WPC RRA,^졵oZ Z5}+9F}A7f1 rp^hpt2^$1Z11YsԬ <602C']۞2v|>>, _M?ifzI$:$F/Xؤ+hkN<2Tk߼HU>2R5{}^l6ez#<l3@L84]x|H96k-/E7riO<`Ɨ# لjpu,K, `ϭ;7X9x;F_Cb0<aa>r^Zw0GaVl=^ w4 mN 1u 72c c 0 0jh D+ U*D 0n 0n 0k 0h 0b 0\ 0S 0J 0>U@2 0rr 0V 0%pf 1U 0++  1e 1$$$$ 0 cHP LaserJet 4250 PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,\  `&Times New Roman7s  !)USUS.,  _   Page  1  ڀof  28  SzZ3hared3|xU3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)6s f4Heading 1XXX?%2A`Arial?       ?%2A`Arial? 6 4Body TextXXX'dxd%2A`Arial2S+P 0_level1  , ;1` hp x (#;23  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2P+P 0_level2  X 8.` hp x (#823  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2P+P 0_level3   8.444` hp x (#823  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2M+P 0_level4   5+` ` ` hp x (#523  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2M+P 0_level5   5+ hp x (#523  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2J+P 0_level6   2( hp x (#223  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2J+P 0_level7  4 2( hp x (#223  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2G+P 0_level8  ` /% hp x (#/23  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2G+P 0_level9   /%< <<hp x (#/23  ..  8.` hp x (#8  (O Z(Times New Roman 64 '4Heading 2XXX        (.3$ !USUS.,  ($$&t1  XXX  XXX$359=AEIMQ111111111:$$ 8Body Text 2XXX       35;AGMSY_2a.A.i.1.a.i.1.a.(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(;3$2#  0  .3  0  !USUS.,  _X       JULY2007BAREXAMINATION  QUESTIONSANDREPRESENTATIVEGOODANSWERS  QUESTION1 `     XOnFebruary1,2007,SellerandBuyerenteredintoavalidwrittenContracttosella 8  ParceloflandinacommercialareaofPrinceGeorgesCounty,Marylandfor$1million.The $ t Selleragreedtodelivermarketabletitlefreeofliens, subjecttoallrestrictionsofrecord.  `   L  BuyerretainedSwift,aMarylandattorney,toexaminetitletotheparcel.Swiftprovided  8  Buyerwithawrittentitlereport(opinion)datedNovember15,2006,certifyingthatSellerstitle $  is goodandmarketableandfreeandclearofallliens,encumbrances,andrestrictions,without   exception.      OnFebruary28,2007,atBuyersrequest,SwiftpreparedandaprovidedtoBuyeran   AssignmentandAssumptionAgreement,bywhichBuyer,forvaluableconsideration,assigned p thelandcontracttoCommercialDevelopers,LLC,andbywhichCommercialDevelopers,LLC \ assumedallofBuyersrightsandobligationsunderthelandcontract.ThisAssignmentwasduly H executedbyBuyerandCommercialDevelopers,LLCandconsentedtobySeller.Atthesame 4 time,withoutSwiftsknowledge,BuyerforwardedthetitleopiniontoCommercialDevelopers,  p LLC,eventhoughthiswasnotrequiredbytheAssignment.  \  H  ` Relyingonthetitleopinion,CommercialDevelopersspent$50,000for 4 engineeringandmadearequireddepositof$100,000pursuanttothelandcontract.Priortothe   scheduledsettlementdate,CommercialDevelopers,LLClearnedthattheparcelwassubjectto   recordedrestrictivecovenantswhichseverelylimitedcommercialdevelopment.These  restrictivecovenants,whichwereunreportedbySwift,renderedtheparceluselesstoCommercial  Developersandsubstantiallydiminisheditsvalue.   X    CommercialDevelopers,LLCwantstorescindthecontractwithSellerandsueSwiftfor X  damagesforhiserroneoustitleanalysis. D!   L9%  <DLX9 YouareinhousecounselforCommercialDevelopers,LLC.Advise #l! yourclientofthelikelihoodofsuccessinpursuingthesetwocourses $X" ofaction.Explainyourreasons. $D #   L  E+ 4 <DL! XEREPRESENTATIVEANSWER1 '#&     Thiscontractisgovernedbythecommonlawbecauseitisforthesaleofland. )$(   Thereisa validwrittencontractbetweensellerandbuyer. |*%)     0  ThereisavalidassignmentofthecontractfrombuyertoCommercialh+&*(#(# Developers,LLC( CD,LLC).Thesellerhereconsentedtotheassignment. T,'+ 0      (#(#   Terms:Thepriceis1million.Theselleralsoagreedtoprovide goodandmarketable ,.|)- titlefreeofliensbut subjecttoallrestrictionsofrecord.RescindingContractwithseller.    IfthesellerisinbreachthenCD,LLCwillbeallowedtorescindthecontractifthe  breachcausestheparceltobe substantiallydiminishedonvaluewhichtheparcelistoCD, t LLC.ThecontractbetweensellerandbuyerwhichCD,LLCassumedallrightsandobligations ` wasonlytodelivermarketabletitlefreeofliensbutalso subjecttoallrestrictionsofrecord. L  Therestrictivecovenantsontheparcelwere recordedandthusinthechainoftitle.Theseller 8  hereisnotinbreachaccordingtothetermsofthecontractbetweenbuyerandseller.CD,LLC $ t willnotbeabletorescindthecontract.UnilateralmistakemaynothelpbecauseCD,LLCwas  ` supposedtoruntheirowntitlesearchandsellerisnotimplicatedinSwiftserror.  L    SuingSwiftforDamages. $        AsbuyerslawyerSwiftowedadutyofcare,andcompetencetobuyer.Swiftprepared   thetitlereportforbuyeronNovember15,2006;ifhewasmistakenheisliabletobuyerforthat   mistake.       BuyersentthereporttoCDLLC eventhoughitwasnotrequiredbytheassignmentand \  withoutSwiftsknowledge. H     CDLLCreliedonthetitleopinionbutitisquestionableifthereliancewasreasonable.  p Firstthereportwas2monthsold,secondSwiftwasnotCDLLCscounselnordidSwifttryto  \ inducerelianceonthepartofCD,LLCwhichmayhavedifferentneedsthanbuyer.Alsothe H reportwasnotpartoftheAssumptionAgreement!indicatingCD;LLCintendedtodoitsown 4 titlereport.Becausethecovenantshave substantiallydiminishedthevalueoftheparcel,CD,   LLCdoeshavedamages$100,000depositand$50,000engineeringonrelianceofthesale.   However,itisnotaslikelythatCD,LLCcanrecoverfromSwiftwhodidnotpreparethereport  forCD,LLCsbehalfbutforbuyeralone.      Estoppel(becauseofreliance)maynotworkbecauseCD,LLCandSwifthavenodirect l relationshipandSwift(inerror)madenorepresentationstoCD,LLC.Ontheotherhand,Swift X  preparedtheassignmentcontractsohewasonnoticethatCD,LLCwasinterestedintheparcel, D! butbuyersentthetitlereportwithoutnoticetoSwift. 0"      IfCD,LLCsrelianceonthereportwasreasonable(aclosequestionoffact)thenCD, $X" LLCcanrecoveragainstSwift.Ifunreasonable,thennorecoveryagainstSwift. $D #    B+ 4 <DL!X!BREPRESENTATIVEANSWER2  &"%       CommercialDevelopers,LLC(CD)acquiredallrightsanddutiesundertheoriginallaw (#' contractbetweenSellerandBuyer.Asaresult,CDmaysueunderthecontractforanybreachby )$( SellerthatBuyerwouldhavebeenableto. |*%)   TherearegenerallytwowarrantiesmadebytheSellerinanylandcontract!thatthe h+&* Sellerwillprovidemarketabletitleatclosingandthathewillnotmakeanymaterial T,'+ misrepresentation.Here,however,Sellerexpresslydisclaimedthegeneralwarrantytoprovide @-(, marketabletitle!hepromisedtoprovidetitlefreeofliens,butsubjecttoallrestrictionsof  ,.|)- Ѐrecord.TherestrictivecovenantsthatwouldenduprenderingtheparceluselesstoCDwere  recorded,andthuswithinSellersreferenceto allrestrictionsofrecord.Theserestrictions  wereeasilydiscoverablebyanadequate,diligenttitlesearch.Sellerisnotresponsibleforthe  failureofSwift,todiscoverthem,asSellermadenoaffirmativemisrepresentationsastothe t property(orevenfailuretodisclose)andthushasnotbreachedthecontract.CDhasnocauseof ` actionfordamagesunderthecontract,andbecausethereisavalidcontract,maynotsueunder L  quasicontracteither. 8      SwiftwasBuyersattorney.HewasundernocontractualdutiestoCD.ThoughCD  ` assumedtherightsanddutiesoftheBuyerSellercontract,therewasnoassignmentordelegation  L  ofSwiftsretentionagreementwithBuyer.ThusCDhasnoclaimfordamagesundercontract  8  andwouldhavetopursueanequitableclaim.ThoughclearlyCDreliedonSwiftstitlesearch, $  Swiftmadenopromise,letaloneaclearanddefiniteone,tothem.He,infact,hadabsolutelyno   knowledgeoftheiruseofthetitlesearch.Theirreliancewasthusnotforeseeable.Evenifhe   couldhaveforeseentheiruseofhissearch,itdoesnotrisetotherequirementsofquasicontract   orpromissoryestoppelclaimsinMaryland.Finally,CDwouldhaveahardtimeshowingtheir   detrimentwasreasonable,orunjust.Theycouldhave,andasacorporatedevelopmentcompany, p shouldhaveretainedtheirowncounselinsteadofrelying,blindlyonthecounseloftheBuyer. \   H   QUESTION2   '  B+  hp x X!B"  XXXX    K.A$` hp x  XK"'  ݀AA A $ XXXXTomJonesandSophieWesternwerecelebratingtheirrecentengagementatatavernin  CarolineCounty,Maryland,whentheyencounteredBillBlifill.JonesandBlifillgotintoa t shovingmatch.BlifillfiledatortactionagainstJonesintheCircuitCourtforCarolineCounty, ` allegingthathesufferedpermanentinjuriesasaresultofJonesactions.TrialwasheldonJune L  1,2006."'