MPRE Attorney Conduct Rules: Advertising and Communications (Rules 7.1-7.3)
Prohibitions on False and Misleading Advertising
Under MPRE model rules 5.1 7.1, the foundational principle for all lawyer communications is the prohibition of false or misleading statements. Rule 7.1 dictates that a communication is misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement as a whole not materially misleading. On the MPRE, this often manifests in questions regarding "truthful but misleading" statements. For example, an advertisement that reports a lawyer's past success in obtaining multi-million dollar settlements without disclosing that these results were based on unique facts can be deemed misleading. The test is whether a reasonable person would reach an unjustified expectation about the results the lawyer can achieve. Furthermore, any comparison of the lawyer's services with those of other lawyers must be factually substantiated; otherwise, it constitutes a violation. The MPRE frequently tests the distinction between puffery and verifiable fact, requiring candidates to identify when a claim lacks the necessary evidentiary basis to be presented to the public.
Legal solicitation MPRE questions focus heavily on Rule 7.3, which distinguishes between general advertising and direct, person-to-person contact. Live solicitation—defined as in-person, face-to-face, or real-time audio or video contact—is prohibited when a significant motive is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. This rule is designed to prevent "ambulance chasing" and the undue pressure a trained advocate can exert on a layperson in a vulnerable state. However, there are critical exceptions: a lawyer may solicit other lawyers, family members, close personal friends, or persons with whom the lawyer has a prior professional relationship. It is vital to note that written or recorded communications, such as letters or emails, are generally permitted unless the recipient has made it known they do not wish to be contacted. On the exam, look for the "pecuniary gain" element; if a lawyer offers free legal services for a political or social cause (pro bono), the strict prohibitions on live solicitation typically do not apply.
Required Disclaimers in Advertisements
While the ABA has relaxed many rigid labeling requirements in recent years, lawyer advertising rules still demand clarity to prevent public confusion. Every advertisement or communication must include the name and contact information of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content. If a lawyer claims a specialty, they must be admitted to practice before the relevant patent or admiralty office, or be certified as a specialist by an approved organization. In the latter case, the name of the certifying organization must be clearly identified in the communication. MPRE questions may present a scenario where a lawyer uses a trade name; this is permissible only if the name is not misleading and does not imply a connection with a government agency or a public legal services organization. The exam often tests whether a firm name remains ethical after a partner takes a long-term leave for public office; if the partner is not actively and regularly practicing with the firm, their name must usually be removed from the firm's title to avoid misleading the public.
Supervision and Firm Management Responsibilities
Supervisory Duties of Partners and Managers (Rule 5.1)
Law firm structure ethics place a proactive burden on senior members of a firm. Rule 5.1 requires partners and lawyers with comparable managerial authority to make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has in place measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to the Model Rules. This is a systemic requirement, meaning the lack of an internal conflict-check system or a failure to provide ethics training could itself be a violation. Furthermore, a supervisor is vicariously liable for another lawyer's misconduct if they ordered the conduct, ratified it, or knew of the conduct at a time when its consequences could have been avoided or mitigated but failed to take reasonable remedial action. On the MPRE, a common distractor suggests that only the lawyer who committed the act is disciplined. In reality, if a senior partner ignores a junior associate's clear conflict of interest, both may face disciplinary action under the principle of supervisory responsibility.
Responsibilities for Non-Lawyer Assistants (Rule 5.3)
Attorneys are responsible for the conduct of their non-lawyer staff, including paralegals, secretaries, and investigators. Under Rule 5.3, a lawyer must ensure that the non-lawyer's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer. This is particularly relevant regarding confidentiality and the handling of client funds. If a paralegal inadvertently discloses client secrets or a bookkeeper commingles funds, the supervising lawyer is held to the same standard of responsibility as if they had committed the error themselves, provided they failed to exercise proper oversight. The MPRE often tests scenarios where a non-lawyer assistant engages in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). While a lawyer may delegate tasks to an assistant, they must supervise the work and retain ultimate responsibility for the legal product. A lawyer who fails to review a non-lawyer’s work before it is filed with a court has violated Rule 5.3.
Restrictions on Fee Sharing and Firm Structure (Rule 5.4)
Rule 5.4 preserves the professional independence of a lawyer by strictly limiting financial relationships with non-lawyers. Generally, a lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a non-lawyer. Exceptions are narrow: payments to a deceased lawyer's estate, inclusion of non-lawyer employees in compensation or retirement plans, and sharing court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed or recommended the lawyer. Additionally, a lawyer cannot form a partnership with a non-lawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law. This rule prevents non-lawyer investors from controlling a lawyer's professional judgment. On the exam, look for "multidisciplinary practices" where a lawyer and an accountant attempt to form a single entity to provide both legal and tax services; such an arrangement is a violation of Rule 5.4 if the entity provides legal services to the public.
The Attorney Discipline System
Grounds for Discipline: Violations and Misconduct
The attorney discipline process is triggered by a violation of the Model Rules or other conduct that demonstrates a lack of fitness to practice law. Under Rule 8.4, it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the rules, knowingly assist another to do so, or commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. Notably, a criminal conviction is not always necessary for disciplinary action; the underlying conduct itself can be sufficient. Misconduct also includes engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The MPRE often explores the reach of these rules to a lawyer's private life. For instance, a lawyer who commits tax fraud or embezzles from a local charity can be disciplined as an attorney, even though the conduct did not involve a client or the practice of law, because it strikes at the core of the lawyer’s integrity.
