthen the prosecution’s case and hints that you, too, may be impleaded as a co-defendant if you do not cooperate.

What is your best legal and ethical course of action? (1%)

(A) Offer to testify on what you know and provide evidence against the defendants in exchange for a guarantee of immunity from prosecution in the case.

(B) Offer to provide evidence against Santino, but clarify that you cannot testify against Santino because of the privileged communications rule

(C) Decline to testify against the defendants and to provide evidence in the case as the attorney-client privilege lasts even beyond the termination of the relationship.

(D) Decline to testify against the defendants as whatever information you acquired from Santino and Cable Co. in the course of the lawyer-client relationship is privileged.

(E) Alert the law firm to the prosecution’s offer so that they can prepare for the evidence within your knowledge that the prosecution may use.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *