COMPETENCE

● MPRC 1.1
○ A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent
representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation.
■ Subject to reasonable standard, likely depends on circumstances
● CA 1.1
○ If lawyer does not have the skill/knowledge, then they can refer to competent
lawyer, retain the skill, or consult with competent lawyer
○ Lawyer can also give advice in emergency situation if referral impractical. Limited
only as to reasonably necessary
● PROF: YOU HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY, MEANING YOU HAVE A DUTY TO GIVE
THE CLIENT THE BEST POSSIBLE REPRESENTATION
● ADR Ethics
○ Distiguish where attorney client relationship exists
○ Role of third party neutral–doesn’t decide the case, just hear both sides and help
them come to agreement; no client
○ 2.4: need to let parties know that you’re not representing any side
● Competence
○ General rule: advisor to client; provide sound advice to client
○ 2.1:
○ Exception (if you don’t have a requisite skill/competence)
■ Associate with another lawyer
■ Undertake a course of study
■ Decline to take the case

SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
● MPRC 1.2
○ Lawyer shall consult/​Client decides objectives and the means they should be
pursued​; ​client decides settlement; CRIM CASE: client decides plea or
whether to pursue trial
○ Lawyer can take action impliedly authorized to carry out representation
○ Lawyer shall not assist or counsel a client to engage in criminal/fraudulent
conduct
○ A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable
under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
● CA
○ “”
○ Lawyer shall “reasonably consult” client RE objectives to be pursued
 ○ Subject to 6068, lawyer can take action impliedly authorized to carry out
representation
■ 6068 (relevant provisions):
● Lawyer may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information .
. . to the extent that the attorney reasonably believes the
disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the attorney
reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial
bodily harm to, an individual.
● Attorney can’t reveal client secrets even to lawyer’s demise
● BOTH ATTORNEY AND CLIENT DECIDE THE MEANS

Diligence
● MPRC
○ A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client.
● CA
○ (a): A lawyer shall not intentionally, repeatedly, recklessly or with gross
negligence fail to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client.
○ (b): For purposes of this rule, “reasonable diligence” shall mean that a lawyer
acts with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and does not
neglect or disregard, or unduly delay a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer.
● Diligence
○ Need to exercise diligence to communicate with client
○ Contingency fees: OK
■ Must be reasonable
■ Must be in writing, signed, and method of computation must be in writing
signed by client
■ Exception in criminal cases or family law cases
● Exception to fam law: reward already issued

Communication
● MPRC
○ MPRC 1.4 mandates that lawyers sufficiently communicate to clients regarding
all matters
● CA
○ “”
 ○ (c): A lawyer may delay transmission of information to a client if the lawyer
reasonably believes that the client would be likely to react in a way that may
cause imminent harm to the client or others.
○ (d): A lawyer’s obligation. . . . is subject to any applicable protective order,
non-disclosure agreement, or limitation under statutory or decisional law.

FEES
● Fee sharing (MPRC 1.5)
○ MPRC 1.5
■ Reasonable in proportion and agreed to in writing
■ 1.5(e)A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm
may be made only if:
● (1) the division is in ​proportion to the services​ performed by each
lawyer ​or (2)​ ​each lawyer assumes joint responsibility​ for the
representation;
○ **so there are two ways; in a malpractice scenario, both
are on the hook for malpractice and ensuring sufficient
representation
○ ***MPRC SAYS SPLITTING FEES BETWEEN LAWYERS
DOES NOT CHANGE
● (2) the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each
lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and
● (3) the total fee is reasonable.
● CRPC
○ 1.5.1
■ Fee sharing requires
● Written
● Consent with client
● Reasonable and fee is not “unconscionable”
● ***NOTICE DIFFERENCE WITH MPRC
○ CA ALLOWS LAWYERS TO GET A FLAT REFERRAL
FEE JUST FOR REFERRING, NO NEED FOR
RESPONSIBILITY OR TO WORK ON THE CASE
■ Mandates that work be done (completes task for which the lawyer was
hired) ​before lawyer gets the money
● Goes to IOLTA account; lawyer only gets it after they do the work
● Even if agreement says “earned upon receipt”
■ Basically says you can use a flat fee, but rule will trump anything you say
in the agreement
● You need to put money in IOLTA
■ Old rule was silent, new rule is explicit
● Two types of cases where you can’t use ​contingency​ (both Model an CA)
 ○ Criminal
○ Family law cases where the outcome is contingent upon child support or alimony
(on initial granting of award)
● Retainer fee (buying availability from the lawyer; fee paid for accessibility to the lawyer;
NOT for legal services)
○ Need client trust account (IOLTA),
■ Interest from account goes to the state bar
■ Client’s money, not lawyers; entirely separate
■ Money earned taken out within 15 days, otherwise, this is considered
commingling of funds (1.15)
● CANNOT comingle client and attorney property or funds (this
includes even clothes)
● You are also responsible for the accounting for the account
○ If true retainer (only paying for availability), then money is truly earned upon
receipt
■ Not based on any work done by attorney, just availability

