The local church wanted to increase donations so it asked a…

The local church wanted to increase donations so it asked a lawyer to represent church members who wanted to leave money to the church in their wills.  The church agreed to pay the lawyer for work he did in which a bequest to the church was included in the will.  The church then sent out a notice to members stating that any member who wanted to leave money to the church could use the lawyer and the legal fees would be paid by the church.  Jane, a member of the church, contacted the lawyer about leaving a gift.  The lawyer asked Jane if she would consent to allow the church to pay her legal fees and he informed her that the church could not interfere in the representation.  Jane consented.  Jane proposed two possible gifts and the lawyer without Jane’s permission asked a church leader which gift was preferable.  The lawyer completed the work competently for Jane in drafting the will.  Did the lawyer violate any provision of the Model Rules?

During litigation, a client gives the lawyer a document in r…

During litigation, a client gives the lawyer a document in response to a document production request in discovery. The lawyer examines the document and makes a determination that, in the lawyer’s reasonable belief, the document is forged and backdated. The lawyer reasonably believes, but does not know with a certainty, that it is a false document. The client will not definitively confirm its veracity or falsity. What course of conduct is proper under the Model Rules?  Note, you are to ignore all rules of discovery in answering this question.

Able & Baker, a law firm, decided to offer lobbying services…

Able & Baker, a law firm, decided to offer lobbying services to the public and to clients through an entity owned partially by the partners in the firm. The partners of Able & Baker formed AB Lobbying, PC, a separate entity from the law firm. The AB Lobbying, PC was owned 75% by the partners of the firm and 25% by the non-lawyer lobbyists who ran the firm. No Able & Baker partner offered legal services through AB Lobbying. Clients of the Able & Baker law firm were informed that the partners of Able & Baker owned part of a lobbying firm that was separate and distinct from the law firm. The clients were informed that lobbying was not the practice of law and clients should not expect the protections of the attorney-client relationship when receiving services from the lobbying firm. Clients were specifically informed before any work was given to AB Lobbying that they had a choice to take their lobbying work elsewhere.  Are the lawyer partners subject to discipline?