Chapter 8 Test
MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or answers
the question.
1) Clara Paralegal is taking some routine information from a new client (Mr. Deal) when Deal
suddenly opens his briefcase and shows her a handgun. He says: “This is the gun I used to
kill my wife. I’m on my way to my bank to hide it in a safe deposit box.” Clara says: “That’s
not a very smart place to hide it. It’s the first place the police usually look! Give it to me and
I’ll hide it some place where they will never look and, as I won’t tell you where it is, you have
plausible deniability.” Clara has
A) committed an act of ex parte communication.
B) aided in the secreting or hiding of evidence and committed a crime.
C) acted within the course and scope of her job so long as she checks with her supervising
lawyer.
D) acted within the course and scope of her job because the gun is attorney/client privileged.
2) Attorney Evans lost a motion for a new trial. In his anger, he wrote a letter to the judge
accusing him of making the adverse ruling based on religious bias because both the judge
and opposing counsel are Jewish, and Evans is not. While appealing the judge’s ruling, Evans
wrote to the judge:” I feel that your Ruling was either the result of your incompetence in the
matter or perhaps worse and reflected a Jewish bias in favor of the Kaplan firm whose
actions were in my judgment inexcusable in this cause. If in fact it represents incompetence I
will drop the matter but if it is a Jewish bias I will file a complaint under the Rules for
Handling Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability.” Evans:
A) will be found to be incompetent to continue to practice law because his letter was
discourteous, prejudicial to the administration of justice, and defamatory.
B) may be found to be incompetent to continue to practice law only if he loses his appeal.
C) cannot be found guilty of anything, or incompetent, because his words are protected by the
First Amendment.
D) may be found to be rude, but nothing more.
3) Percy Paralegal is, among other things, in charge of the thousands of documents for a multi-
million dollar contract litigation case. Document #78690757 is missing, but Percy remembers
exactly what it looked like. Rather than get in trouble for losing a document, Percy re-creates
the document using his computer and the law firm printer/photocopier. Percy
A) has fabricated evidence only if he is asked to testify as to the authenticity of Document
#78690757.
B) has done nothing wrong so long as the new replication of Document #78690757 is
EXACTLY the same as the original.
C) has fabricated evidence even though he had no intent to perpetrate a fraud upon the court.
D) has only fabricated evidence if Document #78690757 will be admitted into evidence at trial.
4) Bronson Paralegal is writing a motion that will be filed with the state court. He has located a
case that holds exactly the opposite of the point he is trying to make. In order to rectify what
Bronson sees as a losing motion, Bronson simply quotes from the case’s ruling and inserts the
word “not” at the appropriate place. Now the quote stands for the proposition that Bronson
needs. “Unless the judge reads very carefully, he will never notice this small insertion,”
thinks Bronson. Just to be sure his supervising attorney doesn’t get into trouble, though,
Bronson tells the attorney what the case really says. Which of the following is likely to
happen next?
A) Bronson may be told to fix the sentence back to an accurate quote, even if it means losing the
motion.
B) Bronson may be fired for attempting to mislead the court but, at the very least, he will be in
alot of trouble.
C) Bronson may be demoted from doing legal research to organizing documents.
D) Bronson will be told to fix the sentence back to an accurate quote, he may be demoted or he
may be fired for attempting to mislead the court
5) In house paralegal, Dorothy, is asked by her company’s personnel department if the old email
backup harddrive, which is failing, can be erased and disposed of. As the personnel
department has nothing to do with corporate dealings with shareholders or other people
outside of the company, Dorothy does not see the harm in letting that old information go. She
is
A) probably correct because the email are only pertinent to internal matters.
B) probably wrong because the personnel department’s email might be pertinent to a case
brought by a current or fomer employee against the corporation.
C) probably correct because there is never any need to retain email. They are all preserved by
the senders, anyway.
D) probably wrong because all email must be retained by every corporation for all time.
6) The Law Firm of Ubber & Pratt received a very large invoice from Court Reporting Agency.
