How confident do you feel? Forum

[cnk1220]

.

[barexaminerssuck27]

I feel confident but after reading posts from TLS

I think I failed. Thanks.

My fault for digging into this mess.

[happyhour1122]

I know this is normal- but I'm doubting myself. I think I failed now.

Been panicking myself as well... That's why I'm torturing myself here

Again, same. We need a support group!

I grew out of my drinking phase years ago but this waiting may bring that phase back.

Same. I keep re-thinking all of my essay answers. Esp. the parts I know I BSed. And also does anyone else feel iffy about the MPTs? I feel like I kinda winged them like threw down some rules and called it a day but on the plus side everything was organized lol..

I bsed whole trust question....
I didn't follow instructions on mpt (I added discussion in the mpt) and I don't know if I even applied enough facts for the professionalism mpt...I literally just retype the rules...

[cnk1220]

.

[TimothyJohn]

I said there was only 1 conflict (the female attorney from the other Office) as the second one wasn't substantially similar, and the current conflict of the Board could be distinguished from the case law because he wasn't directly involved or reporting to the attorneys. Who knows.

[cnk1220]

.

[TimothyJohn]

My tutor said second guy didn't fit as a conflict because it was a trademark case so it wasn't similar enough.

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

I feel confident but after reading posts from TLS

I think I failed. Thanks.

My fault for digging into this mess.

This is why I hate discussing the exam after the fact (and I've been somewhat guilty of doing it). It never makes you feel any better, and there's nothing you can do to change your answers. There's really no point in doing it unless you just want some validation on answers you were unsure of.

[cnk1220]

.

[TimothyJohn]

Maybe. But 1.9 really emphasizes "A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent. " There's really nothing substantial or materially adverse. But I think for 1.7, what you said is true.

[cnk1220]

.

[TimothyJohn]

Yes, do not worry!

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

Maybe. But 1.9 really emphasizes "A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent. " There's really nothing substantial or materially adverse. But I think for 1.7, what you said is true.

Right it was 1.7.
Oh well it's over with now- I think a lot of the MPT and essays is how you analyze things too. People are inevitably going to look at things differently.

Analysis is where you get points. Conclusions are unimportant in comparison

[Acdc54]

What about PA essays?

[TimothyJohn]

I hope so. But I used the wrong Rule to even analyze it (For instance, I used 1.9 for the Girl Attorney AND 1.9 for the Trademark Case.) However, now I know from this Thread that it was 1.7 for the Trademark Case. AND I used 1.7 for the Board/President. So I messed up the Rules for the Analysis, so I think I struggled very much with this particular part of the Exam. I hope I made up for it in other parts, but who knows.

[cnk1220]

.

[yankeeman86]

I hope so. But I used the wrong Rule to even analyze it (For instance, I used 1.9 for the Girl Attorney AND 1.9 for the Trademark Case.) However, now I know from this Thread that it was 1.7 for the Trademark Case. AND I used 1.7 for the Board/President. So I messed up the Rules for the Analysis, so I think I struggled very much with this particular part of the Exam. I hope I made up for it in other parts, but who knows.

1.9 for the male attorney is deff. correct- I used 1.7/1.10 a lot too for both bc like I said I focused on imputation to the firm and appearance of impropriety more than anything (probably too much).

I don't think you're necessarily any more wrong than I am- I was way more focused on what the other side would claim bc of the case they threw in and the fact they said opposing party wouldn't agree to waive any conflicts and the appearance of a conflict rather than if there was actually one for the male attorney. I didn't care as much about the "same or substantially the same" for the 2nd one so that's prob. wrong for me!

I think we both got the first one right though- the facts were distinguishable based on the amount of communication! And the girl attorney was deff. a conflict too!

I think my biggest problem with the MPT on this was the way it was worded:

1- is there a conflict? --> well "our firm" doesn't get to decide whether there's a conflict or not- the other side like in that Hooper case will bring it the court's attention, then we have to argue to the court that's it's all good on our side (no conflicts here judge we're okay let us take the case).
2. what should we do? --> um be prepared to argue bc the other side is going to claim there's a conflict?

I think this is why I framed my MPT around okay yeah there's a conflict/appearance of a conflict for all 3 because of the way it was worded and then the second part well what action should we take- well we need to get our shit together and screen the girl and guy and argue the lobbying is distinguishable so we can take this case bc the other side won't be happy about it.

In the end- I think it was annoyingly worded more than anything. Because I think you're right about the 2nd one- there prob. isn't a conflict but I read and thought hmm prob. an uphill battle (err on side of caution).

i'd say no conflict for first two. conflict for woman however shouldn't be an issue since you screen her and make sure she isn't involved. pretty apparent to me.

[yankeeman86]

My tutor said second guy didn't fit as a conflict because it was a trademark case so it wasn't similar enough.

agree

[yankeeman86]

My tutor said second guy didn't fit as a conflict because it was a trademark case so it wasn't similar enough.

Right, but you can still get confidential info through representation that's unrelated too...like if I represent you in a trademark case you might inevitably tell me something confidential about you/your business/your life/your finances, etc. through my representation of you I can't later take that info to a new firm who is now representing someone against you and use what I know against you...that's why attorneys needed to be screened (ie Chinese wall).

generally, no i disagree but if you made a good argument i'm sure the graders would give you points.

[happyhour1122]

Oops I definitely f...ed up for mpt.

[cnk1220]

.

[yankeeman86]

My tutor said second guy didn't fit as a conflict because it was a trademark case so it wasn't similar enough.

Right, but you can still get confidential info through representation that's unrelated too...like if I represent you in a trademark case you might inevitably tell me something confidential about you/your business/your life/your finances, etc. through my representation of you I can't later take that info to a new firm who is now representing someone against you and use what I know against you...that's why attorneys needed to be screened (ie Chinese wall).

generally, no i disagree but if you made a good argument i'm sure the graders would give you points.

Idk-- think 1.9(b)(2) and 1.9(c) was in our memo file-- that refers you to 1.6 confidential communications, 1.10 makes the conflict imputed to the entire firm which is why I said screen for both.

Our memo said opposing counsel wouldn't waive any conflicts and case law talked about "appearance of conflict" which is why I think you had to bring up the appearance of a conflict- this would make sense it's not up to the firm who has a conflict to claim no conflict and sit back and relax. The other side would bring it up and file a mtn to disqualify you- you would overcome it by screening so you can take on an adverse client while maintaining duty to former.

i'll go with the tutor guy on this one. i don't remember much, just know confidential comm didn't occur, the the firm did not work closely with the top dog which was in clear contrast to the case law. Based on what was available, I think it was a pretty reasonable conclusion to make.

[lawdeeedaw]

I think with that MPT the essential information was in the Ethic's committee discussion. That even if you find that he represented the client on a different type of issue, that the vetting of him would essentially reveal confidential information- and therefore there would be a conflict. But who knows, I could have read that wrong.

[happyhour1122]

I think with that MPT the essential information was in the Ethic's committee discussion. That even if you find that he represented the client on a different type of issue, that the vetting of him would essentially reveal confidential information- and therefore there would be a conflict. But who knows, I could have read that wrong.

I agree.
I used mostly the 3 points that committee looked into. Havn't seen anyone here...that talked about this...

[happyhour1122]

I think with that MPT the essential information was in the Ethic's committee discussion. That even if you find that he represented the client on a different type of issue, that the vetting of him would essentially reveal confidential information- and therefore there would be a conflict. But who knows, I could have read that wrong.

I agree.
I used mostly the 3 points that committee looked into. Havn't seen anyone here...that talked about this...