The MPRE rewards precise application of the governing rule. In each question, identify the duty-holder, the person or institution protected by the rule, the trigger in the facts, and any exception. Then choose the best answer rather than the answer that merely sounds fairest.
These questions use the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the Model Code of Judicial Conduct as the governing standards. They are practice questions, not a prediction of the wording of any particular sitting. MySummaries places the rule, the fact trigger and the strongest distractor together so you can see why a close option fails.
1. Prospective-client information
This question tests the protection given to information disclosed during a consultation, even where no lawyer-client relationship is formed.
A prospective client consults Lawyer about bringing a professional-negligence claim against Doctor. The consultation ends when the prospective client decides not to retain Lawyer. During the consultation, the prospective client discloses confidential facts that would be significantly harmful if revealed. Doctor later asks Lawyer to defend him in the same matter. What is the best answer?
Option C is best. Under Model Rule 1.18, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client must not represent a person with materially adverse interests in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful. The strongest distractor is A: the duty can arise even though the consultation did not lead to a retainer. The Rule includes limited consent and screening exceptions, but they require their stated conditions.
The key distinction is between formation of the lawyer-client relationship and receipt of materially harmful information. A prospective client is not simply an unrestricted source of information for a later opponent.
2. Conflicts between current clients
The next question asks whether consent can cure a conflict. Do not stop at “there is a conflict”; check whether the conflict is consentable under the required conditions.
Lawyer represents Company and its director, Dana, in unrelated matters. Company now wants Lawyer to sue Dana for breach of a separate employment agreement. Lawyer reasonably believes that Lawyer can competently and diligently represent Company and Dana despite the adversity. What must Lawyer obtain before accepting Company's claim?
Option B is best. Direct adversity between current clients creates a concurrent conflict under Rule 1.7. It may be consentable where the lawyer reasonably believes competent and diligent representation is possible, the representation is not prohibited by law, the matter does not involve one client asserting a claim against another in the same proceeding, and each affected client gives informed consent confirmed in writing. C is too broad; some current-client conflicts can be consented to.
For MPRE purposes, name both affected clients. A conflict analysis that names only the client who hired the lawyer misses the duty owed to the other current client.
3. Sharing a fee with another firm
This question tests the conditions for dividing a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm.
Lawyer A refers a personal-injury matter to Lawyer B, who will handle the litigation. A and B practise in different firms. They agree to divide the fee. Which arrangement complies with Model Rule 1.5(e)?
Option B is best. A fee division between lawyers in different firms requires the client's informed consent confirmed in writing, a reasonable total fee, and either proportional division according to services or joint responsibility by each lawyer. C is wrong because proportionality is not limited to billed hours; joint responsibility is an alternative. A omits the client's protection and the reasonableness requirement.
The exam often presents an arrangement that feels commercially ordinary but leaves out one condition. Look for the missing client disclosure, written confirmation, reasonableness, proportionality or joint-responsibility element.
4. Prosecuting without probable cause
This question tests the prosecutor's special duty. The relevant question is not whether the prosecutor personally believes the defendant is guilty, but whether the prosecution is supported by probable cause.
A prosecutor has investigated a suspected fraud. The available evidence creates a serious suspicion but does not establish probable cause to believe the suspect committed the offence. The prosecutor nevertheless wants to file charges to pressure the suspect into co-operating. What is the prosecutor's professional obligation?
Option C is best. Model Rule 3.8 requires a prosecutor to refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. The purpose of obtaining tactical pressure or hoping that later investigation will fill the gap does not satisfy that duty. D is the strongest distractor because disclosure to defence counsel does not cure the absence of probable cause.
A prosecutor's role is not simply that of an advocate seeking the most favourable result. When the question gives you a clear absence of probable cause, that fact controls.
5. Correcting a false statement to a tribunal
This question tests candour to the tribunal and the difference between a material false statement and an ordinary weakness in advocacy.
During a civil hearing, Lawyer states that a contract contains a particular termination clause. Lawyer later checks the original and realises the statement was false and material to the court's ruling. The client instructs Lawyer to leave the statement uncorrected. What must Lawyer do?
Option B is best. Under Rule 3.3, a lawyer must not knowingly make a false statement of fact to a tribunal and must take reasonable remedial measures when the lawyer discovers that a material statement already made is false. The duty continues until the proceeding ends and can require disclosure if necessary to remedy the situation. Client instructions do not authorise leaving a known material falsehood uncorrected.
The important MPRE distinction is between confidentiality and candour. Rule 3.3 can require remedial disclosure where that is necessary to correct a material false statement to the tribunal.
6. Assisting a client's fraud
This question tests the boundary between explaining legal consequences and helping a client carry out criminal or fraudulent conduct.
A client tells Lawyer that the client plans to transfer assets to a relative for no consideration so that a judgment creditor cannot reach them. The client asks Lawyer to prepare the transfer documents. What may Lawyer do?