CONFIDENTIALITY
● Confidentiality
○ General rule: “shall not reveal information relating to the representation of the
client”
■ Unless impliedly authorized
○ Exceptions in 1.6(b)
■ MAY reveal; if something says must, it’s wrong
○ Exception 1.13 (report up the latter; exception for investigation)
○ Exception 1.14 (if diminished capacity, lawyer allowed to disclose otherwise
confidential information if in best interest of client)
● Loyalty: conflicts of interest
○ Current client v. prospective
■ Treat it similarly as former client under 1.9
■ We can get informed consent
○ Current clients
■ Conflict arises when
● Adverse interests
● Material limitation
■ Substantial relation test doesn’t matter, only matters when former client
● Confidentiality
○ Note: confidentiality is really broad; covers everything
■ Anything you learn client through representation
■ Privilege is different: rule of evidence
● 1.6: Attorney learns of info through representation
○ CA
 ■ Client info confidential and lawyer must protect secrets of client, to
lawyer’s own peril, under 6068 (STATUTORY, COURT CAN’T
OVERRULE)
■ May disclose (don’t have to):
● reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a
client to the extent that the attorney ​reasonably believes the
disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the attorney
reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial
bodily harm to, an individual​. (death/substantial bodily harm)
○ BUT, LAWYER MUST FIRST ATTEMPT TO DISSUADE
CLIENT
■ 1.6(c): if a lawyer ​reasonably​ believes must try to
dissuade client to not do that and notify client that
you’re going to disclose (before actually telling)
● UNLIKE MPRC
■ Exceptions
● Informed consent
● Essential to case
● Prevent criminal act death/substantial bodily harm
○ MR (CONTAINS MORE EXCEPTIONS THAT CA)
■ May disclose (don’t have to)
■ Exceptions (still may):
● death/substantial bodily injury reasonably certain
● Substantial financial injury (fraud)
○ “in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the
lawyer's services”
■ Can’t use lawyer’s services to create BS
■ Either commission of fraud or rectify the fraud
● Securing legal advice about lawyer’s compliance with rules
● “to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a
controversy between the lawyer and the client”
○ Condition: only to the extent necessary to establish the
claim or defense
■ Can’t disclose every part of the case
● Comply with court order
○ But just because court orders you to tell the court where
your client is, you don’t ​have to​ disclose, but you may
■ However, court can still hold you in contempt
● Things to Consider
○ **Duty of confidentiality covers ANYTHING YOU GET TO KNOW THROUGH
REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT
○ Work Product
■ Attorney’s opinions on/impression of their cases are privileged
 ○ REMEMBER, privilege relates to admissibility of evidence
■ Privilege relates to what client said to attorney and vice versa
○ CANNOT tell client to destroy evidence
■ BUT there is defense of transitory possession
○ Imputation rule: if one person in firm represents client, everyone represents that
client
■ Thus, you can freely discuss amongst firm
■ Confidential within the firm
○ Confidentiality applies to the lawyer not the client
■ The client can disclose what they want
● Shouldn’t release/disclose identifying information related to a client
○ You can consult another attorney, but proceed with caution

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS (Duty to Current Client)

