| 1. |
The California Rules of Professional Conduct unambiguously prohibit lawyers from representing in separate matters two clients who may have adverse interests. |
True |
False |
| 2. |
A lawyer or firm is generally prohibited from representing opposing parties in a single action. |
True |
False |
| 3. |
Rule 3-310 broadly prohibits lawyers from taking conflicting legal positions in different actions for different clients. |
True |
False |
| 4. |
State law allows corporations to organize as parents and subsidiaries to take advantage of rules that may limit liability, offer tax advantages, and create other benefits. |
True |
False |
| 5. |
In the <i>Brooklyn Navy Yard</i> case, the court held that any legal representation that raises even indirect adverse consequences to an existing client is suspect under the ethics rules. |
True |
False |
| 6. |
In reaching its decision in <i>Brooklyn Navy Yard</i>, the appellate court was attuned to practical difficulties in screening for conflicts among present and potential corporate clients. |
True |
False |
| 7. |
The appellate court in <i>Brooklyn Navy Yard</i> tacitly adopted the “unity of interest” standard in deciding whether affiliated entities could be deemed to have directly related interests giving rise to disqualification. |
True |
False |
| 8. |
The appellate court in <i>Morrison Knudsen Corp.</i> explicitly defined
the “unity of interest” test for the first time. |
True |
False |
| 9. |
In <i>California West Nurseries v. Superior Court</i>, the court held that an attorney could not avoid disqualification by arguing that any adversity between its two clients—opponents in the same action who filed cross-complaints against one another—was merely indirect. |
True |
False |
| 10. |
In <i>Morrison Knudsen</i>, the appellate court held that lawyers are barred from representing the interests of a parent corporation and its insurers because of the duty of confidentiality set out in Rule 3-310(d). |
True |
False |
| 11. |
Rule 3-310(d) mandates that a lawyer shall not, under any circumstances, accept employment adverse to a client when, by reason of representing a client or former client, he or she has obtained confidential information material to the employment. |
True |
False |
| 12. |
The duty of confidentiality may preclude a lawyer’s involvement on behalf of a party who is adverse to a current or former client in a matter “substantially related” to the representation of the adverse party. |
True |
False |
| 13. |
Both <i>Morrison Knudsen</i> and <i>Brooklyn Navy Yard</i> based their disqualification decisions on the duty of confidentiality set out in the state rules controlling ethical representation. |
True |
False |
| 14. |
A corporation attempting to disqualify counsel under recent case holdings may be forced to pierce its own veil to do so. |
True |
False |
| 15. |
The recent appellate decision in <i>California West Nurseries</i> is a boon to lawyers in resolving conflicts about ethical corporate representation set out in other cases. |
True |
False |
| 16. |
Representing one entity won’t necessarily preclude an attorney from representing adverse interests of a parent, subsidiary, or other affiliated entity. |
True |
False |
| 17. |
A clarification to Rule 3-310 specifies that only “direct” conflicts create a concurrent representation problem for lawyers. |
True |
False |
| 18. |
In considering a disqualification motion, a court may consider the possibility that tactical abuse underlies the motion. |
True |
False |
| 19. |
When a lawyer is hired by a carrier to represent its insureds in one action, accepting representation of a party who is adverse to a different carrier in another action is not “undertaking representation directly adverse to the carrier.” |
True |
False |
| 20. |
The issue of whether an attorney may represent a carrier as the party in one case, while concurrently representing interests adverse to the carrier’s insured in an unrelated action, is still undecided. |
True |
False |