@(݌ 8  Ќ  XXXX  "  XXXX  K.A$` hp x A$` XK"*  AA A $ Smith,aneyewitness,wascalledbyBlifillslawyertotestify.Smithtestifiedthatshe  ` couldnotrecallwhostartedthefight.Thisstatementvariedfromherearlierdeposition  L  testimony.BlifillslawyerthenaskedSmithifshehadevermadeastatementwhichcontradicted  8  herlastanswer.TheattorneyforJonestimelyobjectedtothequestiononthegroundsthat(1) $  Blifillwasattemptingtoimpeachhisownwitnessand(2)Blifillhadtodisclosethecontentsof   anysuchpriorstatementpriortoaskingthewitnessquestionsaboutit."*g+݌   Ќ  XXXX  "  XXXX  ".  "..݌̌  XXXX   ;(5h83 "?3"  ?3/25h  a  .3  0 $   HowshouldtheCourtruleonBlifillscounselsobjections?Explainyouranswer?3//݌ $(#$(# Ќ  thoroughly. p "  XXXX  " 1  " 1S1݌̌  XXXX  "  XXXX  K.A$` hp x A$` XK"1  AA A $ Atthetrial,Blifilltestifiedthathehadbeenquietlynursingabeeratthebarwhenhewas 4 shovedandpunchedbyJones.Oncrossexamination,JoneslawyeraskedBlifillwhetherhehad  p beenconvictedofacrime.Blifillsattorneytimelyobjected.Joneslawyerthenprofferedtothe  \ CourtthatBlifillhadbeenconvictedofthreecrimes:possessionofdangerousweaponsin2003, H maliciousdestructionofpropertyin2004andtheftin1990.Joneslawyerprofferedthatthe 4 evidencewasrelevanttoshowBlifillsviolentcharacterandlackofcredibility.Allofthe   convictionsweremisdemeanors."1]2݌   Ќ  XXXX  "  XXXX  "5  "5*6݌̌  XXXX  "?3"  ?3625h  b  .3  0 $   HowshouldtheCourtruleonBlifillscounselsobjection?Explainyouranswer?366݌$(#$(# Ќ  thoroughly.  "  XXXX  K.A$` hp x A$` XK"7  "7l8݌̌  XXXX  "  XXXX  K.A$` hp x A$` XK"8  "8o9݌̌  XXXX  "  XXXX  K.A$` hp x A$` XK"9  AA A $ Oncrossexamination,JoneslawyeralsoaskedBlifillifhepreviouslyhadstolenmoney 0"  fromhisformeremployer.InresponseBlifillinvokedtheFifthAmendment.Joneslawyer #l! timelymovedtheCourttocompelaresponsefromBlifill,citingwaiver."9p:݌ $X" Ќ  XXXX  "  XXXX  "<<  "<<<݌̌  XXXX  "?3"  ?3<25h  c  .3  0 $   HowshouldtheCourtruleonJoneslawyersmotiontocompel?Explainyour %0!$ answerthoroughly.?3<!=݌&"%$(#$(# Ќ    "  XXXX  K.A$` hp x A$` XK"A>  AA A "A>>݌̌  XXXX    H+ ` hp x A$` XH REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1 )$(    a.  EventhoughBlifillslawyercalledSmithasawitnesshecanimpeachheronher h+&* inconsistentstatementthatshedidnotknowwhostartedthefight.InMarylanditusedtobethe T,'+ casethatyoucouldnotimpeachyourownwitness.Thatrulehasbeenchangedandanyonecan  @-(, impeachawitness,eventhelawyerwhocalledthewitness.ThecourtwilloverruleJones  lawyerregardingimpeachmentofSmith.B.A$` hp x XB  AA A $ AstoJoneslawyerssecondbasisforobjectionthat Blifillhadtodisclosethecontents t ofanysuchpriorstatementpriortoaskingthewitnessquestionsaboutit,thejudgewillalso ` overruletheobjection.Awitnessdoesnothavetobetoldaboutthestatementbeforebeing L  examinedaboutit.Thisisespeciallytrueherewherethestatementwasmadeinadeposition 8  whichwouldhavepresumablybeenconductedunderoathandwithSmithpresent.Blifills $ t attorneymustonlygiveSmithanopportunitytoexplainthedifference,aftershehasbeen  ` confrontedwiththepriorstatement.  L  "  XXXX  K.A$` hp x A$` XK"IE  b. $ JonesattorneycannotusethecrimestoshowBlifills violentcharacter.Such $  characterevidenceisinadmissibletoshowthesamekindofbehaviorinanothermatter.   Criminalconvictionscanonlybeusedwhentheyreflectonthecandorofawitness.Although   the1990theftconvictionisacrimethatreflectsoncredibility,itisover15yearsandisnot   allowedundertheMarylandRules(10infederalcourt).Thepossessionofdangerousweapons   andmaliciousdestructionofpropertyconvictionsarenottooold,butdonotreflectonBlifills p credibility."IEE݌ \ Ќ  XXXX  H+ ` hp x A$` XHc.  Whileinacriminalcase,awitnesswaivesthe5thoncetheytakethestandandtestify,ina 4 civilcasethereisnosuchwaiver.Therefore,Blifillcaninvokehis5thamendmentprivilegeon  p eachquestionthathebelievesisincriminating.TheCourtmayconductahearingtodetermine  \ whetherthereisalegitimateconcernofselfincrimination,butitwillnotcompelBlifilltotestify H unlesstheconcernisunfounded.Jonesisentitledtohaveanadverseinferencedrawnfromevery 4 questionthatBlifillinvokesthe5th.     REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2     a.0  X (#(# ImpeachingOwnWitness 0"  Objectionoverruled.Anypartycanimpeachtheirownwitness,aslongasitisdoneingoodfaith $X" andnottackingon.BsattycanthereforeimpeachSonaccountofherpriorinconsistent $D # statementregardingwhostartedthefight. %0!$ DisclosureofStatement '#& Objectionoverruled.BsattydoesnothavetodiscloseSspriordepositionstatement.Allthat )$( isrequiredinMarylandisthewitnessbegivenanopportunitytoexplainheransweraftershehas |*%) testified. h+&*  ,.|)- b.  PriorCrimes  Objectionssustained.Priorcrimesareinadmissibletoshowconformitywithcharacter.Thus, ` noneofthecrimescanbeusedbyJsattytoshowBs violentcharacter.Priorcrimescanbe L  usedtoshowawitnesslackofcredibility.However,thecourtmustfirstseeifthecrimesbear 8  oncredibilityandwhethertheyarewithin15years.Thecourtalsomustweightheprobative $ t valueoftheevidencetodeterminewhetheritisoutweighedbythedangerofprejudice,confusion  ` ormisleadingthejury.Here,Bscrimeofpossessionofdangerousweaponsandmalicious  L  destructionofpropertydonotbearoncredibility,andareinadmissible.WhileBstheftcrime  8  doesbearoncredibility,itismorethan15yearsandwillnotbeallowed. $        c.     TheFifthAmend   Motiondenied.ThecourtwilldenyJsattysmotiontocompelbecauseawitnessdoesnot \ waivethe5thamendmentbytakingthestandinacivilcase.Rather,inacivilcaseBcanassert H the5thonaquestionbyquestionbasis. 4   #XXXX(#   p   QUESTION3   #U      OnJune1,2006,SteveSculptor( Steve)andCarlaCollector( Carla)askedLuther t Lawyer( Luther),aMarylandlawyer,toformacompanytoownandsellSteveswork.Luther ` preparedArticlesofOrganizationcreatingtheStarvingArtistLLC(the LLC),whichprovided L  thattheLLCwascreatedforthepurposeofowning,marketingandsellingtheworksofart 8  createdbySteve.CarlaandStevearethesolemembersoftheLLC.Steveagreedtocontribute $ t allofhisartworkandCarlaagreedtocontribute$50,000.TheLLCwastobethesoleownerof  ` anyworksofartcreatedatanytimebySteveandnotsoldpriortoJune10,2006,thedatethatthe  L  ArticlesweresignedbySteveandCarla.TheArticlesalsoprovidedthatindividualmembersare  8  notauthorizedtoactasagentsoftheLLCsolelybyvirtueofbeingmembers.CarlaandSteve $  toldLuthertowaittofiletheArticlesofOrganizationuntilhereceivedthefilingfeesfromthem.   LutherreceivedthosefeesonAugust28,2006,andtheArticlesofOrganizationwerefiledand   acceptedbytheMarylandStateDepartmentofAssessmentsandTaxation( SDAT)on   September1,2006.     OnJune15,2006,StevesignedaleasefortheLLCforstudiospace(the Space)owned \ byIgnatiusLandlord( Landlord)inHyattsville,Maryland.HetoldtheLandlordthatCarla,on H behalfoftheLLC,willbeginpayingrentfortheSpaceonJuly1,2006,andthatshewillsend 4 himacheckbythefirstdayofeverymonththereafter.CarlapaidtheJulyrentaspromised.  p   OnJuly29,2006,StevemovedintotheSpace,butshortlythereafter,onAugust21,2006, H hehadanaccidentwiththeweldingequipmentandstartedafirethatdamagedtheSpace. 