● BOTH CA AND MPRC
○ 1.7 presents two ways where conflict of interest may arise and you must
waive
■ adverse interests between clients ( in the same litigation)
■ Material limitation in what lawyer can do because of representation of
another client (“Full throttle rule”)
● If a lawyer would have a different obligation to Jane, then you
can’t go “full-throttle” in the case; you are ​materially limited
● BUT, lawyer may still represent if
○ the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent
and diligent representation to each affected client;
○ Representation not otherwise prohibited by law
○ Not in same matter
○ Each​ client gives consent in writing
■ Advanced waivers
● MR 1.7 allows for​ limited use ​of advanced waivers
○ Must notify and make client understand about material risks of the
waiver ​and the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse
consequences
■ Client must be aware with sufficient clarity
■ BUT, even if you know something compromising, withdrawing may
cause problems- it may notify party that there is something that
constitutes withdrawal
● Very popular with lawyers
○ Can have more clients than they would have
○ BUT, client’s interest is having undivided loyalty
● BUT, ​when it actually comes up later on (conflict becomes real), rules ask you to
notify the client the potential conflict
○ Must be ‘reevaluated’ later, client must then actually waive that specific
conflict
○ Must be a conflict that is able to be waived (waivable conflict)
○ Two things that must happen when conflict becomes real:
■ 1) notify client
■ 2) withdraw
○ Interest of two parties are adverse, then there is a conflict
■ If it’s ​same litigation​, then it is a non-waivable conflict (AGAIN,
NON-WAIVABLE CONFLICTS IS IF THE LAWYER DOES NOT
REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN REPRESENT; CLIENT CAN
WAIVE IF THEY KNOW OF THE CONSEQUENCES,
● CAN’T BE IN THE SAME FIRM (implicating the imputation rule)
○ E.g., if one attorney has damaging info about Royster, then
by imputation, have info and thus cannot have that conflict
■ CA EXCEPTIONS (2) (presumption rebuttal)
● Ethical “Screening off” clients is
possible; although, this is a risk; client
might make motion to disqualify
● The only lawyer that had info is gone
○ The conflicts are sourced in the info you have about a
client
■ Review of ​non-waivable conflict
● If the lawyer wants to represent clients with adverse interests
in same litigation OR you can’t represent client to the fullest
(or how you otherwise would if client was with another firm),
then you have a non-waivable conflict
○ IF YOU can’t tell client what the conflict is, then you can’t
waive that
● BUT, client can waive if they sufficiently know
● E.g.,
○ lawyer wants to represent client with adverse
interests/parties (you can do it if client gives ​informed
consent)
○ Substantial relation or info about one that may be used against other?
○ REVIEW
■ Rule relates to current clients
● If one client’s interests are adverse to another client’s
interests OR if your representation will be materially limited
because of obligation to another client (full-throttle rule), then
you cannot represent that client
 ○ BUT, EXCEPTION is when the client waives after
informed consent.
● BUT, you ​can NEVER WAIVE if
○ Same case (adverse clients in same matter)
○ Prohibited by law
​ ompetent representation
○ Cannot provide ​full c
■ Because of basic rule of competence

ORGANIZATION AS CLIENT
● If you have organization as client, you need to first think of what type of org it is
○ Lawyers typically speak with small group of people
■ ***SO, you may have a duty of loyalty to the whole organization, but
you’re only dealing with few people
● THINK: you want to keep your retention (so you need to be good
with the people you’re dealing with) but have to be loyal to whole
entity
● 1.13 Organization as Client
○ CA
■ Must be reasonable and refer issues to higher authority
■ Duty to resign/withdraw
■ If higher authority fails to act in a manner that seems beneficial to whole
organization, then lawyer is much more limited
■ ​SHALL ​otherwise confidential information outside of the organization
■ CAN’T reveal info protected by 6068 (secrets of client)
○ MRPC
■ For illegal actions that the attorney KNOWS and will cause substantial
harm to organization, attorney has the duty to refer to act in the best
interest of organization
● Duty to report to higher authority within org ​unless​ lawyer
reasonably believes it is not in the best interest of the organization
to do so
○ If higher authority fails to do this and such is violation of
law, attorney ​MAY REVEAL​ otherwise CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION​ to outside if necessary to prevent
substantial injury to organization
○ CAN’T BE INFO FROM INVESTIGATION THAT LAWYER
WAS HIRED TO DO
○ BUT, if you’re fired, then under 1.16 you CAN’T REVEAL
to others outside organization
■ If lawyer discharged for taking action, lawyer may notify the highest
authority of the organization
● Organization and Member in individual capacity
○ A lawyer ​representing an organization may also represent any of its
directors​, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents,
subject to the provisions of Rule 1.7. ​If the organization's consent to the dual
representation is required by Rule 1.7, the consent shall be given by an
appropriate official​ of the organization other than the individual who is to be
represented, or by the shareholders.
● Merger example
○ BiGGEST THING TO THINK ABOUT FOR THIS IS THE INFO THAT EACH
ATTORNEY/FIRM HAS

DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION

● Withdrawal
○ Mandatory
■ Violation of rules
■ Lawyer impaired from continuing rep
■ Lawer gets fired
○ Permissive (big question, would representation have adverse effect on client?)
● MPRC
○ Lawyer ​must​ terminate if
■ Representation that would cause violation of professional rules or other
laws
■ Representation itself would impair attorney (mental/physical)
■ fired
○ Lawyer ​may​ withdraw if
■ Material adverse effect on client’s interests
■ Client used services to Perpetuate crime or fraud
■ Client persists in action Lawyer reasonably believes is criminal/fraud
■ Unreasonable financial burden
■ Fundamental disagreement/repugnant/failure to fulfill obligation
○ Subject to tribunal
● CA
○ “””
○ the lawyer promptly shall refund any part of a fee or expense paid in advance
that the lawyer has not earned or incurred. This provision is not applicable to a
true retainer fee paid solely for the purpose of ensuring the availability of the
lawyer for the matter.
● RE Withdrawal: usually permissive withdrawal so must ask the court to withdraw; usually
needs to be actual financial
○ Closer to trial, less likely judge is to grant motion to withdraw
 ■ This is because client is less likely to have adequate representation with a
new attorney close to trial (COURT’S BIGGEST CONCERN IS HARM TO
CLIENT, can’t have them sit in jail longer or have their case prolonged)
● Court will likely say: should’ve got the money, not problem of
judge

DUTIES TO PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS

● MPRC
○ Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a l​awyer who has learned
information from a prospective client shall not use or reveal that information​,
except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of ​a former client.
■ Same duty as former client
○ If lawyer received damaging info about current client, lawyer can’t represent
client whose interests are materially adverse about a same/substantially similar
matter
■ If lawyer receives this information, representation still okay if
● both the affected client and the prospective client have given
informed consent in writing
● lawyer who received the information took reasonable measures to
avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was
reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the
prospective client
○ Lawyer timely screened from matter
○ Not given a fee
○ Written notice to prospective client
● CA
○ “”

DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS

● MPRC 1.9 Former Representation (duties to former clients)
○ Can’t use information that you’ve obtained against former client
■ BUT, there’s exception for information that is generally very well known
● E.g., covered extensively by the media
● Public record IS NOT EXCEPTED
○ Duties to former clients
■ a) can’t represent a new client regarding a ​Same or substantially
related issue whose interests are materially adverse to past client
(​ONLY COMES IN 1.9​)
● If the matters are the same or substantially related, then you can’t
represent this new client
 ○ OR if you have information on a former client (private,
related info) that could be used against that client, you
can’t represent the new client
■ b) Cannot ​use​ or reveal information of former clients
■ c) Generally known exception (​must be notorious or highly publicized;
not okay if just public record​)
● E.g., Duncan Hunter’s attorney can’t talk about information in
complaint because it’s not on level of “generally” known
○ JUST BECAUSE IT’S PUBLIC RECORD DOESN”T MEAN
ATTORNEY CAN TALK ABOUT IT
● 1.9 CA
○ Same
● Former client
○ Conflict arises when same or substantially related matter
○ Lawyer’s former firm, conflict arises when
■ Same or substantially related, and
■ Lawyer has information
■ **Okay if lawyer left the firm and is somewhere else

IMPUTATION
● Imputation
○ Conflicts of one lawyer imputed to all other lawyers
○ Assume confidential information shared by all
● MPRC
○ Conflict imputed to firm
○ Exception
■ Conflict based on personal interest, OR
■ CONFLICT FROM LAWYER’S FORMER FIRM​–Lawyers can represent,
even if lawyer at current firm had info prohibited by duty to former and
current clients, if
● Conflict Based on personal interest
● OR
● Lawyer screened off
● No fee given to that lawyer
● Written notice to client
■ CONFLICT FROM FIRM’S FORMER LAWYER​–Firm can represent client
even if material adverse interests to former represented client by lawyer
who left and client not currently represented, UNLESS
● matter is the ​same or substantially related ​to that in which the
formerly associated lawyer represented the client
● Any attorney has same information
○ You can rebut presumption of imputation
 ■ E.g., only one person in firm who had info about client and that lawyer left
● CA
○ “”
● Same/Substantial relation
○ JX treat it differently
■ Some are narrow (allowing much), others are broader (allowing little)
● MPRC 1.8
○ Lawyer can’t provide financial assistance in connection with pending or
contemplated litigation
■ EXCEPTION
● Upfront costs paid, but Contingency case (repayment contingent
upon outcome)
● Lawyer may cover court costs and expenses of litigation for
indigent client

