1) Lawyer knows client is innocent, but knows prosecutor has good

case. Lawyer can get forged hotel register that will give client an alibi.
Lawyer knows he cannot get caught. What should she do?

The issue on the case is whether or not a lawyer can do all everything
to guarantee a favorable result for his client.

The Lawyer must restraint himself in doing unlawful means in

protecting his client’s rights.

Canons on Professional ethics Canon 1, Rule1.1 states that “A lawyer

shall not engaged in unlawful ,dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

In the case at bar, forging a hotel register is clearly against legal

ethics. Thus a lawyer should avoid doing it even, if his intention is for
the good of his client.

2. Your long time client comes to your office and tells you that he expects
to be sued by the person who bought his house. The client told the present
owner that the basement of the house did not flood even though the person
who your client bought the house from had told him that it flooded after
heavy rain. You had interviewed the owner who sold the house to your
client and he had told you that it did flood. You had heard at a party that
your client had run into major financial problems. The buyer has now filed
suit against your client. You know that they are going to ask what you know
about the flooding. Also someone else asked you informally whether the
rumors that your client is having financial problems are true.

The issue on the case is whether or not an attorney can divulge

clients information .

The lawyer should not divulge any information entrusted by his client.

Canon 21 states that “ A lawyer shall not reveal the confidence or

the secrets of his clients. It also provides that an attorney cannot,
without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon
in the course of professional employment; nor can an attorney’s
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of
the client and his employees, concerning any fact the knowledge of
which has been acquired in such capacity.

In the case at bar, the client disclosed the matters regarding the
house, because the client is a longtime client of the lawyer. Thus the
client’s intention in telling the lawyer is because of their professional
relationship as atty- client. Thus the lawyer is bounded by the
privilege information and he cannot disclose any information
regarding the client’s house as well as the client’s financial status.

3) People getting divorced want the same lawyer. They have agreed on
how they will split up the property and say they both want to use you
to cut down on expenses and because they trust you.

The issue on the case is whether or not a lawyer be a counsel

for both parties.

When one of the spouses files for divorce the spouses are legally
considered to be opposing parties in a lawsuit. For that reason, it is a
violation of ethics and a conflict of interest for one lawyer to
represent both of the spouses or parents in a divorce or custody case
no matter how amicable.
A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter
would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the
prospective client. [Rule 15.01]

Thus a lawyer must not engage in service for both husband and wife
in a divorce proceeding.

4) Heath is a great medical malpractice lawyer for plaintiff and is feared

by doctors. Woman came to Heath with what appeared to be a valid
claim about Dr. Abe. Not until Heath worked on case for about 90
days did she remembers that she had represented Abe in the routine
 adoption of his wife’s children. Abe had not forgotten her, and said
how can you my own lawyer sue me?
The issue on the case is whether or not a lawyer can handle a case against
a previous client.
Heath can represent the woman on her medical malpractice case. The
Atty-client relationship between Heath and Abe is already terminated
and the cases are not related. The issue of the current case is about
medical malpractice, whereas in the old case it is adoption Thus
Heath should not be disqualified in accepting the case.
Also the rules on legal ethics only provides a limitation on CANON 21
that A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated, and the secrets
refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that
the client has regulated to be held inviolate or the disclosure of which
would be embarrassing or would likely be detrimental to the client.

In the case at bar, the case is not related at all with each other, thus
there is no conflict of interest.

5. James was in car accident that caused damage to both cars and injuries
to other driver. James was charged with drunk driving. He told cop he had
not drank anything the whole day. He told you, however, that he had had
three huge drinks before driving. The cop did not do test for alcohol in
blood. Therefore, no scientific evidence. James’ trial next week. Conviction
of drunk driving would mean losing driving privileges for a year and large
fines. You have plea negotiations this afternoon. Settlement discussions
about the potential civil claims are also expected soon.

.The issue of the case is whether or not it is the duty of the plaintiffs’ lawyer
to produce an evidence for the prosecution.
NO. IT is the duty of the prosecution to provide evidence on the case;
James lawyer has the responsibility to defend the case of his client.

6. You prepare your case and you are a sure winner. However, hours
before the argument you find cases that go against your argument. You
know that the judge will rule against you if he knew of these cases, and the
other side has not referred to the cases. You come across a witness that
has factual evidence that will harm your client. The other side would be
greatly benefited by this witness, however, they have not called on the
witness. Your client is about to be sentenced and the court mistakenly
believes that the client has no record. Because of this they are going to
give him a lighter sentence. The judge asks you if you have anything to
add.

The issue of the case is whether or not a lawyer has a duty to the
court to provide all the facts of the case.

CANON 10 states that’ A lawyer shall NOT do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; nor shall be misled, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. (Rule 10.01)”.

It is the duty of the lawyer towards the court not to suppress material and vital facts which bear on
the merit or lack of merit of complaint or petition.

Thus the lawyer should make sure that all the vital facts are presented to the court, for the court
to provide proper judgment.

7) Attorney X was hired to represent a workers' compensation insurance carrier in the defense
of a compensation claim brought by a woman who had been sexually assaulted in the course of
her duties as a hotel night clerk. As a direct result of the assault, the woman suffered severe
psychological shock that disabled her and prevented her from obtaining and holding gainful
employment.

In the course of defending the substantial claim for compensation, the attorney was furnished
psychological reports indicating that the claimant said she had been assaulted by "a black man."
The psychologist concluded that, as a result of her experience, whenever she encountered an
African-American male, she became extremely fearful and withdrew into herself. Indeed, her
psychological problems were such that if she even encountered a dark-skinned man walking
down the street, she became terrified and would turn around and run. Further, she was unable
to distinguish one African-American man from another. She considered all such men to be her
attacker and this psychological situation had existed since the time of the attack.

In connection with the investigation of the facts underlying this compensation claim, X also
learned that the victim had identified the first African-American she had seen in the lineup.
At his criminal trial, the defendant asserted an alibi that had been supported by two
corroborating witnesses. However, the testimony of the victim had been so compelling that the
judge apparently believed her. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a life term.

Some of this information, at least as to the general nature of the victim's disability, was available
to both the prosecution and defense at the time of the criminal trial, but not to the extent it was
developed later in the course of the workers' compensation negotiations. The psychologists'
reports were furnished by the claimant's attorney to X with an explicit demand that their contents
be revealed only to persons involved in settling the claim. The claim will soon be settled without
a trial and the reports will not become a matter of public record.

X has never handled a criminal case in his professional career, and the facts he finds himself
facing in this instance are the closest he has ever come to the criminal justice system. He
believes an innocent man may be in the penitentiary for the rest of his life unless he acts, but
the man is not his client and he do

The issue of the case is whether or not the lawyer has responsibility of
informing the court of the findings of the case.

Yes the lawyer has the duty to inform the court of the complete findings of
the case.

The Code of Professional Responsibilities in Rule 6.01 states that” The

primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but
to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or concealment of
witness capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for a disciplinary action.

Therefore the lawyer should inform the court of the findings.