4   OnSeptember11,2006,LandlordnotifiedStevethattheAugustandSeptemberrentwere   unpaid,andthatSteve,CarlaandtheLLCareresponsiblefortherentandthedamagetothe  Spacecausedbythefire.    Basedsolelyonthefactsgivenabove,discusstheliabilityofSteve,Carla,andthe l LLCtoanyclaimsforrentandthedamagestotheSpacethataremadebyLandlord? X    Whatclaims,ifany,doesStevehaveagainstCarlaandtheLLC?State,thebasis 0"  forsameinyouranswer. #l!   #(48;     REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1 $D # $aXXXX #XXXXra#  CarlaandSteveareindividually,jointly,severallyliablefortherentandthedamagesand &"% theLLClikelyhasonlylimitedliability. '#& XXXX  TheLLCcanonlybeliableafteritscreation.Tobeliableforactionspriortoits )$( formation,itmusteitherratifytheactionthroughassumptionornovation.Inthesefacts,theLLC |*%) wasnotformeduntilSeptember1,2006.Thedamagestospaceoccurredpriortoformation,thus h+&* theLLCwillnotbeliableforthat.Similarly,itwillnotbeliableforrentpriortoitsexistence T,'+ unlessitratifiesit.Thereisnoindicationofratification.IftheLLCusedthespaceandbenefitted @-(, fromitafterSeptember1,itwouldlikelytobefoundtohaveratifiedtheAgreementtopayrent ,.|)- fromthenforward.Butsincethespacewasdamaged,itisunclearwhetherthespacewasinuse  onSeptember1,toshowratification.CarlaandStevecanarguethatLandlordisestoppedfrom  notgoingaftertheLLCsincehedealtwithSteveasanagentoftheLLC.      SteveisonthehooksincehesignedtheLeaseandcausedthedamage.Carlawasina ` partnershipwithSteve,whichculminatedintheformationoftheLLC.Stevesactionsofsigning L  theLeasewereasanagentofthepartnership,thusCarlaisjointlyandseverallyliable.Also,the 8  damagestospaceoccurredinthecourseofthepartnership,soagain,Carlaisjointlyand $ t severallyliable(althoughshecangetcontributionsfromSteve,becauseitwasduetohis  ` negligence).ThefactthatSteveandCarlawerepromotersofthesoontobeformedLLC,does  L  notchangetheoutcomeaspromotersremainliableshortoftherebeinganovation.  8      StevecanaskforcontributionsfromCarlaunderthepartnership.Underthepartnership   agreement,Carlaagreedtopaytherent.Shefailedtodoso,thus,StevecansueCarlaforbreach   ofthatagreement.       StevecanalsoaskforcontributionfromCarlaforthedamagesfromthewelding,asthe p weldingwasdoneinfurtheranceofthepartnership.Althoughthiscouldbelimitedifthedamage \ wasduetoStevesnegligence. H     StevecangetcontributionsfromtheLLCtothedegreeLLCassumedliability.Such  p ratificationhasbeenpreviouslydiscussed.  \ #XXXXwb#XXXX   @  @`  @  @ REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2    &m#XXXXm#  sXXss    #XXsm#A.1. ` #XXXXm#XXXXStevesLiability#XXXXn#XXXX:  #XXXXn#XXXX    StevesignedaLeaseinthenameoftheLLC.AccordingtotheAofO,theindividual  memberswerenotagentsoftheLLCsolelybyvirtueoftheirbeingmembers.Carlaratifiedthe l  Contractbypayingthefirstmonthsrentinatimelyfashion.Thequestioniswhetherornot X! Steve,asamemberoftheLLC,ispersonallyliablefortheContractthathesignedintheLLCs D"  name.Inthiscase,theLLCdidnotexistuntilSeptember1,2006.Stevecouldnothidebehinda 0#! constructiveincorporationargumentbecausepersonallyheknewtheyhadnotcompliedwiththe $l" filingrequirementsbecausetheyhadnotyetgivenlawyerthemoney.Assuch,Stevewould %X # likelybepersonallyliableontheContracthesigned.Hewouldalsobepersonallyliableforhis %D!$ ownnegligence,ifanyinusingtheblowtorch.Stevewasalsoarguablyactingoutsideofthe &0"% scopeoftheAofOwhenheburnedthebuilding.TheAofOlimitedtheactivitiesoftheLLCto '#&  owning,marketing,andsellingworksofart.AsStevewasengagedinmakingart,ratherthan ($' owning,marketing,orsellingart,hewasactingoutsidethepurposeoftheLLC.Assuch,this )$( wouldbefurthersupportforhispersonalliability. *%) #XXXX8o#XXXX    2. ` #XXXXCu#XXXXCarla h,'+ #XXXXu#XXXX    Carawouldnotbepersonallyliable.First,thereisnothingtoindicatethatCarlawas @.)- negligentinanyway.Second,shedidnotsigntheLeaseandwasnotinprivitywiththe  Landlord.Assuch,shewouldnotbepersonallyliable.       `     h      p   3. ` #XXXXv#XXXXLLC#XXXXx#XXXX `     TheLLCwouldnotbeliableeventhoughStevesignedintheLLCsnamebecause: 8        1. ` TheLLCdidnotexistatthetimetheLeasewassignedorthefirewasstarted.  ` BothoftheseeventspredatedtheacceptanceoftheAofObySDATonSeptember1,2006.  L        B. ` #XXXX`x#XXXXStevev.Carla,LLC $      StevewouldbeheldpersonallyliablefortheContract,butcouldlikelyrecoverfrom   Carlaand/ortheLLC.First,CarlaratifiedtheLeasebypayingtherent.EveniftheLLCdidnot   exist,Stevemightbeabletoarguethatthetwowereengagedinapartnership(whichdoesnot   requireafiling)orthatStevewasCarlasagent.Ineitherevent,sheexpressedheracquiescence p totheLease,bypayingtherent.Shewouldlikelybeestoppedfromdenyingliabilityforitafter \ thefact.TheLLCcouldalsolikelybeliabletoSteve.TheLLCfileditsAofOonAugust28, H 2006.Thiswasseveraldaysafterthefire.ThiscouldbeconstruedasratifyingStevesactions,by 4 proceedingintobusinesswithhim.Assuch,theLLCwouldalsolikelybeliabletoSteve.   p   QUESTION4   z~  InApril2006,Buyersoughttopurchaseanew2006"Champion",ahighperformance  EnglishsportscarfromDealer.HetoldDealerthathispresentcar,a2003Champion,was"the t bestcarI'veeverdriven".DuringthisconversationDealerinformedBuyerthat,exceptforsome ` cosmeticchanges,the2006Championmodelwasidenticaltoa2003model.BuyeraskedDealer L  todescribetheexactdifferencesbetweenthe2003and2006models;Dealeraffirmedthatthey 8  werecosmeticonly.Shortlythereafter,Buyerpurchaseda2006Championfor$70,000.Buyer $ t tookdeliveryofthevehicleonApril15,2006.  `   Thefollowingmorning,uponstartinghisnewcar,Buyernoticedthatitwasverynoisyat  8  lowspeeds.Buyerexperiencedthesameproblemonsucceedingday.Buyerpromptly $  complainedtoDealerand,atDealer'srequest,agreedtowaituntilthe1000mileservicingtosee   iftheproblemworkeditselfout.     OnMay3,2006,BuyerbroughthisnewcartoDealerforthe1000milecheckupand   describedtheproblemshewashavingwiththecar.Dealer'sservicedepartmentreportedthatthe p vehiclefunctionednormally. \   Overthenextseveralweeks,Buyer,Dealerandamanufacturer'srepresentativediscussed 4 theproblem.Buyerlearnedthatthe2006vehiclewasfunctioningasdesignedbutthatthe  p exhaust,ignitionandtransmissionsystemshadbeenchangedfromthe2003modeltoimprove  \ gasmileageandsavecosts.OnJune1,2006,Buyerreturnedthe2006ChampiontoDealerand H informedDealerinwritingthattheautomobilenotaswasrepresentedbythesalesmanandthat 4 hewasrevokinghisacceptanceandrescindingthesale.Buyerleftthekeystothe2006   Champion,requestedreturnofhispurchasepriceandinformedDealerthathewouldberentinga   caruntilthismatterwasresolved.The2006Championhadapproximately3500milesonitthe  dayBuyerleftitwithDealer.Byreturnletter,Dealertookthepositionthatthevehiclewasnot  defectiveandthatthesalewasfinal.    The2006ChampionsatuntouchedinDealer'lotforthreemonthsuntilSeptember1, X  2006whenBuyerretrievedthecar.Indisgust,Buyersubsequentlytradedinthe2006Champion D! forahybrid,whichhadamanufacturer'ssuggestedretailpriceof$30,000. 0"    a.Underthesefacts,isDealerliabletoBuyer? $X"   b.WhatdefensescanDealerraise?  %0!$     REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1  (#' a.  PerMd.Code2313(1)9a),acontractcontainsanexpresswarrantyofanyaffirmationof |*%) factorpromisemadebysellertobuyer,ifthatpromiserelatestothegoodsandispartofthe h+&* basisforthebargain.Md.Code2317(1)(b),doesnotrequirespecialwordsof"guarantee" T,'+ shouldthiswarrantybebreached,thenthecontractisbreachedandanactionfordamagesarises. @-(,  ,.