1. You have two full hours to complete this exam. Spend about 40 minutes on the eight questions in Part I and about 80 minutes on the questions in Part II. The Parts are weighted roughly according to their suggested times.
 

2. This is an OPEN BOOK EXAM. You may bring anything in to the exam that you wish. Assume that the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (including Preamble and Scope) are the applicable rules.
 

3. Mark you answers to the multiple choice questions on the test itself. Circle only ONE answer to the question. If more than one answers is circled, you will not receive credit even if one of them is correct. (If you think there is more than one correct answer, circle the ONE that comes closest to being the best answer.)
 

4. Answer the two essay questions in blue book(s). Put your exam number on every page of the multiple choice and on the cover of each blue book.. In your essay answers, be sure to answer the questions asked. That is, please explain what you ought to do and why. Explain the part that the rules will play in your decision and explain what you believe the rules require or allow, but also explain your decision in light of your own moral standards or other factors that you believe should influence your decision.
 

**Students studying for future exams: I have not included the multiple questions (Part I) because some were obtained a group of PR profs who agreed not to publish them. There will be no multiple choice questions on the final in May 1999. **

PART II. [Approximately 80 minutes]
 

There are two parts to this question. They are not necessarily equal in weight or difficulty. You must allocate your time in Part II, as you think best. I recommend reading the entire scenario before answering A.~~~~
 

A year ago, you were hired into your dream job, as an associate at the respected St. Paul law firm of Hamburger & Weiner. To top it off, a childhood friend has just come to you with a great case.
 
Your friend, Lena Little, owns and operates a small child care center on Selby Avenue in St. Paul. There is one other business alongside hers on the first floor of the building--a breakfast/ lunch restaurant called the Nosh Nook, owned by Gunther and Gertrude Sempf. On the second and only other floor of the building is the large warehouse space of wholesale food distributor Dilbert Daft. Last month, Daft hired Roxie Ratt to exterminate mice from the second floor warehouse. Ratt used a type of poison gas that left no residue and does not harm food but is effective against small rodents.

The problem arose when some of the gas seeped into the elevator shafts and ventilation system down to the first floor. The work was done on a Saturday night, so no one was in the building when the highest concentrations of the gas were present, but early on Sunday morning, Gunther and Gertrude became seriously nauseous as they were doing prep work for breakfast.

To make a long story short, by Sunday evening, Gunther and Gertrude were hospitalized and Lena was calling clients to tell them not to bring their children to day care in the morning. Both businesses were closed for a full week and Gertrude-a petite woman--was so seriously poisoned that doctors predict some permanent neurological damage for her. Gunther seems fully recovered physically. Lena was not injured physically, but lost several of her child clients when parents were forced to make other arrangements for the week she was closed, but is quickly filling their spaces with new children.

After speaking with you on the phone, Lena came to your office with Gunther and Gertrude (who is using portable oxygen tank to help her breath). They decide to hire you and your firm to approach Daft and Ratt to make them whole for their losses suffered from the negligent extermination job. You prepare to sign them together to a written contingency agreement that includes a 33% contingency fee and a provision that the firm will advance costs of suit with repayment contingent on the outcome of the matter.

A. Based on the above facts, explain what you believe the Rules of Professional Conduct require or allow you to do with regard to a representation agreement with these three clients. Explain what you will do and say with regard to agreeing to represent them and why you will and say it.
 

When settlement discussions do not succeed in obtaining a reasonable offer, you draft and file a suit against both Daft and Ratt. The litigation progresses in an orderly fashion until your senior partner and supervisor, Werner Weiner, is preparing you to take the deposition of the defendants' expert witness. (A deposition is not part of a trial, nor is it taken in front of a judge or tribunal, but is a sworn questioning taken down word-for-word by a court reporter as part of pre-trial discovery.) The expert, Helen Hammer, is a biochemist who contends that the gas Ratt used in the building is perfectly safe to humans and that the plaintiffs' physical injuries were caused by something else, most likely some salmonella poisoning from their restaurant. Hammer's credibility is critical to the success of Daft and Ratt's defense. The only other expert on this chemical is the one your firm will use in plaintiffs' case.
 
Weiner instructs you to question Hammer about her recent divorce in which she lost a bitter custody fight for her children. Weiner says that this will rattle Hammer and make her testimony seem less assured. It will also hurt her credibility in that a jury will not trust a woman who cannot keep custody of her own children....and that fact will not be lost on the people who hired her, i.e. Daft and Ratt's attorneys. When you protest that you don't feel right attacking Hammer on this unrelated issue, Weiner says, "Look, I'm the experienced attorney supervising your work on this case. Do as I say. I'm not asking you to engage in falsehoods-she really DID lose custody of her own young children. Do you think they would hesitate for a second to use that kind of information against us?! The success of the litigation depends upon it!"

As you ponder what to do at the next day's deposition, your secretary knocks on your door. He hands you a shoebox and tells you that Gunther just dropped it off, appearing rushed and disheveled. Inside the box is a big iron hammer and a note: "Ratt and Daft think they're going to use their Hammer to beat us. Well, I showed them that they shouldn't threaten us with hammers if they're not ready to have one used against them too. I used this to smash all the windows on Ratt's exterminator van and on Daft's panel truck. Gertrude isn't getting any better. Our lives have been changed forever. Please keep this for me and use it to inspire you at the deposition of Hammer tomorrow. GUNTHER P.S.-Don't tell anyone, especially Gertrude. It would only delay her recovery that much more."

You call Gunther immediately and are not able to reach him. You leave a message on his machine to call you immediately. He has not called back when you walk in to take the deposition the next morning. Weiner is in the office ahead of you. He smiles and says "Remember what I told you yesterday. We're waiting to see how this goes for you."

The next person you see is opposing counsel. She looks very angry. "Counsel, it is obvious that one of your clients smashed my clients' vehicles to pieces last night. We have brought Helen Hammer to town and will proceed with this deposition this morning. But afterwards we need to sit down and discuss what you are going to do to ensure that no more of this outrageous behavior occurs. We will have to charge your client with a crime unless you are ready to settle this case for a reasonable sum."

B. Based on the above facts, explain what you believe the Rules of Professional Conduct allow or require you to do next. Explain what you will do and why you will do it. Discuss everything that you will think about doing and everything that you will, in fact, do. If you consider and reject a possible course of action, explain why you did so.
 

If you feel that it is necessary that you make any assumption consistent with the given facts, you may do so, but identify the assumption as such.