Rather than pay the invoice, the firm filed a complaint against the agency hoping that the
probability of a long and expensive law suit will frighten them into just forgetting about the
invoice. In reality, Ubber & Pratt have no problem with Court Reporting Agency. This tactic
A) violates the rule against bringing a frivolous claim for the purpose of harassment.
B) is a perfectly legitimate and often used method of negotiating the price of services.
C) violates the rule against perpetuity.
D) is a little known method of catching the attention of service providers, and within the
boundaries of the law.
7) Cleo Paralegal has been trying to get Wayne King (bad guy) served with a complaint for two
months. Wayne has been served before and is now the “King of Evasion.” In order to find
Wayne when he is not suspecting a process server, Cleo begins hanging out at a coffee shop
near Wayne’s sister’s house. Cleo spreads around the idea that she is Wayne’s “old girl friend
from high school” who is looking to surprise Wayne. Cleo
A) is probably going to find Wayne and serve him and all will be well.
B) is probably guilty of suppression of evidence.
C) is probably guilty of spoliation of evidence.
D) is probably guilty of pretexting.
8) Apolonia Paralegal’s father owns a golf and tennis pro shop at a local golf club. Apolonia’s
law firm typically gets sports-types gifts wholesale (through Apolonia’s dad) and gives them
to the local court personnel at Christmas. This practice
A) is fine so long as Apolonia’s firm does not ask for anything special from the court personnel.
B) is fine so long as this is the custom and practice in that town, city or area.
C) is not a good idea because seeking to influence court personnel by giving them gifts is a
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
D) is fine because gifts are standard practice for Christmas.
9) While interviewing a potential witness, Xavier Paralegal suggested that the witness did not
see a “green” car, but instead showed her pictures of blue and turquoise-colored cars of the
same make and model as the car the witness told the police she had seen at the accident. By
the end of the interview, the witness was pretty confused about what, exactly, she had seen.
At Xavier’s request, then, she signed a witness statement saying that she really did not
remember what the car looked like, contradicting the statement she made to the police.
Xavier
A) is guilty of witness tampering.
B) was fine when he showed pictures to the witness but should not have “suggested” that she did
not see a green car.
C) has violated his duty to the legal system by confusing a witness who would otherwise have
been able to shed valuable light on the truth.
D) is simply doing his best for his client by confusing this witness
10) The plaintiff, Leandro Rizzuto, climbed a ladder manufactured by the named defendant,
Ladders, Inc. while shopping at a Buy-It-All store. The ladder collapsed suddenly and the
plaintiff fell to the floor, incurring serious physical injuries. The plaintiff filed a product
liability action against Ladders and the defendant, Buy-It-All, alleging that the ladder had
been manufactured and designed improperly, and had been sold without proper warnings.
Thereafter, the plaintiff asked the defendants repeatedly to preserve the ladder and to afford
him an opportunity to examine the ladder. The defendants’ expert examined the ladder and
concluded that it was not defective. The defendants thereafter destroyed the ladder, despite
the fact that the plaintiff had never had an opportunity to inspect it. Plaintiff will bring a
motion for
A) spoliation of evidence.
B) tortious interference with prospective business advantage.
C) suppression of evidence.
D) pretexting of evidence.
11) Defendant Jonas was on trial for 1st degree manslaughter. The trial was 8 days long. The
jury was then given instructions and went into the jury room to deliberate. Approximately
two hours later, the jury sent a note out to the judge saying that they could not reach a
verdict. After receiving the note, the judge met with the jury in a group and told them that
they had not deliberated long enough, that they may be missing the importance of some
evidence, or maybe were not looking at all of the evidence. After this meeting with the judge,
the jury went back to deliberations and, five hours later returned a guilty verdict. The
defendant
A) has an argument that the verdict should be overturned because of suppression of evidence.
B) has no legal arguments based on the information provided.
C) has an argument that the verdict should be overturned due to spoliation of evidence.
D) has an argument that the verdict should be overturned due to the ex parte communication
between the judge and the jury.
Answer Key