|)-   Whenbuyerwasconsideringpurchasinga2006Champion,dealertoldbuyerthatthe  2006versionwasidenticaltothe2003version,exceptforcosmeticchanges.Buyeraskedfor__a  descriptionofthedifferences.Dealeraffirmedthatthedifferenceswerecosmeticonly.Buyer  thenboughtthecar. t   Dealersrepresentationandaffirmationastothenatureofthedifferencesbetweenthe L  2006and2003modelsandbuyerssubsequentreliancethereupon,createdanexpresswarranty 8  perMd.Code2313. $ t   Thedifferences,however,werenotcosmetic.Buyersubsequentlylearnedthatthe2006  L  modelhaddifferentexhaust,ignition,andtransmissionsystems.Thesedifferencescannotbe  8  consideredcosmetic(infact,theywereintendedtoimprovegasmileageandcosts). $    Assuch,dealerbreachedtheexpresswarrantyandthecontract.Buyercanrejectthe   goods(perMd.Code2601).Buyer,however,hadalreadytakendeliveryatthetimehelearned   thetruenatureofthedealersbreach.     Md.Code2602requiresthatrejectionmustbewithinareasonabletimeafterdelivery. \ Buyertookpossession/deliveryofthe2006championonApril15,2006.Buyerpromptly H complainedtothedealer(withinthenextfewdays)oftheproblemthatencompassedthebreach. 4 Dealertoldbuyertowait.OnMay3,2006,Buyeragaincomplained,butwastoldthecar  p functionednormally.Buyerwasunawarethatwhatconstituted"functionednormally"wasa  \ breachoftheexpresswarranty. H   Buyerthenlearnedofthetruenatureofthe2006'sdesignandreturnedthecaronJune1,   2006,withtitleandkeys.     Ifbuyeracceptedthegoods,hemustpayfullcontractpriceperMd.Code2607(1).  Acceptanceoccurswhenthebuyerfailstomakeaneffectiverejection(MdCode2606(b)).  Thus,thekeyquestioniswhetherthebuyerrejectedthegoodswithinareasonabletimeperMd. l Code2602(1). X    Thefactsindicatethatbuyeralmostimmediatelyputdealeronnoticeofaproblem.The 0"  lengthoftimebetweendeliveryandrejection(46days)isdirectlyattributabletodealersactions #l! andcontinuedmisrepresentations.Underthesefacts,dealerwouldbeliabletobuyer. $X" b.0  Afterabuyerrejectsagood,thebuyerscontinuedexerciseofownershipiswrongful%0!$(#(# againsttheseller.Here,buyergrewfrustratedandreturnedthecaronSeptember1,2006. &"% Dealercanclaim(1)thatiftherejectionwaseffectivethathisactionwaswrongfultodealerand '#& buyerisliablefordamagesand(2)thatbecauseofthewrongfulconduct,buyeracceptedthe (#' goods,perMd.Code2606(1)(c).Thesecondargument,however,wouldrequirethedealerto )$( acknowledgeandratifythatact.* |*%)   *Theproblemisthatdealerpreviouslydeniedthattherejectionwasvalidinareturn T,'+ letter.Dealermightbestoppedfromadvancingthisargumentwhichispremisedonrightful @-(, rejection. ,.|)- Ї  Inaddition,dealermayarguethebuyersfactualallegationsthattherewasabreach.The  2006wasfunctioningnormally.Thedealercanarguethattheaforementionedchangeswere  cosmeticastheydidnotaffecttheperformanceofthesportscaronlygaveitbettermileage.     REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2  ` a.0  Buyerhasseveralclaimsagainstdealer.First,underUCC2313,dealermadeexpress8 (#(# warrantiestobuyerwhendealerinformedbuyer,thatexceptforsomecosmeticchanges,the $ t 2006Championmodelwasidenticaltothe2003model.Further,whenbuyeraskeddealerto  ` describetheexactdifferencesbetweenthemodels,dealeraffirmedthattheywerecosmeticonly.  L  Thisofcourse,wasnottrue,sincebuyerlaterlearnedthatthe2006vehiclewasverynoisyatlow  8  speedsandthatthiswasduetothefactthatwhilethe2006wasfunctioningasdesigned,the $  exhaust,ignitionandtransmissionsystemhavebeenchangedfromthe2003model.Itwasnot   necessaryforthedealertouseformalwordssuchas"warrant"or"guarantee"orthathehada   specificintentiontomakeawarranty.2313(2)     Second,under2314(3)dealermayhavebreachedtheimpliedwarrantythatarisefrom p courseofdealingbecausethebuyerhadtolddealerthatthe2003wasthe"bestcar[hed]ever \ driven"andbuyerreliedintheassuranceofdealerthatthe2006wouldmeetthesesame H performancestandards.However,thecauseofbuyersdissatisfactionwaschangesinthedesign 4 toimprovecosteffectivenessandgasmileage.Thus,hemaynotprevailonthisground.  p b.Dealermayraiseseveraldefenses.(1)Buyerdidnotrejectgoodswithinareasonabletime H aftertheirdelivery.BuyerboughtthecarandtookdeliveryonApril15,2006,butdidnotreturn 4 thecartodealeruntilJune1,2006.     Buyerwillrespondthathepromptlycomplainedtodealer,andatdealersrequest,agreed  towaituntilthe1,000mileservicing.    (2)Dealermayalsoarguethatunder2602(a)afterbuyerrejectedanyexerciseof l ownershipbyreturningitonJune1,2006,buyerwrongfullyexercisedownershipofthecarby X  retrievingthecarfromdealerslotonSeptember1,2006andthentradingitinforahybrid.This D! wouldconstituteanacceptanceunderUCC2606onlyifitisratifiedbydealer.Thefactsare 0"  uncleartomewhetherdealerratifiedornotbecauseIdonotknowifbuyertradedthecarinat #l! thesamedealershipornot.  $X" @ww% QUESTION5   XXXX      I݌̌XXXX  XXXX      SamSpadeistheownerofafarminPrinceGeorgesCounty,Maryland.HewenttoJohn  BucksTractorCompanytopurchaseamuchneededtractor.AfterhagglingwithSalesPerson, t heagreedtopurchasetheX200,theirtopmodel,for$14,000.Aftersigningtherequisite ` financingdocumentsandtenderingacertifiedcheckforthedownpaymentof$4,000,Sales L  PersonaskedthatSamSpadereturnwithadditionalinsuranceinformationandthetractorwould 8  behis.Samreturnedwiththedocumentsandtookthetractorhome.݌ $ t ЌXXXX  XXXX    #݌̌XXXX  XXXX      Thatevening,SalesManagerlookedoverSamspaperworkandquestionedsomeofthe  L  informationtherein.HeaskedSalesPersontocallSamandrequestthatSamcomeinandfillout  8  additionaldocuments.SalesPersonleftnumerousmessagesonSamsphonebutSamnever $  returnedhiscalls.SalesmanagerthenaskedTommyTowemtostopbySamsfarmtorepossess   thetractor.SamandhisneighborwereintheyardwhenTowemarrivedandSamaskedTowem   whatwashappening.Towemreplied, JohnBucksaysyoureathief,andIhavetogettheir   propertyback.Ifyouvegotaproblem,gotothedealership.Hethendrovethetractoraway.   Atthattime,Samhadfarmreceiptsintheamountof$2,000cashinthetoolboxofthetractor,as p wellassomefarmtoolsvaluedat$500.݌ \ ЌXXXX  XXXX    ?݌̌XXXX  XXXX  X  SamandNeighborfollowedTowemtothedealership.Oncethere,theyspottedSales 4 PersonandSamangrilyaskedforhismoneyandtoolsback.SalesPersonbegancursingSam  p andsaid, Wewontdealwiththieves,sobeatit!TheSecurityOfficerthengrabbedSamsarm  \ andforciblyescortedhimofftheproperty.݌ H ЌXXXX  XXXX  X  -݌̌XXXX  XXXX      Distraught,SamcomestoyouandasksifthereisanywaytomakeJohnBuckpay   forthemannerinwhichhewastreated.Whatwouldyouadvise?Discussfully.ʴ݌   ЌXXXX  XXXX    >݌̌XXXX  XXXX    ۶݌̌XXXX  XXXX    >  REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1>݌  ЌXXXX  xXXXX  $  $^݌̌XXXX  XXXX      ThisquestionsoundsinTort.JohnBuckTractoremployedSalesPerson.JohnBuckcan X  beliableundervicariousliabilityfortheSalesPersonandtheSecurityGuardfordefamationand D! battery.݌ 0"  ЌXXXX  XXXX  m  m݌̌XXXX  XXXX       DefamationoccurswhenadefamatorystatementisdirectedtothePlaintiffandis $X" publishedtoathirdparty.SalesPersoncursedatSamandcalledSamathiefinthepresenceof $D # Samsneighborandthesecurityguard.TommyalsocalledSamathief.SalesPersondidnt %0!$ knowSamwasathiefbutsaidthestatementanyway.Samcanrecoverbecausehedoesnotneed &"% toshowdamages!thisisslander  perse    ,itdirectlyaffectsSamsreputationinhisabilityto '#& conductbusiness.Forexample,ifheisathiefhemaynotbeabletosecureanothertractortouse (#' onhisfarm.SalesPerson,anemployeeofJohnBuck,andhisactionsfallwithinthescopeof )$( employmentbecausealthoughdefamatorytheyareconductedinthecourseofbusinesswithSam |*%) anddonotsubstantiallydeviatefromthem.Itseemsthatthedefamatorythiefstatement h+&* originatedfromSalesManagerofJohnBuckandthisshouldsolidifyJohnBucksvicarious T,'+ liabilityandhavethepossibilityofhigherdamagesdependingonhowmanypeoplenearJohn @-(, Buckheardit. D݌ ,.|)- ЌXXXX  XXXX    %݌̌XXXX  XXXX      Batteryistheintentionaltouchingofanotherwherethattouchingisoffensiveorcauses  injury.AlthoughSamwasonJohnBuckspropertyhehasarighttobefreefromotherpeople  touchinghim.SecurityGuardcouldhaveaskedhimtoleavebeforeforcinghimtoleave. t Althoughnotsetoutinthefacts,theSecurityGuardprobablyisanemployeeofJohnBuckand, ` therefore,theseactionsfallwithinthescopeofemploymentandJohnBuckisvicariouslyliable.