MPRE area 5 of 12
MPRE Competence, Legal Malpractice, and Other Civil Liability
This area tests whether an applicant can distinguish a lawyer's ethical duties of competence and diligence from the separate (and distinct) civil doctrine of legal malpractice, and can apply supervisory/subordinate liability rules within firms. The MPRE frequently blends these: a fact pattern shows sloppy or negligent conduct, and the question asks whether it violates the Model Rules, gives rise to civil malpractice liability, both, or neither. Questions also test the circumstances under which Rule 1.8 business/financial dealings with clients trigger heightened conflict-of-interest safeguards, and how supervisory (5.1) and subordinate (5.2) lawyer liability operates inside a firm or government office.
What the MPRE tests
Duty of Competence
A lawyer must provide competent representation, meaning the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the matter. Competence can be acquired through reasonable study or by associating with or consulting a lawyer who already has the necessary skill. A lawyer need not already be an expert in a field before accepting a matter, but must become competent before or promptly after undertaking it.
Duty of Diligence
A lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. This requires pursuing a matter despite obstacles, opposing counsel's stalling, or personal inconvenience, and avoiding unnecessary delay that causes client prejudice or undermines confidence in the profession. Diligence also requires controlling workload so that each matter receives adequate attention.
Legal Malpractice as a Distinct Civil Doctrine
Legal malpractice is a civil tort/contract claim, separate from the disciplinary system, requiring proof of duty, breach, causation, and damages. A violation of the Model Rules is not automatically malpractice and does not itself create a private right of action; conversely, conduct can be malpractice (e.g., a single negligent slip) without rising to a disciplinary violation. The Model Rules may be used as evidence of the applicable standard of care, but they do not define civil liability standards themselves.
Rule 1.8 Business Transactions and Related Specific Conflicts with Competence Implications
A lawyer entering a business transaction with a client, or acquiring an interest adverse to the client, must meet heightened safeguards: the terms must be fair and reasonable and fully disclosed in writing understandable to the client, the client must be advised in writing of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel and given a reasonable opportunity to do so, and the client must give informed consent in a signed writing to the essential terms and the lawyer's role. Several specific per-se rules also appear under 1.8, including restrictions on using client information, gifts from clients, media rights, financial assistance to clients in litigation, and aggregate settlements.
Supervisory Lawyer Responsibility
Partners and lawyers with comparable managerial authority must make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has measures in place giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to the Model Rules. A lawyer with direct supervisory authority over another lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that subordinate's compliance. A supervisory lawyer is personally responsible for a subordinate's violation if the supervisor orders it, ratifies it knowing of the conduct, or knows of the violation at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
Subordinate Lawyer Responsibility
A subordinate lawyer is bound by the Model Rules even when acting at the direction of a supervisor, and 'I was just following orders' is not a defense to a clear ethical violation. However, a subordinate does not violate the rules if they act in accordance with a supervisor's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty, where reasonable lawyers could disagree about the correct course.
Try an MPRE-style question
An attorney accepted a case involving a complex area of securities regulation with which she had no prior experience. She spent extra hours researching the field, consulted a treatise, and briefly discussed strategy with a colleague who practiced securities law, but she did not associate co-counsel or tell the client she lacked experience in this area. Her handling of the matter met the standard of a competent practitioner and the client's interests were adequately protected. Is the attorney subject to discipline?
- (A) Yes, because she failed to disclose her lack of experience to the client before accepting the representation.
- (B) No, because a lawyer may acquire the necessary competence through reasonable preparation without prior experience in the field.
- (C) Yes, because she did not associate with a lawyer experienced in securities law.
- (D) No, because any lawyer licensed to practice is presumed competent in all areas of law.
Show answer
B. Under Rule 1.1 and its comments, a lawyer may take on an unfamiliar field if she gains the needed competence through reasonable study and preparation, which she did here. The Model Rules do not require a lawyer to associate co-counsel or to disclose inexperience when competence is achieved through preparation. Association with an experienced lawyer is only one way to become competent, not a requirement. Model Rule 1.1
Next area: Litigation and Other Forms of Advocacy