MPRE area 1 of 12
MPRE Regulation of the Legal Profession
This area covers the structural rules that regulate who may practice law, how lawyers are organized and supervised, and how the profession polices itself through admission and discipline. MPRE questions test precise triggers: when nonlawyer practice crosses into UPL, when multijurisdictional practice is permitted without local admission, when supervisory/subordinate lawyers are liable for others' violations, and the mandatory vs. permissive nature of reporting misconduct. Expect fact patterns testing exact language ("knows," "reasonably should know," "shall," "may") and jurisdiction-choice-of-law puzzles.
What the MPRE tests
Unauthorized Practice of Law & Multijurisdictional Practice
A lawyer may not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of that jurisdiction's rules on lawyer licensing, and may not assist a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law. A lawyer admitted in one U.S. jurisdiction may temporarily provide legal services in another jurisdiction without local admission if the services are provided on a temporary basis and fall within specified safe harbors (e.g., associating with local counsel, reasonably related to pending or potential litigation where pro hac vice admission is anticipated, ADR arising from the home-state practice, or otherwise reasonably related to the lawyer's home-state practice). A lawyer may also establish an office or systematic presence in another jurisdiction if authorized by federal law or other law to provide those services there.
Professional Independence & Fee-Splitting with Nonlawyers
A lawyer or law firm may not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except in narrow circumstances (paying a deceased lawyer's estate, hiring nonlawyer employees via retirement plans, or sharing court-awarded fees with a nonprofit that referred the case). A lawyer may not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any activities of the partnership consist of practicing law, and may not practice in a firm where a nonlawyer owns any interest, serves as a corporate officer/director with comparable authority, or has the right to direct/control the lawyer's professional judgment. This rule exists to protect the lawyer's independent professional judgment from outside commercial influence.
Restrictions on the Right to Practice
A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making a partnership, employment, or similar agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except for agreements concerning retirement benefits. A lawyer also may not participate in a settlement agreement that restricts the lawyer's right to practice as part of the settlement of a client controversy. These restrictions protect client access to counsel of choice and lawyer mobility.
Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or a disciplinary matter, shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact, and shall not fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter. A lawyer must also respond to lawful demands for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by the confidentiality rule (1.6).
Reporting Professional Misconduct
A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question about that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice must report the violation to the appropriate professional authority. The same mandatory reporting duty applies to knowledge of a judge's violation of judicial conduct rules that raises a substantial question about the judge's fitness for office. This duty does not apply to information gained while serving as a lawyer-assistance-program counselor, and does not require disclosure of information protected by 1.6.
Misconduct and Disciplinary Authority/Choice of Law
Rule 8.4 defines professional misconduct broadly: violating or attempting to violate the rules, committing a criminal act reflecting adversely on honesty/trustworthiness/fitness, engaging in dishonesty/fraud/deceit/misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and stating or implying an ability to improperly influence a government official. Rule 8.5 provides that a lawyer admitted in a jurisdiction is subject to that jurisdiction's disciplinary authority regardless of where the conduct occurs, and may also be subject to the disciplinary authority of any jurisdiction where the lawyer provides or offers to provide legal services. For choice of law, conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal is governed by the rules of the jurisdiction where the tribunal sits (unless the tribunal's rules provide otherwise); for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred apply, unless the conduct's predominant effect is in a different jurisdiction, in which case that jurisdiction's rules apply.
Supervisory and Subordinate Lawyer Responsibility; Nonlawyer Assistants
Partners and lawyers with managerial authority must make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to the rules of professional conduct, and supervisory lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure subordinate lawyers do the same. A supervisory lawyer is personally responsible for a subordinate's violation if the supervisor ordered or ratified the conduct with knowledge, or if the supervisor knew of the conduct at a time when its consequences could have been avoided/mitigated but failed to act. A subordinate lawyer is bound by the rules even if acting at a supervisor's direction, but is not in violation if reasonably relying on a supervisor's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty. Lawyers with managerial/supervisory authority over nonlawyer assistants (5.3) bear parallel responsibility for the nonlawyer's conduct as if it were the lawyer's own, using the same knowledge/ratification/failure-to-mitigate standard as 5.1.
Try an MPRE-style question
A lawyer licensed only in State A regularly advises a corporate client headquartered in State A on a complex commercial dispute that has now resulted in litigation pending in State B. The lawyer has never been admitted in State B but travels there to assist local counsel of record, participates in depositions, and helps prepare witnesses, all while local counsel appears at every court hearing and signs all filings. The lawyer does not seek pro hac vice admission because local counsel assured him it was unnecessary for a lawyer merely 'assisting.' Is the lawyer subject to discipline?
- (A) No, because the lawyer's conduct is reasonably related to pending litigation and associated with locally admitted counsel who is responsible for the litigation.
- (B) No, because a lawyer may always assist local counsel in another jurisdiction without seeking admission there.
- (C) Yes, because only local counsel admitted in State B may perform any legal work related to the litigation.
- (D) Yes, because the lawyer failed to obtain pro hac vice admission before entering State B.
Show answer
A. Rule 5.5(c) lets an out-of-state lawyer provide temporary services when associated with a locally admitted lawyer who actively participates in the matter. It also covers work reasonably related to a pending proceeding, including preparatory work such as depositions and witness preparation. The tempting 'always' choice overstates the rule: the safe harbor is conditional, not unlimited, and the lawyer is protected here only because these conditions are met. Model Rule 5.5
Next area: The Client-Lawyer Relationship