Option C is best. Rule 1.2(d) prohibits a lawyer from counselling or assisting conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. The lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of the proposed course and help the client understand or comply with the law, but may not prepare documents that facilitate the fraudulent transfer. A and D confuse client control with the lawyer's independent professional duty.
Do not confuse a client's right to make decisions with a lawyer's permission to facilitate unlawful conduct. The safe distinction is: explain consequences and lawful options; do not assist the fraud.
7. Soliciting a prospective client
This question tests the limits on live person-to-person solicitation for financial gain and the relationship-based exception.
After a bus accident, Lawyer approaches an injured stranger in the hospital and urges the stranger to hire Lawyer immediately for a fee. The stranger has not asked to speak with a lawyer and is visibly distressed. Is Lawyer's conduct permissible?
Option C is best. Rule 7.3 restricts live person-to-person solicitation for financial gain where the prospective client's physical or mental condition makes the contact coercive, intimidating or otherwise harassing. The stranger's distress and the immediate unsolicited approach are the relevant facts. D is too broad: the Rule does not impose an absolute ban on every in-person contact with a potential client.
The strongest answer identifies the actual trigger rather than inventing an absolute ban. MPRE questions often make the proposed communication sound helpful while supplying facts that make it coercive or exploitative.
8. A judge receives an ex parte communication
This question tests what the judge must do after receiving an unauthorised communication about a pending matter.
While a motion is pending, a judge receives an email from the plaintiff containing factual arguments that were not served on the defendant. The email is not an authorised filing. What is the judge's best course?
Option C is best. Under the judicial conduct rules, a judge must not initiate, permit or consider an ex parte communication concerning a pending matter except as authorised, and must take appropriate action when such a communication is received. Notice and an opportunity to respond protect the absent party. A is wrong because a judge's confidence in personal impartiality does not cure the procedural unfairness.
When a judge receives information outside the ordinary process, focus on the absent party's opportunity to respond. Private review by the judge or clerk does not solve that problem.
9. Unearned fees and client property
This question tests the handling of money that belongs to the client or has not yet been earned by the lawyer.
A client pays Lawyer an advance for work that Lawyer will perform over the next six months. The written agreement describes the payment as an advance against future fees, not as a fee earned on receipt. What should Lawyer generally do with the money?
Option B is best. Unearned advance fees must generally be kept separate from the lawyer's own funds and transferred as earned, subject to the governing agreement and applicable trust-account requirements. A and D improperly treat client money as the lawyer's property before it is earned. C is wrong because advance payments are not categorically prohibited.
The word “advance” does not by itself mean “earned”. Identify who owns the money at each stage. Funds that remain the client's property must be safeguarded separately from the lawyer's operating funds.
10. Imputed conflicts after a lawyer changes firms
This question tests imputation and the limited treatment of a conflict arising solely from a lawyer's personal interest.
Lawyer joins Firm B after previously representing Client in a substantially related matter at Firm A. Firm B currently represents an opposing party in that matter. Lawyer has confidential information from Client. Which statement is most accurate?
Option C is best. A lawyer's former-client conflict can be imputed to the new firm under Rule 1.10, but the Rule provides a screening route when its conditions are met, including timely screening, no part of the fee, and prompt written notice to the former client in the circumstances specified. D is insufficient because a private promise alone does not satisfy the required safeguards. B is too absolute because screening may be available.
This is a classic “must, may, or must-not” question. Start with the general imputation rule, then check whether the facts support a specific screening exception. Do not treat informal non-discussion as equivalent to a compliant screen.
What to review after the questions
Your score is less useful than the reason for each error. Classify every missed question under one of four headings:
- Rule trigger: you missed the fact that activated the rule.
- Duty-holder: you assigned the duty to the wrong person.
- Exception: you knew the general rule but missed a condition.
- Best-answer comparison: you selected a broadly reasonable option instead of the option that satisfied every stated element.
A practical review loop is to restate each answer in one sentence using “must”, “may” or “must not”, then name the protected party. For example: “The lawyer must not assist the client's fraudulent transfer; the duty protects the legal system and third parties from lawyer-facilitated fraud.” This exposes vague moral reasoning and incomplete rule statements.
Use the weakest category to choose the next set of questions. If the error repeats twice, reduce the rule to its trigger, duty-holder, exception and result before attempting another scenario.
You lost this mark twice: when a lawyer joins a new firm with a former-client conflict, what conditions must generally be met for the firm to rely on screening rather than obtain the former client's consent?
The MPRE is a 60-question computer-based multiple-choice examination, with 50 scored questions and 10 unscored pretest questions, administered in a timed session. Practise applying rules at speed, but keep your review precise: the right answer usually turns on one condition, one exception or one identified duty-holder.
How MySummaries helps
Build a revision board from your Professional Responsibility notes, then use it to generate rule-based cards, timed question sets and a remediation tray for repeated errors. The platform can keep the duty-holder, protected party, rule trigger and exception beside each question so your review targets the exact reasoning gap.
Start a board at portal.mysummaries.app.