The Duty to Report Misconduct (Rule 8.3)
Lawyers have a mandatory duty to report the misconduct of others, a concept often referred to as "the whistleblowing rule." Rule 8.3 requires a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to inform the appropriate professional authority. The MPRE tests the thresholds of this rule: "knowledge" means more than mere suspicion but less than absolute certainty, and the violation must be "substantial." There is a critical exception: this rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) or information gained while participating in an approved lawyers' assistance program. If a lawyer learns of a colleague's misconduct through a privileged client communication, the duty of confidentiality to the client trumps the duty to report the colleague.
Disciplinary Procedures and Sanctions
When a complaint is filed, the disciplinary counsel investigates to determine if there is probable cause to believe misconduct occurred. The process is administrative rather than criminal, though it incorporates elements of due process. Sanctions vary in severity based on the nature of the offense and the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors. The hierarchy of sanctions typically includes private reprimand (admonition), public censure, suspension for a fixed period, and disbarment. On the MPRE, it is important to remember that the state supreme court usually holds the ultimate authority over attorney discipline. A key concept is reciprocal discipline: if a lawyer is disciplined in one jurisdiction, other jurisdictions where the lawyer is admitted will often impose the same sanction. Furthermore, a lawyer's resignation from the bar while a disciplinary investigation is pending is usually treated as a disbarment for the purposes of future reinstatement applications.
Duties to the Legal System and Tribunals
Candor to the Tribunal (Rule 3.3)
Duties to the legal system are most acutely felt in the context of litigation. Rule 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal, requires a lawyer to be strictly honest with the court, even when it harms their client's case. A lawyer must not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law or fail to correct a false statement previously made. Most significantly, a lawyer must disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel. This is a frequent MPRE topic; the duty is not to disclose every case, but only those that are controlling and adverse. Furthermore, if a lawyer knows that a client intends to engage in fraudulent or criminal conduct related to the proceeding—such as committing perjury—the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures, which may include disclosing the matter to the court if necessary, even if it involves confidential information.
Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel (Rule 3.4)
Rule 3.4 is designed to ensure that the adversarial process functions effectively by prohibiting tactics that obstruct the flow of evidence. A lawyer cannot unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or alter, destroy, or conceal a document with evidentiary value. This rule also prohibits falsifying evidence or counseling a witness to testify falsely. On the MPRE, keep an eye out for "discovery abuse" scenarios. A lawyer cannot make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a proper discovery request. Additionally, in trial, a lawyer is prohibited from alluding to any matter that is not relevant or supported by admissible evidence, or asserting personal knowledge of facts in issue. The rule also limits a lawyer's ability to request that a person other than a client refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information, unless that person is a relative, employee, or agent of the client and the lawyer reasonably believes the person's interests will not be adversely affected.
Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal (Rule 3.5)
To maintain the integrity of the judicial process, Rule 3.5 prohibits lawyers from seeking to influence judges, jurors, or other officials by means prohibited by law. This includes a strict ban on ex parte communications—communications with the judge without the presence of the opposing party—regarding the merits of a case, unless authorized by law or court order. The rule also governs conduct toward jurors. A lawyer cannot communicate with a juror or prospective juror before or during a trial. After the jury is discharged, a lawyer may communicate with them unless the communication is prohibited by law, the juror has made it known they do not want to talk, or the communication involves misrepresentation, duress, or harassment. MPRE questions often test the "decorum" aspect of this rule, where a lawyer's abusive or disruptive behavior in the courtroom is analyzed as a disciplinary violation rather than just a matter for the judge's contempt powers.
Pro Bono and Voluntary Service
Aspirational Goals for Pro Bono Service (Rule 6.1)
Rule 6.1 states that every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay. The ABA sets an aspirational goal of at least 50 hours of pro bono publico legal services per year. It is crucial for MPRE candidates to recognize that this is an aspirational standard, not a mandatory one; a lawyer cannot be disciplined solely for failing to meet the 50-hour quota. The rule emphasizes that the majority of these hours should be provided without fee to persons of limited means or to organizations designed primarily to address the needs of persons of limited means. While not a basis for discipline, the MPRE may test the definition of pro bono. For example, providing legal services at a substantially reduced fee to a non-profit organization or participating in activities for improving the law or the legal system also counts toward this professional obligation.
Accepting Court-Appointed Work
Under Rule 6.2, a lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause. Good cause exists if representing the client is likely to result in a violation of the Model Rules (such as a conflict of interest), if the representation would result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer, or if the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the lawyer-client relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client. The MPRE often tests the "repugnance" standard; a lawyer cannot decline an appointment simply because they dislike the defendant or the crime charged. The standard is much higher: the lawyer's feelings must be so extreme that they cannot provide competent representation. This rule reinforces the duty of the bar to ensure that even the most unpopular defendants have access to legal counsel.
Bar Admission and Maintaining Integrity
Disclosure in Bar Admission Process
The duty of integrity begins before a lawyer is even admitted to the bar. Rule 8.1 governs the conduct of bar applicants and lawyers responding to bar admission inquiries. An applicant or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application must not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension. This includes a duty to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions authority. On the MPRE, this often appears in questions about an applicant's past criminal record or academic discipline. Even if the underlying incident was minor or expunged, the failure to disclose it on the bar application is often considered a more serious ethical violation than the original act itself, as it demonstrates a lack of candor.
Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession (Rule 8.4)
Rule 8.4 serves as a "catch-all" for conduct that undermines the legal profession. Beyond criminal acts and fraud, it prohibits a lawyer from stating or implying an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official, or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. Furthermore, Rule 8.4(g) prohibits conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. The MPRE may present scenarios involving firm social events or bar association meetings; these are considered "related to the practice of law," and discriminatory conduct in these settings is subject to discipline. This broad rule ensures that the professional conduct of an attorney is held to a high standard of public and private accountability.