MPRE Missed Questions and Answers

A solo practitioner who does municipal bond work in a single state is nearing retirement age and takes on a young attorney as a partner. Their partnership agreement provides that the solo practitioner will train the young attorney and will receive 75% of the partnership's net earnings during the first three years, and that the young attorney will receive the remaining 25%. The agreement also provides that if the young attorney leaves the partnership before the end of the first three years, he will remit to the solo practitioner 75% of all fees he earns thereafter from municipal bond work in the state. Finally, the agreement provides that if the solo practitioner and the young attorney are still partners when the solo practitioner retires, the young attorney will pay the solo practitioner retirement benefits of $3,000 per month until the solo practitioner's death; in return, upon his retirement, the solo practitioner Ans- Yes, because of the restriction on the young attorney's right to practice if he leaves the partnership within the first three years. The solo practitioner and the young attorney are subject to discipline for entering into the partnership agreement because of the restriction on the young attorney's right to practice. A lawyer must neither make nor offer a partnership agreement that restricts a lawyer's right to practice after termination of the relationship, except for an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement. [ABA Model Rule 5.6(a)] Under the agreement here, if the young attorney leaves the partnership within the first three years, he must pay the solo practitioner 75% of the fees he earns thereafter from municipal bond work he does in the state. This provision unduly restricts the young attorney's right to practice. (A) is wrong because it overlooks the improper restriction on the young attorney's right to practice. An attorney is defending her client in a civil fraud case in which it is relevant to know what advice the client received in confidence from an independent certified public accountant. The jurisdiction has no evidentiary privilege for confidential communications between accountants and their clients. The accountant telephoned the attorney and asked how he should respond to the plaintiff's lawyer's request to speak with him privately about the case. Reasonably believing that the accountant would not be harmed by refusing to talk informally with the plaintiff's lawyer,