CLIENT WITH DIMINISHED CAPACITY

● MPRC
○ Maintain a normal relationship as reasonably as possible
■ BUT,
● Potential exception to duty of confidentiality
○ Can’t maintain normal relationship because of diminished
capacity, so may be exception
○ When the ​lawyer reasonably believes that the client has diminished
capacity, is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm​ unless
action is taken and cannot adequately act in the client's own interest, the lawyer
may​ take reasonably necessary protective action
○ Diminished capacity is a sliding scale
● CA
○ CALIFORNIA DOES NOT HAVE 1.14

● Client vs. guardian ad lidem

○ Ad lidem
■ You represent best interests of a person rather than representing them
particularly
● Best interests may conflict with what the client wants to do
■ Privilege still between attorney and client, but there may be instances
where some information may need to be revealed in the best interest of
the client
■ BUT, you still need to listen to client to determine best interest
 ADVOCACY
MERITORIOUS CLAIMS
● MPRC
○ Lawyer prohibited from bringing forth frivolous claims or those without good faith
for extension, revision, overruling of the law
■ BUT, attorney in criminal case can still act to ensure that each element of
crime is established
○ Under 3.1 if you’re uncomfortable with representing guilty client, you still need to
make sure prosecution does its job in proving beyond reasonable doubt
● CA
○ Can’t bring claims for purpose of harassing/injuring party
■ A little more “teeth;” language about harrasment/injuring party
○ Otherwise the same

EXPEDITING LITIGATION
● MPRC
○ A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the
interests of the client.
● CA
○ Almost same, but lawyer REQUIRED to do this instead of reasonable efforts

CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL

● MPRC
○ Lawyer cannot
■ Make a false statement or fail to correct false statement
● Duty to remediate
■ Fail to disclose adverse authority to their own position
● E.g., if case comes down from appeals court that is bad for your
case, then you need to disclose to court and adverse party
■ Offer evidence the attorney knows is false
● If there is reasonable belief that evidence is false (e.g., false
testimony), lawyer ​may refuse​ (BUT DOESN’T HAVE TO) to bring
○ IF ITS CRIM DEFENDANT, then you need to let them
testify unless you actually know it’s false
■ So, once you know it’s false you can’t present it
● If only reasonable belief and not
criminal, then you ​may refuse​ but don’t
have to
 ■ BUT, if it’s a crim. Defendant, then ​you need to
present it unless you know it’s false​ (HIGHER
STANDARD FOR CRIM CASE)
○ Lawyer who knows that a client intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged
in criminal or fraudulent conduct has duty to take reasonable steps to prevent
that, including disclosure to tribunal
○ Lawyer has duty to disclose all known facts in ex parte, even if adverse
● CA
○ CA 3.3
■ If you reasonably belief testimony is false in a criminal case, then you
don’t have to put witness on
■ BUT NOTICE THE PROBLEM: WILL YOU EVER REALLY KNOW
■ ***If we find out information through our client, then we CANNOT
disclose
● SO, UNLIKE MODEL RULE, you don’t disclose and 6068 still
comes into play

FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL

● MPRC
○ Lawyer shall not
■ Obstruct other party’s access to evidence
■ Falsify evidence
■ Make frivolous discovery request
■ request that one not offer relevant information unless
● Relative or employee, AND
● lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be
adversely affected by not giving info
● CA
○ “”
○ Can’t make witness testimony contingent upon a result

IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL

● MPRC
○ Lawyer shall not
■ Seek to influence judge or other official
■ Communicate ex parte to a judge or other official unless authorized
■ Communicate with jury after dismissal if
● Prohibited by law
● Juror made it known they do not want to communicate
● Communication involves harassment, misrepresentation, coercion
● CA
○ Pretty much same but expanded; more restrictions on communications
LAWYER AS WITNESS

MPRC AND CA
● (a) A lawyer ​shall not act as advocate​ at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a
necessary witness ​unless​:
○ (1) the ​testimony relates to an uncontested issue​;
○ (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the
case; or
○ (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.
● (b) ​A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is
likely to be called as a witness​ . . .

