Monday Morning Answers #151

Welcome to another week!

Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.  Special thanks to all who sent birthday wishes for my bro!

Honor Roll


Question 1

Which doesn’t belong with the others?

  • A.   Keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter.
  • B.   Promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
  • C.   As far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-attorney relationship with the client.
  • D.   Explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

C is in Rule 1.14 and is the critical duty when representing a client who suffers from a diminished capacity.  A, B and D are part of Rule 1.4’s duty to communicate with a client.

Question 2

Yesterday at a CLE, my answer to a question included the following words & phrases:

  • same as or substantially related to;
  • materially adverse
  • informed consent, confirmed in writing

You should assume that I accurately quoted the applicable rule.  Given that assumption, the question related to the rule on:

  • A.   Concurrent conflicts of interest.
  • B.   Conflicts of interest & former clients.  Rule 1.9
  • C.    Commingling
  • D.   Prospective clients.

Question 3

“A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.”

  • A.   True.  That’s a rule.  Rule 3.2
  • B.   True.  That’s in one of the comments to the rule on diligence.
  • C.   True.   That’s in one of the comments to the rule on fees.
  • D.   It’d be nice, but it doesn’t say that anywhere in the rules or their comments.

Question 4

The phrase “without fee or expectation of fee” is in the rule on:

  • A.   Withdrawing from a representation.
  • B.    Reasonable fees.
  • C.    Referral fees.
  • D.   Pro Bono.  Rule 6.1

Question 5

Yesterday reminded me of this question.

Lawrence Mattingly practiced law in Illinois.  Once, he arranged a meeting between a client and federal agents/prosecutors who were trying to build a tax evasion case against the client.  During the meeting, the client claimed “I’ve never had much of an income.”

Later, Attorney Mattingly provided Treasury agents with a letter in which he conceded that his client had, in fact, earned a substantial income over the previous 4 years. The “Mattingly Letter” was admitted at trial and used as evidence against the client.  The client was convicted and sent to prison.

Who was the client?

AL CAPONE.  In 2018, I blogged on the Mattingly Letter:





Post navigation

One thought on “Five for Friday #151”

Leave a Reply