2013 (Legal Ethics) Bar Exam Questions: Multiple Choice Question 9

[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, 810, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; See also Instructions and 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]

IX.

Graft Investigator Atty. Retirada served the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for eight years before retiring from the service. While still a Graft Investigator, she investigated a government contract for office supplies where Mr. Sakim was the supplier. The transaction was supposedly overpriced. Atty. Retirada recommended that no charges be filed against the officials involved and the recommendation benefited Mr. Sakim as the supplier involved in the transaction.After her retirement from the service, Atty. Retirada’s services as counsel were engaged by Mr. Sakim as counsel to represent the Sakim family in a claim against the State arising from a family property that had been expropriated. Atty.Retirada now consults you about the ethical permissibility of accepting the engagement.

What advice would you give Atty. Retirada? (1%)

(A) Having been in government service, she cannot now represent a party with a claim against the State.

(B) Having once handled a case involving her prospective client, a conflict of interest would exist if she were to accept the engagement.

(C) Representing the Sakim family would involve the unethical use of information she obtained while in government service.

(D) There is no ethical objection to her acceptance of the engagement because the case is neither criminal nor administrative in character.

(E) Acceptance of the engagement should be on condition that Atty. Retirada would withdraw if a conflict of interest situation arises.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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