݌ L  ЌXXXX  XXXX  m  m݌̌XXXX  XXXX       TrespasstoChatteliswheretheDefendantsubstantiallyinterfereswithanothers $ t property.Here,althoughthetractorwasfinanced,Samhasnotdefaultedonthetractororhad  ` troublepayingforit.Therepossessionwouldnotbejustified.Also,whenTommyTowem  L  repossessedthevehiclehemadeatrespasstothechattelbynotallowingSamtoretrievehistools  8  ordepositslips.ThistrespasscontinuedwhenSalesPersondidnotallowSamtoretrievethe $  toolsormoney.IfSamcannotretrievethetoolsatallthistortwillbecomeconversionandSam   canrecoverthefairmarketvalueoftheitemsthatwereconverted. D݌   ЌXXXX  XXXX    ݌̌XXXX  XXXX  T    Trespassistheintentionalinvasionofanothersrealproperty.TommyTowem   committedtrespassofSamsfarmtoretrievethetractorasanemployeeofJohnBuck.Tommys p trespasswouldentitleJohntoreliefaswell.T݌ \ ЌXXXX  XXXX    Y݌̌XXXX  XXXX      REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2݌ 4 ЌXXXX  XXXX    ݌̌XXXX  XXXX  D    Samhasseveralavenueshecanpursue.First,SamandtheCompanyhadavalidcontract.  \ BasedonthefactsgiventheCompanyhadnorighttorepossessthetractorbasedonSales H Managersquestionsalone.TheCompanymayarguethattheinformationgavethemgroundsfor 4 insecurity.UndertheUCCapartytothecontracthasgroundstobelievetheotherpartycantor   wontperformhisdutiesmayseeitsperformanceandrequestadequateassurancesof   performance.InsecurityisaweakargumentherebecauseCompanydoesntseemworriedabout  SamsabilityandSamhasntmissedanypaymentsorgivenanyindicationofinabilityto  perform.D~݌  ЌXXXX  XXXX  $  $^݌̌XXXX  XXXX      Conversionandtresspasstochattels!Becausethecompanyhadnorighttorepossess X  Sammightconsiderbringinganactionforconversion.Conversionisinterferenceinanothers D! rightofownershipofpersonalproperty.Conversionappliestoseriousinterferencestoproperty 0"  whiletrespasstochattelsappliestolessseriousinvasions.Here,thecompanytookpossessionof #l! thepropertyfromSamsoconversionisproperlyapplicable.݌ $X" ЌXXXX  XXXX    ݌̌XXXX  XXXX  (    Defamation!Sammayalsobringsuitfordefamation.Defamationisastatement %0!$ impugningonesreputationthatispublishedandcausesdamages.TowemcalledSamathiefin &"% frontofSamsneighbor.Thepublicationrequirementsaresatisfiedifatleastoneotherpersonis '#& madeawareofthestatement.BecauseTowemistheCompanysagent,theCompanycanbe (#' heldvicariouslyliableforTowemsstatement,sobothTowemandCompanycanbesued )$( althoughonlyonerecoverycanbehad.Companywillarguethatitisnotvicariouslyliablefor |*%) Towemsconductunderthecrimeofmoralturpitudewhichgivesrisetoslanderperserules. h+&* Accusingapersonofacrimeofmoralturpitudesuchashavingaloathsomediseaseor T,'+ impugningtheprofessionalreputationofapersonisslander    perse    Ԁanddoesnotrequireproofof @-(, specialdamages.(b݌ ,.|)- ЌXXXX  XXXX  (  (b݌̌XXXX  XXXX      SamcanalsobringadefamationclaimagainstCompanyandSalesPersonfor݌  ЌXXXX  XXXX    SalesPersonsstatementthatSamwasathiefmadeatthedealership.Aspreviouslydiscussed,  SamcansuebothCompanyonavicariousliabilitytheoryandSalesPerson.݌ t ЌXXXX  XXXX  @  @z݌̌XXXX  XXXX      CompanyandSecurityOfficermayalsobeliableforbattery.Batteryisintentionally L  causinganoffensivetouchingorputtingapersonatapprehensionofanimmediateoffensive 8  touching.SecurityOfficergrabbedSamandforciblyremovedhim.Thiswasanoffensive $ t touchingforwhichCompanywouldbevicariouslyliable.݌  ` ЌXXXX    8    QUESTION6   -    Twopoliceofficerswereonpatrolwhentheywereinstructedbyradiotorespondtoa  domesticdisturbance.Uponarrivingattheresidence,theyweremetatthefrontdoorby t HusbandandBrother.Theofficersexplainedthattheywererespondingtoadomesticdispute ` call.HusbandandBrothersteppedoutsideontotheporchwiththeofficersandsaidthatthere L  wasnodomesticdispute. 8      Wifethencameoutofthehouse.Wifeexplainedtotheofficersthattherehadbeenno  ` domesticdispute,butthatshehadcalledthepolicebecauseshewantedtheofficerstoarrest  L  Husband,whomsheidentifiedasherhusband,becauseHusbandwasspendingalloftheirmoney  8  onhiscocainehabit.WifealsotoldtheofficersthatshewantedHusband'sbrother,Brother,who $  wasvisitingfromoutoftown,arrestedbecausehealsousedcocaine.Wifethenvolunteeredthat   bothHusbandandBrotherhadcocaineinthehouse.       Theofficersaskedforpermissiontosearchthehouse.Husbandemphaticallyinstructed   theofficerstostayoutofhishouse.Wifestatedthatitwasherhousetoo,andconsentedtothe p search.TheofficersignoredHusband'sobjectionsandfollowedWifetoanupstairsbedroomshe \ identifiedasHusband's,andthentoasecondbedroomthatsheidentifiedastheguestroom H whereBrotherwasstaying.Cocainewasseizedfrombothbedrooms. 4     Onthebasisofthisevidence,HusbandandBrotherwerechargedwithpossessionof  \ cocaine. `  H     Attrial,separatemotionstosuppresstheevidencewerefiledonbehalfofHusband   andBrother.HowshouldtheCourtruleoneachmotion?Explainyouranswerfully.      REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1       Thecourtshouldgrantthemotionstosuppress.Evidenceobtainedinviolationofa X  defendants4thamendmentrightagainstunreasonablesearchandseizure.Toassertones4th D! amendmentrighttheremustbeareasonableexpectationofprivacyintheplacesearched.Asthe 0"  ownerofthehome,husbandhadareasonableexpectationofprivacythere.Brotherdidnotlive #l! atthehome;however,theCourthasdeterminedthatovernightguestsdohaveareasonable $X" expectationofprivacywheretheyarestaying,thusBrothermayassertthisright. $D #   Theofficersdidnothaveawarranttosearchthehome;therefore,theirsearchmustfall &"% intooneoftheexceptionspermittingawarrantlesssearch.Onesuchexceptioniswherethe '#& personconsentstothesearch.Consentisvalidifgivenbythepersonorsomeoneelsehaving (#' authoritytoconsent.Astheotherownerofthehouse,theprosecutionwillarguethatwifes )$( consentwasvalidandthereforetherewasnoviolation.However,thedefenseshouldassert,and |*%) willlikelywintheargument,that h+&*   1.0 ` Thewifesconsentwasnegatedbyhusbandsobjection;and@-(,` (#` (#   2.0 ` Shelackedauthoritytoconsenttothesearchofbrothersroomifitcanbeshown ,.|)- thatshehadpreviouslybeenkeptoutoftheroom.` (#` (#   Sincehusbandandbrotherhadareasonableexpectationofprivacyandhedidntconsent  tothesearch,hismotionwillbegrantedunlessanotherexceptionapplies.Theprosecutionmay t arguethatexigentcircumstancesexisted,thuspermittingthewarrantlesssearch.Exigent ` circumstancesincludeevanescentevidence,orevidencewhichmaybedestroyedbythe L  defendantifitsnottaken.Thewifesassertionthatcocainewaspresentmayhaveprovided 8  policewithprobablecausetobelievethatdrugswerepresentinthehouseandmayhavebeen $ t destroyed.Thedefenseshouldarguethatthepolice,iftheyhadprobablecause,shouldhave  ` merelydetainedhusbandandbrotheroutsidethehomewhiletheyobtainedawarrant.Thecourt  L  willlikelyexcludetheevidencesincetherewasnothingsupportingthewifesclaimandnothing  8  toindicatetheevidencewouldbedestroyed. $  @*   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2      Astohusband:TheSupremeCourthasrecentlyruledinRandolphv.Georgiathatwhen p thepolicearegivenconsentfromonespouseandaredeniedconsentfromtheotherspouse,the \ policemustrespectthenonconsentandcannotlegallyconductaconsentsearch.Here,Husband H didnotconsentandRandolphisdirectlyonpoint.Thecourtshouldsuppresstheevidence. 4   AstotheBrother:Inthiscase,Brotherhadareasonableexpectationofprivacyinhis  \ room,eventhoughhedidnotowntheentirehouse.Assuch,Wifecouldnotgrantconsent.If H shewasaccustomedtohavingjointaccessshecouldthengrantconsent.Here,wehavenofacts 4 thatstatethatbrotherobjected.Thus,inthatcaseherconsentwouldbelegallypermissiblefor   thepolicetosearch.     