ROLE OF SUPERVISING ATTORNEY

● 5.1 Role of Supervisory Lawyer

○ Supervisor has obligation to train/create new lawyers to abide by ethic rules
■ E.g., screening systems, reminders, accounting
■ SUpervisor may be liable
○ If you order another to violate the rule still creates liability on the supervisor
○ Person is still liable for their own actions
■ SO, it doesn’t matter if you were told that you’d lose your job if you didn’t
do something
■ BUT, the exception is if there is disagreement

NEGOTIATIONS

● Negotiations
○ Not a good tactic to disclose your client’s upper limit, but also cannot lie
■ Time & relationships are often important
■ PROF: there are so many ways to negotiate that doesn’t include
puffing or lying
● Just need to be difficult
○ “750 is going to be hard on my client” instead of “that’s the
upper limit” or “no”
● Negotiation ethics
○ General Rule 4.1: truthfulness in statements to others
○ Exception, Comment 2: gives a slight pass to statements in negotiations,
statements of material fact
■ “Estimate of price or value” is not a material statement of fact and
therefore not under rule 4.1
● MPRC 4.1
 ○ Comment
■ **Statements of value are not to be taken seriously; you can “puff”
● BUT YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL when puffing inches towards
material dishonesty
■ PROF: you can negotiate without misrepresentation
○ In the course of representing a client a lawyer ​shall not knowingl​y:
○ (a) make a​ false statement of material fact ​or law to a third person; or
○ (b) ​fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is
necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a clien​t, unless
disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

PROSECUTORIAL ETHICS
● Prosecutorial ethics
○ 3.8(a): probable cause standard
■ Prosecutor cannot pursue a charge unless probable cause/sufficient
evidence to pursue it
○ 3.8(d): disclosure obligations
■ Must disclose potentially exculpatory evidence
■ Different to brady standard (no materiality prong)
● MPRC (prosecutorial ethics generally)
○ Prosecutor needs to refrain from
■ prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by
probable cause
■ Ensure rights of the accused
■ Not seek waiver of pretrial rights
■ Disclose information that tends to negate guilt of the defendant
■ Not subpoena a lawyer who previously represented client unless
necessary
■ Seek to remedy conviction if clear and convincing evidence that the
crime was not committed by the defendant
● Also, provide notice if they receive evidence that creates a
reasonable likelihood they didn’t commit offense
● Prosecutor problem
○ MPRE 3.8 duties of prosecutor
■ A lot of duties are assigned to prosecutors because they have so much
power
■ Goal is to encourage prosecutors to be fair and guarantee the rights of
the accused; honor their obligation to do justice
■ BUT, unclear whether Brady is the same standard (but obviously not the
materiality prong because that can only happen after trial--we’d only be
able to determine whether something made a material difference if it’s
after the fact)
 ● CA 3.8 is explicit in that Brady is not the standard
○ Brady v. Maryland
■ Prosecutor needs to disclose information that is favorable to the accused
● Sometimes read as only evidence is exculpatory (will get the
person off), which is a high standard
■ Three prong test
● Evidence favorable to defendant that is in possession of
prosecution
○ NOTICE: not necessarily exculpatory evidence
○ BUT don’t need to disclose all information
● Information does not need to be disclosed to the defense
○ Although there are some situations where this is okay
● Materiality; failure to disclose “undermined confidence in the
outcome”
○ It had some difference in the outcome of the case
■ General Notes about applicability of Brady
● Brady claims are usually heard after trial
○ But there may be exception (Bundy, where it was looked at
mid-trial)
● Doesn’t apply at plea bargain stage
● Connick v. Thompson

GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS
● CA
○For government attorneys, You can advise two different clients with
opposing interests but can’t represent them in a case/hearing​s
○ NO SIDE SWITCHING
■ E.g., going against former client
○ RULE IS RELAXED WITH GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEIR INTERESTS ARE
SO BROAD
■ ALSO APPLIES TO MODEL RULES
○ If directly opposing interests (Gates LA times article), different counsel can be
appointed
● Main points
○ Government lawyers have rampant conflicts of interest/grey area because there
isn’t a single client
■ Sure, an entity is your named client, but there is still a general duty to the
government and public as a whole
○ Usually can set up “ethical screen”
● Government Attorneys and Conflicts
○ Similar to regular conflict rule, but slightly relaxed to encourage people to serve in
government
 ■ We’re really looking to see if lawyer knew stuff about case

