HOME MEMBERSHIP CALENDAR JUDICIAL COUNCIL 

FORMS KNOW YOUR 

JUDGES DAILY 

EBRIEFS LA LAWYER




    For Attorneys
    For the Public
    About Us
    Jobs
    Counsel For Justice
    Law Students
    My Account


LACBA on Facebook.
LACBA on Twitter.
LACBA on LinkedIn.



 

Los Angeles Lawyer
The Magazine of the Los Angeles County Bar Association


 
 

November 2006      MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test Number 153: Dangerous Liaisons

 
 

Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $15 testing fee ($20 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
MCLE Test
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055 

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-assessment activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.

 
  Test Sheet
 
 

Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. In California, a lawyer who is of counsel to a law firm is not considered part of the law firm for conflicts purposes.
 True.
 False.

2. A California lawyer who enters into a close, personal, continuous, and regular relationship with another lawyer or law firm need not worry about the possibility of imputed conflicts so long as the lawyer is not of counsel to the other lawyer or law firm.
 True.
 False.

3. Law firms that hold themselves out as affiliates do not run the risk of being treated as a de facto firm for conflicts purposes.
 True.
 False.

4. California courts have squarely held that lawyers or law firms who enter into affiliations, associations, alliances, and other strategic relationships with other lawyers or law firms are never subject to the conflict analysis that was applied by the California Supreme Court in People v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc.
 True.
 False.

5. A communication from a firm that states or implies that a party is of counsel is presumptively false and misleading if the relationship between the party and the firm is not close, personal, continuous, and regular.
 True.
 False.

6. In SpeeDee Oil the California Supreme Court held that an of counsel relationship is the same for conflicts purposes as a cocounsel relationship.
 True.
 False.

7. An attorney who does not share in the profits of a law firm cannot as a matter of law be considered a de facto member of the firm for conflicts purposes.
 True.
 False.

8. The American Bar Association's Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility concluded in a formal ethics opinion that a statement on firm letterhead that a firm is "affiliated" or "associated with" another firm or lawyer cannot implicate a de facto firm standard for disqualification purposes.
 True.
 False.

9. There is no need for lawyers or law firms entering into close, personal, continuous, and regular relationships to consider incorporating each other into their respective conflict-checking systems.
 True.
 False.

10. The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) has concluded in a formal ethics opinion that relationships between lawyers or law firms involving 1) a collaboration for an individual or occasional matter, 2) forwarding or receiving of legal business, or 3) infrequent, independent consulting should be treated the same as of counsel relationships for conflicts purposes.
 True.
 False.

11. The California Supreme Court in SpeeDee Oil makes reference to COPRAC's Formal Opinion 1993-129.
 True.
 False.

12. The SpeeDee Oil decision, in discussing whether and when to treat lawyers or law firms as a de facto firm for conflicts purposes, places no significance on the public representations that lawyers or law firms make about the nature of their relationship and the impact these representations might have on the perceptions of clients and the public.
 True.
 False.

13. As long as lawyers or law firms who enter into affiliations, associations, alliances, or other strategic relationships do not make public communications about their relationship, they cannot be subject to disqualification based on conflicts of interest.
 True.
 False.

14. There is no risk of disqualification to lawyers who enter into close, personal, continuous, and regular strategic relationships so long as they do not publicly announce the existence of those relationships.
 True.
 False.

15. Lawyers or law firms entering into publicly announced affiliations do not face the risk of an increased conflicts burden.
 True.
 False.

16. Under SpeeDee Oil, the imposition of an ethical wall by lawyers or law firms who enter into affiliations, associations, alliances or other strategic relationships is a guarantee against the application of a de facto firm conflicts standard.
 True.
 False.

17. Under California law, conflicts cannot be imputed among offices that exist in different locations.
 True.
 False.

18. The fact that lawyers or law firms who enter into affiliations, associations, alliances or other strategic relationships maintain separate staff, different office space, and do not share in each other's profits is a guarantee against de facto firm treatment for conflicts purposes.
 True.
 False.

19. The California Supreme Court held in SpeeDee Oil that ethical walls can prevent conflict imputation to lawyers who are of counsel to other lawyers or law firms.
 True.
 False.

20. Lawyers or law firms who enter into affiliations, associations, alliances, or other strategic relationships and make public announcements regarding those relationships must comply with Rule 1-400 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct regarding those announcements.
 True.
 False.

Address and Billing
After submitting your answers you will be asked to enter your name, address, and payment information on the next screen. Once you have submitted the current form, you will be switched to a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet.
If you do not wish to complete this transaction over the Internet you should print this page and send it to the address listed in Step 3 of the instructions at the top of this page.
 
Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.

 


 
   
 

Copyright 2006, Los Angeles Lawyer magazine. All Rights Reserved.

 

   
Los Angeles Lawyer
 
 
 
 
       
   
General Information
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
   
 
 
 
Online MCLE
 
 
 
 
Plus: Earn MCLE Credit