WithoutBrothersconsent(intheeventthatWifedidnothavejointaccess)thepolice  couldnotconductaconsentsearch.Courtshouldsuppressastoboth.Thepolicemighthave  probablecause,butasearchwarrantisrequiredtoenteroneshome.Absentawarrant,the l policewouldhaveentereduponurgentcircumstances.Here,thepolicehadnowarrantandno X  urgentcircumstancesbecausewifestatedthatshewasnotthevictimofdomesticviolence. D! Thereisnothingheretochangethealreadystatedconclusionthatthecourtshouldsuppressthe 0"  evidence. #l!   Note:Randolphappliestomorethanjustspouses,itappliestotwopersonswithauthority $D # tograntconsenttosearch. %0!$ K(X&"K    '#& QUESTION7   XXXX    ^    RalphisthepresidentandchiefexecutiveofficerofDataMo,Inc.Heisalsothesole  shareholderofPreMa,Inc.BothareMarylandcorporations.^݌ t ЌXXXX    AminorityshareholderofDataMofilesacivilactionintheCircuitCourtforBaltimore L  CountyagainstDataMo,RalphandPreMaallegingavarietyoffinancialmisdeedsarisingoutof 8  transactionsbetweenthetwocompanies. $ t   RalphcontactsHorace,aMarylandlawyer,whoentershisappearanceonbehalfofRalph,  L  DataMoandPreMa.  8  $XXXX    $    Afternewsofthelawsuitbecomespublic,Fred,whoisthechiefbookkeeperofDataMo,   telephonesBarrister,theMarylandattorneyrepresentingtheplaintiff.FredtellsBarristerthat   RalphhasmismanagedDataMoforyears.BarristerarrangestomeetwithFredwhoprovides   BarristerwithdocumentationconcerningtransactionsbetweenDataMoandPreMaaswellas   informationindicatingthatRalphhasstolenlargesumsofmoneyfromDataMo.$݌ p Ќ  XXXX   #(04# ""  ,E1` hp x (#XE   ,E(` ` hp x (#X(#E2  a  .3   `   AssesstheproprietyofHoracesrepresentationofRalph,DataMoand H PreMa.݌ 4 Ќ ! X` ` X(#!   ""  ,E1` hp x (#XE   ,E(` ` hp x (#X(#E"2  b  .3   `   Whatpreliminaryaction(s)shouldBarristeraskthecourttotakeinthiscase  \ onbehalfofhisclient?Whatisthelikelyoutcomeoftheaction(s)requested? H "݌̌ ! X` ` X(#!   ""  ,E1` hp x (#XE   ,E(` ` hp x (#X(#E2  c  .3   `   WhatissuesareraisedbyBarristersactionsregardingFred? ݌   Ќ ! X` ` X(#!   XXXXX,XXXXdXXX,     #XXXXdrz#XaXXX&     REPRESENTATIVEANSWERNO.1 x    Ԍ  Ќ  XaXXXaXXXXaXXXX  'l  *(00#/ /""  ,E1` hp x (#XE   ,E(` ` hp x (#X(#E1 2  a  .3   `   Horaceshouldnotrepresentthethreepartiesbecauseeachhasintereststhatmay h materiallyadversetoeachotherthatwouldpreventHoracefromdiligently T  representingallthree.1  ݌ @! Ќ ! X` ` X(#!   ?+` ` ` hp x (#X?Interestedofficertransactionareimplicatedunderthesefacts,meaningthatRalph #h! mayhavebreacheddutiestoDataMoandPreMaandthushasadverseintereststo $T" theminthelitigation.Furthermore,itmaybethatRalphhasstolenmoneyfrom $@ # DataMosorepresentingacriminaldefendantwhoembezzledfromanotherclient %,!$ wouldnotbeproper. &"% AlthoughRalphisthesoleshareholderofPreMa,thetwomaystillhavelegally (#' adverseinterestsherebecauseeachcouldbeguiltyofthesamethingandRalph )$( couldpotentiallysettleinawaythatdumpedhisliabilityonPreMasotherewould x*%) beaconflictofinteresthere.ItisnotclearwhetherHoracehasyetgathered d+&* confidentialinformationfromeitherdefendantbutifhehas,heshouldnot P,'+ representanyofthem. <-(,  H.` hp x (#` ` ` X(#H""  ,H1` hp x (#X(#H   ,E(` ` hp x (#X(#EQ2  b  .3   `   Barristershouldaskthecourttowaivedemandrequirementforfilingaderivative (.x)- lawsuitonbehalfofDataMoifdemandwouldbefutileandheshouldalsoposta  bondsohecanfollowthroughwithsuitonbehalfofhisclient.Thiswillbe  grantedifdemandwouldbefutile.QC݌  Ќ $ X(#` ` X(#$   B+` ` ` hp x (#X(#BWithrespecttoHorace,Barristershouldmovetohavehimdisqualifiedfrom ` representingRalph,DataMoandPreMaduetohisobviousconflictsofinterest L  andinabilitytorepresenttheirinterestasaresult.Thecourtshouldgrantthis 8  motion. $ t  H.` hp x (#` ` ` X(#H""  ,H1` hp x (#X(#H   ,E(` ` hp x (#X(#E W2  c  .3   `   FredsactionsraisedtheproblemofBarristeracquiringconfidentialinformation  L  fromanemployeeofDataMo.Also,BarristershouldhaveadvisedFred,asan  <  employeeofanopponent,thathe,(Barrister)wouldbeunabletocarryona (  conversationwithFredaboutthismatterbecausetodosowouldamountto   contactwiththeotherpartywithoutnoticetothatpartyscounsel.Contactbyan   attorneywithanopposingclientisprohibitedunlessthatclientsattorney   approves.WhileFredisnotpersonallytheopponent,DataMois,sohisconflictis   imputedtothecorporation.Moreover,BarristerarrangedameetingwithFred t himself,suggestingawillfulviolationoftherulesagainstthisconduct.Also, ` thereisaquestionofwhetherBarristerreceivedknowinglyfromFreddocuments L thatweremisappropriatedfromDataMoinwhichcaseBarristermaybeliablefor 8 criminalactivity. WL݌ $t Ќ $ X(#` ` X(#$   XXXX     &    REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2  Ԍ L Ќ  XXXX    'a.  ProprietyofHoracesrepresentation. $  X    Horacehaslikelycommittedseriousethicalviolations.Horacehasthreeclients,all  defendantsinthesamelawsuit.However,despiteRalphsapparentsignificancewithboth  DataMoandPreMa,itiscriticaltotheknowledgethattheentitiesareseparateanddistinct  legallyspeakingfromRalphhimself.Personscannotjustusecorporationsasalteregos(aswill p bediscoveredlater)and,Horace,dulyadmittedMarylandattorney,shouldnotadvancethisfraud \  byrepresentingthreeentities.Theconflictpotentiallyisobvious.Theinterestofthethree H! parties,oratleastofDataMoontheonehandandRalph/PreMaontheother,couldeasilybe 4"  directlyadverseandthepossibilitythatHoracesrepresentationofDataMowillbematerially  #p! limitedbyhisobligationstoRalphissubstantial.Thisisaderivativeactionbyashareholder  $\" againstDataMoandalsoagainstRalphandPreMa.Horacecannotreasonablybelievethathecan $H # servethebestinterestoftheclients,asheisrequiredtodowhilesimultaneouslyproviding %4!$ zealousadvocacyforRalph. & "%  X X X XE.` hp x (#X(#EHoraceshouldnot,attheleast,representDataMo.WeknowfromthefactsthatDataMo (#' hasatleastoneshareotherthanRalph.Ontheotherhand,representingPreMaandRalphmay )$( belessproblematicbecause,assoleshareholder,PreMaismorecloselyalignedwithRalph. *%) However,eventhisrepresentationcouldproveproblematicifPreMahascreditors,employees, l+&* etc. X,'+  D-(, $XXXX    X$'  b.  PreliminaryactionsbyBarristerandthelikelyoutcome.$'(݌ 0.)- Ќ  XXXX     `   BarristershouldfirstandforemostfileamotiontopiercethecorporateveilofDataMo  andPreMa.Toinsurethattheyarefoundliable,Ralph(ifappropriate)canbesubjected  tocompleteliability.ThisislikelynecessarytopreventfraudwhichBarristermustprovebyclear t andconvincingevidencetopiercecorporateveiland/orenforceaparamountequity. `   Fromthelimitedinformationithas,itappearsthatRalphhasbeenabusingthecorporate 8  systeminusingcorporationsasfinancialalteregosforhimself.Corporationsaresolelya $ t creatureofstatuteinMaryland;theirpurposeistoallowinvestorstoinvestwithoutsubjecting  ` themselvestopersonalliabilityandtoalloweffectiveandcentralizedmanagementofsubstantial  L  assets.RalphshouldnotbeallowedtousethecorporateveilandMarylandlawtoprotect  8  himselffromwhatishisotherwiseculpableconduct.Thuspreventionoffraudandenforcement $  ofequitydemandspiercinghere.     BarristermayalsowanttomovetohaveHoracedisqualifiedfromrepresentingallthree   defendants,particularlyDataMo,thecorporationwherehisclientisashareholder.Relatedly,   BarristermaywanttorequestapreliminaryinjunctionrestrainingorderthatpreventsRalph, p actingaspresidentandCEOofDataMo,fromengaginginanyfinancialmachinationsthatmight \ puthisclientsinvestmentatrisk. H   FromthelimitedfactswehaveIthinkthejudgewouldagreetoeachmotion,piercingof  p thecorporateveil,disqualifyingHoracefromrepresentingDataMo,andallowatemporary  \ restrainingorderagainstRalphsactionwithrespecttoDataMo. H c.  EthicalviolationsbyBarrister.     