ADVERTISING AND TECHNOLOGY

● Lawyers have a duty to keep up with technology
○ Not every single update of technology, but enough to the extent to fulfill your
duties
● If you get info that’s clearly confidential but recipient reads it, that may be bad
○ Can’t intentionally act maliciously on it
○ CA AND MPRC: Ethically, if you receive info inadvertantly, then you need to
disclose
■ Also can’t actively mine metadata
● Advertising
○ Marketing is intended to deceive, but that’s not okay in a legal context
○ If claim is true and verifiable, then its probably okay
○ In person solicitation is not allowed
■ You can do print/internet ads, but they need to be accurate, and no
misrepresentation
● Burden is on the lawyer to show that people can’t misinterpret
them
■ EXCEPTION TO IN PERSON SOLICITATION: lawyer is not going to
have any financial gain
○ Lawyers can target their ads to a certain group
■ Targeted mailings okay if there is no undue influence
○ Misrepresentation always prohibited
○ MPRC
■ A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about
the lawyer or the lawyer's services.​ A communication is false or
misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or
omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not
materially misleading.

● Blogging by an attorney subject to profession rules unless a stand alone blog

● Can’t solicit biz in prisons, hospitals, private property

● Advertising
○ General rule: permitted unless false or misleading
■ Should be able to support claims made in advertisement
● Burden on lawyer
○ Trend towards increased regulation
○ Specific Issues
■ 7.1: misleading includes material omissions considered as whole
 ■ 7.2L exercise professional judgement in advertising
■ 7.3 can’t solicit in person
■ 7.4: “certified as a specialist”
● If you say this, then it must be because state bar certifies it or
some organization certified by the state by
MISCONDUCT
MPRC AND CA
● It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
○ Discriminate on basis of sex, disability, ethnicity, etc.
○ Violate the rules
○ Commit crime/dishonest act/fraud

PRO BONO
● Pro bono
○ Lawyers have obligation to do pro bono, but should aspire to do pro-bono
○ 6.1: should aspire to complete 50 hours per year
■ No fee or substantially reduced fee
■ Could also be activities improving law/legal profession
■ CA DOESN’T HAVE THIS
○ 6.2: exceptions to accepting assignments delegated by tribunals
■ Judge appoints in rural area
■ Unreasonable financial hardship
■ client/cause repugnant to lawyer
○ 6.3-6.5: legal service organizations and law reform activities
■ Need to specify that you have other interests at stake that may benefit
you
● CA
○ The Legislature finds that the use of funds collected by the State Bar pursuant to
this article for these purposes is in the public interest, is a proper use of the
funds, and is consistent with essential public and governmental purposes in the
judicial branch of government. The Legislature further finds that the expansion,
improvement, and initiation of legal services to indigent persons will aid in the
advancement of the science of jurisprudence and the improvement of the
administration of justice.

JUDICIAL ETHICS
● Judicial ethics
○ General rule
■ “Uphold and promote the independence, integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary”
 ■ “Avoid the appearance of impropriety’
○ Shall require lawyers from engaging in bias
○ Duty to disqualify oneself where impartiality might be questioned
■ More than deminims interest
■ Personal bias
■ Relationship
■ Former lawyer
■ Public statements of bias
■ Econ interest (including past contributions) (extends to household)
○ 3.1 – can (encouraged to) participate in extrajudicial activities
○ 3.2 – shall not voluntarily appear or consult with executive or legislative officials
○ 3.6 discriminatory organizations
■ Judge cannot belong an organization that participates in discrimination
■ Exception​: religion; isolated event; military
■ The test is really ​is the judge’s attendance reasonably suggest that
the judge is endorsing the organization​?
○ May accept reasonable contributions for extrajudicial activities
○ 3.13 judges cannot receive gifts
○ 3.15 judges need to report minimal gifts/benefits
■ Family exception
■ May accept gifts incidental to public testimonial
○ Can only receive contributions from family and superiors
○ judges and political activities
■ 4.1: judges need to refrain from political activities and engagement
(typical political activities)
■ 4.2: exception to 4.1
● Exception for partisan political elections
○ Judge can be a part of a political party
○ Judge themselves cannot solicit donations
○ Can identify with party in partisan election