Eventhoughhedidnotsolicitthecommunication,Barristerlikelyviolatedthe no  contactrulebydiscussing,meetingandworkingwithFred,amanagementlevelemployeewith  DataMowithinformationrelevanttothelitigation.Barristersdesiretospeakandworkwith  FredisunderstandablesinceitappearsthatFredhasinformationcriticaltoBarristerscase.Yet, l howeverunderstandableBarristersactionsare,theyviolateacrucialruleofattorneyconduct. X  FredworksforDataMo,acorporatedefendantcurrentlywithcounselinanactioninwhich D! Barristerrepresentstheplaintiff.BarristercannotcommunicatewithFredwithoutviolating 0"  ethicalrules.HeshouldhaveinstructedFredtospeaktohisemployersattorney.Ifthiswould #l! befutile,asislikely,consideringHoracesconflicteddualrepresentation,thenBarristercould $X" haveadvisedFredthroughindependentlegalcounsel.TheinformationwhichBarristeracquired $D # throughFred,whilesignificant,isproperlyobtainedthroughdiscovery.Barristershouldnotice %0!$ Fredsdepositionandrequestnecessarydocumentstoacquiretheinformationtoprovehiscase. &"% Heshouldnot,howeverbadRalphsactionsmightbe,violatetherulestoacquirealitigation '#& advantage. (#'   )$( &  #XXXXM #XXXXQUESTION8  #XXXX7#XXXX X #XXXX(8#  Duringadomesticargument,Janetoldhersignificantother,Dicktoleavethehousethey  ownedinWestminster,CarrollCounty,Maryland.Dickwasfurious,butheleft.Janewould t notlethimbackintothehouse.DickleftavoicemailmessageforJanethathewasgoingto `  getevenwithherandthatifhecouldnotliveatthehouse,hewouldmakesurethatshecould L  notlivethereeither.Sometimeaftermidnightofthenextday,Janeawokesmellingsmokein 8  thehouse.Shecheckedthehouseandfoundthatabagofcharcoalbricketteshadbeenplaced $ t againstthesideentrancedoortothehouseandwasengulfedinflames.Shecalledthefire  ` department,whichrespondedpromptly.  L    8  Janewasnotinjuredinanyway.Theincidentreportofthefiredepartmentstatedthat $  whenthefiredepartmentarrivedtheflamesfromtheburningcharcoalbricketteswere6to12   incheshigh,thesideentrancedooranditsthresholdhadcharmarks,andtherewassmoke   throughoutthehouse.Onthatsameday,DickleftavoicemailmessageforJanethathewas   nowsatisfied.   XXXX p Dickwaschargedandconvictedofarsonandrecklessendangermentofanother. \ #XXXX=# XXXXX#XXXX># XXXX  a.Dotheseconvictionsmergeforsentencingpurposes?Discussfully. 4  X #XXXX>#XXXX  p JudgeJonesgaveDickthemaximumsentence.Dickwasfuriousabouttheconvictions X andthesentencehereceived.Hetoldhisattorneyimmediatelyafterthesentencing,withnoone D elsepresent,thathewasgoingto getevenwithJudgeJonesasheknewwherethejudgelived 0 andthatthistimehewasgoingtodothejobright.Dickwasimmediatelyincarcerated.  #XXXX?# XXXX  b.ShouldDicksattorneyrevealthisconversationtotheappropriateauthorities?  Ѐ  Discussfully. #XXXXA#   #(40*   x  ` REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1  L     ` a. ` Merger $"t   ` UndertheBlockburgertestchargesmergeonlyiftheycontainthesameelements. #L" Chargesdonotmergeifbothchargeseachcontainanelementthattheotherdoesnoposses. $8 # Arsonandrecklessendangermentdonotmergebecauseeachrequiresamentalstatethatthe %$!$ otherdoesnot.Arsonrequiresamaliciousburningofadwelling.Recklessendangerment &"% simplyrequiresrecklessness.Malicemeansthatthedefendantactedwillfullyandwantonly '"& withoutregardandintendedtodoharm.Dickwantedto getevenwithJaneandsaidthathe (#' wasgoingmakesurethatshecouldntlivethere.Thisconstitutesmalice.Ifoneactedwith )$( malice,hecannotbesaidtohavealsobeenreckless.Recklessnessdoenotrisetothelevelof p*%) malice;itsimplyrequiresthatthedefendantactedwithoutregardforothers.Therefore,because \+&* eachconvictionhasdifferentmentalstates,theseconvictionsdonotmerge.Additionallyarson H,'+ requiresharmtoabuildingwhereasrecklessendangermentreferstohumanlife.  4-(, & & &  b. ` Disclosure    Dicksattorneymayrevealthisconversationbutisnotrequiredto.Confidentiality  governscommunicationsbetweenanattorneyandhisclient.Theattorneyclientprivilege t requiresthatcommunicationsmadetoonesattorneyremainconfidential.However,anattorney ` maydisclosecommunicationstopreventbodilyharmtoanotherperson.However,heisnot L  requiredto.DicksaidhewasgoingtogetevenwithJudgeJonesandwasgoingtodoitrightthis 8  time.Thisstatementwasmadetotheattorneyinprivateandtherefore,theattorneyclient $ t privilegeapplies.Dickwasimmediatelyincarcerated.Therefore,theattorneymaynotwantto  ` disclosebecausehemaynotbelievethatDickcanactuallyaccomplishthetaskbuttheattorneyis  L  permittedto.  8    REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2 $        XXXXa. ` Atsentencing,multiplecrimesmaybemergedforthepurposeofdeterminingthe   defendantspunishmentinseveralcircumstances.First,inchoateoffensesnamelysolicitationand   attempt(but#XXXXpM#XXXXnot#XXXXN#XXXXԀconspiracy)mergeintoacompletedsubstantiveoffense(so,forexample,   attemptedmurderwouldmergeintoconvictionforthecompletedmurder).Second,lesser l includedoffensesmaybemergedforsentencingpurposes.Inthislattersituation,mergeravoids X punishingthesamedefendanttwiceforwhatisessentiallythesamecrime(DoubleJeopardy).In D thecaseagainstDick,however,recklessendangermentisnota lesserincludedoffenseofarson 0 becausetheyeachrequireproofofelementsthattheotherdoesnot,underthe#XXXXN#XXXXBlockburger#XXXXQ#XXXXԀtest. l Arsonrequiresthemaliciousburningofadwelling,which#XXXXR#XXXXcan#XXXXR#XXXXԀincludeonesownhome,that X resultsindamagetothebuilding.Thementalstaterequired maliciousnessmeansthatthe D defendantmusthaveactedrecklessly.Any charringissufficient,andthusitseemsthatthe 0 elementsofarsonweremetinDickscase.Arsondoesnot,however,requirethatthefire  endangera#XXXXR#XXXXperson#XXXXT#XXXX;themaliciousburningneedonlydamagethebuilding,whetherornot  someonewasinside.  #XXXXU#XXXX `  ` Bycontrast,recklessendangerment,whilealsorequiringrecklessnessformental | state,#XXXXU#XXXXdoes#XXXXV#XXXXԀrequirethatapersonbeputindangeroratriskofharm.Furthermore,reckless h endangermentdoesnotrequireany burning,thoughitmaybeaccomplishedbysuchanact. T  Thus,provingrecklessendangermentrequiresanelementthatarsondoesnot(creatingariskof @! harmtoanother),whilearsonrequiresanelement(burningofadwelling)thatrecklessan ,"|  endangermentdoesnot.Therefore,thecrimesshouldnotmergeatsentencing,andbothmay #h! contributetoDickspunishment. $T" #XXXXV#XXXX $@ # b. ` Anattorneygenerallyhasadutytoholdinformationandcommunicationsgotten %,!$ fromaclientinstrictconfidence.However,undertheRulesofProfessionalConduct.anattorney &"% maydiscloseconfidentialinformationfromaclientinseveralcircumstances.First,theattorney '#& mayrevealifthereisareasonablycertainlikelihoodofdeathorseriousbodilyinjury.Theattorney (#' mayalsorevealconfidentialinformationinordertoprevent,mitigate,orrectifysubstantial )$( financialinjuryorinjurytothepropertyofanother,iftheclientisusingtheattorneysservicesto x*%) furtherthoseends.Inthiscase,Dickscommentsindicateprettystronglythatheisplanningtoset d+&* firetothejudgeshome(sincehesaidhewasgoingto dothejobright).Ordinarily,thiswould P,'+ presentaseriousthreatofbodilyharmtothejudgeandotherpeoplelivinginhishouse.Inthis <-(, situation,however,Dickwasimmediatelyincarcerated.Iftheattorneyhasreasontoknow,or (.x)- believesitreasonablycertain,thatDickisgoingtohiresomeone#XXXXY#XXXXelse#XXXX^#Ԁtocommitthearson,hethus  shoulddisclosethethreattotheauthorities.Intheabsenceofsuchabelief,though,thefactthat  Dickisincarceratedpreventstherefrombeinga reasonablecertainlikelihoodofthiscrime  occurring,sinceDickisnotevenphysicallycapableofgettingtothejudgeshouse.  t @&7 QUESTION9      ` OnJune10,2005,Paul,aresidentofPennsylvania,wasinvolvedinanautomobile  accidentinCecilCounty,MarylandwithDon,aresidentofBaltimoreCounty,Maryland.Donhad t failedtostophiscarandgranttherightofwayatastopsigntoPaul,whowasoperatinghis ` vehicleatahighrateofspeedontheBoulevard.OnJuly5,2007,Paulfiledalegallysufficient L  ComplaintintheDistrictCourtofMarylandforCecilCountyallegingdamagesintheamountof 8  $12,000.00.DonhasjustbeenservedwiththeComplaint,andretainsyou,aMarylandattorney,to $ t representhim.DonadmitstoyouthatheinfactfailedtostopandgranttherightofwaytoPaul.  `      L     4   X  DonobjectstobeingsuedinCecilCounty,sincehedoesnotliveorconduct   businessthere.DondesirestohavethecasetriedinBaltimoreCountybeforeajury.       a.IsDonentitledtoatrialinBaltimoreCounty?Isheentitledtoajurytrial?   Explain. |   h b.WhatpleadingsshouldyoufiletoaccomplishDonsobjectives?Explain.  T  X   @    ` AssumePaulsactionagainstDonisnowappropriatelypendinginaCircuitCourt ,|   inMaryland. h  X  c.Whataffirmativedefense(s)shouldyoudefinitelypleadinanswertoPauls @ claimforrelief?Explain. ,  X     X  Dr.ToughhasexaminedPaulonbehalfofDon,andhasbeendesignatedbyDonas  anexpertwitnessfortrial.Paulsattorneyserves25interrogatoriesonDr.Toughwitha  copytoyou.    t d.Whatpapers,ifany,shouldbefiledinresponsetotheseinterrogatories? \ Explain. H   X   4!   X  PaulsattorneyservesRequestsforAdmissionsofFact,whichincludethefollowing "l  requesttoDon: AdmitthatyoufailedtostopattheBoulevardandgranttherightofway #X! toPaul. #D"   $0 # e.MayyouethicallyadviseDontodenythisrequestforAdmissionofFact? %!$ Explain. &"%  '"&    (#' REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1 x)$( .l X  `  ` a.  DonisentitledtoatrialinBaltimoreCounty,butthecourtdoesnothaveto P+&* granthisrequest.Pursuantto6201(a)venueisproperwhereDefendantworks,lives,is @,'+ employedorhabituallyengagesinvocation.UnderthislineofMarylandRulesofCivilProcedure, ,-|(, BaltimoreCountywouldbethepropervenue.However,under6202(8)and(11)venueisalso .h)- properwherethecauseofactionarose,CecilCounty,orifthePlaintiffisanonresident,asPaulis  here,anycountyintheState.Therefore,venueisproperinbothBaltimoreandCecilCountiesand  Donisnotentitledtooneovertheother,unless,pursuanttoRule2327,onmotionheisableto  showthatBaltimoreCountyismoreconvenientandtheactioncouldhavebeenbroughtthere t  `  JuryTrial.  L   `  ` Donisentitledtoajurytrial.Asprovidedin4402(e)(1)jurytrialwillbe $ t permittediftheamountincontroversy,excludingattorneysfees,exceeds$10,000.Paulissuing  ` Donfor$12,000satisfyingtheamountincontroversyrequirementtodemandajurytrial.  L   `  ` b.  ToaccomplishDonsobjectivesIwouldfilethefollowingpleadings: $     NoticeofIntentiontoDefend.PaulbroughtsuitinDistrictCourt.AccordingtoRule3   307,theDefendantmustfileanoticeofintentiontodefendwhichincludesexplanationorgrounds   ofdefense.Thismustbefiledwithin15daysofserviceofcomplaint.   NoticetoDemandJuryTrial.Defendantmayelectajurytrialbyfilingaseparatewritten t demandwithin10daysafterfilinganoticeofintenttodefend.Rule3325(2).IfDonwantsa ` jury,hemustfilethisdemand. L  8 MotiontoTransferActionBasedonImproperVenue.Lastly,Iwouldfileamotionfora $t changeofvenuetoBaltimoreCounty.Rule3327.Donshouldarguethattheactioncouldhave ` beenfiledthereanditwillstillservejustice. L  `  ` c.  Iwoulddefinitelypleadtheaffirmativedefenseofcontributorynegligence. $ Contributorynegligenceisanabsolutebartorecovery.Here,Paulwasoperatinghisvehicleata  highrateofspeed.EventhoughDonfailedtostop,itshouldbearguedthatifPaulwasnot  speedinghewouldnothavecrashedintoDonandbeeninvolvedintheaccident.   `  ` d.  Iwouldfileamotiontostrikeinresponsetotheseinterrogatories. t Interrogatoriesmayonlybeservedbyapartytoanotherparty.Rule2421.HerePaulservedthe d  interrogatoriesonDr.Tough.Dr.Toughisnotapartytothislitigation,heisthedesignatedexpert P! witness.Forthisreasonhedoesnotneedtoanswertheinterrogatoriesandnoticeofsuchshould <"  berecordedinthepleadings. (#x!  `  ` e.  Ethically,IcannotadviseDontodenythisrequestandcommitperjury. %P # Donhasadmittedtomethathefailedtostopatthestopsign.Apartyisentitledtoservewritten %@!$ admissionsonantherpartyforadmissionofthetruthofanyrelevantmatter.Rule2242(a). &,"% Failuretodosocouldresultinpayingreasonableexpenses.Rule2424(e).Anattorneycannot '#& encourageherclienttocommitperjuryandlie.Hisdenialofthisadmissionwouldconstitute ($' perjuryandsothereforeIwouldadvisehimtoanswerittruthfully. )$(    *%)   x+&* &   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2        ` a.  UnderRule6202,Don(D)maynotbeentitledtoachangeofvenueto  BaltimoreCounty.AlthoughthevenueofCecilCountywouldnotbeappropriateunderRule6 x 201,itisunder6202,becausetheactionisintortandaroseinCecilCounty.Venuerulesare'K} d rulesofconvenience,however,thecourtmayconsideramotiontotransfervenueforpurposesof P  convenience.However,becausetheaccidentoccurredinCecilCounty,itmayprovetobethe <  mostconvenientvenueforwitnessesandtheplaintiff,whichwouldcutagainstDonsargumentfor ( x obtainingthechange.  d   P   JuryTrial.   <   `  ` Thedamagesdemandedexceed$10,000,andunderRule4402,Donshouldbe   abletoseekajurytrial.    `  ` b.  Venue.Impropervenuemustbechallengedinamotiontodismiss,before   Donsanswertothecomplaintisfiled.Here,forreasonsstatedabove,suchamotionwilllikely x fail,asvenueisnotimproper.DonmayalsofileamotionfortransfertotheBaltimoreCounty d court,onanonconveniencebasisunderRule2327(b).Eithermotionshouldcontainafactual P basisfortherequestandaffidavits,ifbasedonfactsnotinPaulscomplaint. <  `  `  JuryTrial. IshouldfileademandtotheDistrictCourtforajurytrialsubjectto d rule3325(b)inordertorequestthejurytrialandremovaltoCircuitCourt. T  `  ` c.  Donsbestaffirmativedefenseiscontributorynegligence.WhileDonfailed , tostopatthesign,Paulwasspeedingandassuchcontributedtohisowninjurybyhisown  negligentoperationofthecar.Contributorynegligence,iffound,isacompletebartorecovery.   `  ` d.  Inresponsetotheinterrogatories,Donisobligatedtoanswerfullyandto  supplementinformationasitbecomesavailabletohim.However,Dr.Toughisunderno  obligationtoanswertheinterrogatories,throughhemaybesubpoenaedtoadeposition.Therefore, l  Ineedtofilenoresponse.However,intheinterestofethicallyandcooperativelyparticipatingin X! discovery,ImaywenttoalertPaulsattorneyincaseitwasanerror.Paulsattorneymaythen D"  serveDonwithinterrogatoriesregardingDr.ToughandImustfilearesponsetothosequestions, 0#! howeverthescopeofquestionsaboutDr.ToughtowhichIamrequiredtoanswermaybemore $l" limitedthanthatwhichcouldbeachievedthroughdeposition. %X #  `  ` e.  TherequestforanadmissionofDonsnegligenceinfailingtostoppresents &0"% anethicaldilemma.Donmustrespondorelsethefactwillbedeemedagainsthim.However,a ' #& lawyermaynotassistaclientinprovidingfalseevidenceortestimony.ThereforeImaynot,when ( $' Donhasadmittedtomeheranthestopsign,adviseDontodenythefact.  )$(   QUESTION10      ` Richard,acustomer,gotintoanargumentwithCathleen,anemployeeat  DepartmentStorelocatedinCecilCounty,Maryland.WhenRichardwenttotellJason,thestore t manager,aboutCathleensdiscourteousbehavior,Cathleenwenttohervehicleandgotahandgun. ` CathleenreturnedtothestoreandshotRichard,killinghiminfrontofJason.Cathleenfledand L  Jasoncalledthepolice. 8   $ t  ` ThepolicearrestedCathleeninthemallparkinglot.TheycalledJasontothearrest  ` scenetopositivelyidentifyCathleenastheshooter.JasonsawCathleenhandcuffedandrestrained  L  byapoliceofficerasshewasbeingplacedintherearofamarkedpolicecruiser.Jasonthen  8  calmlystated thatsher. $      ` Cathleen,whowasonprobationforapriorfelonyconviction,waschargedwiththe   murderofRichard,1stdegreeassaultofRichard,recklessendangermentandpossessionofa   firearmbyafelon.CathleencalledShelly,herattorney.ShellywastoldthatCathleensmanager,   Jason,theonlyeyewitnesstothecrime,wouldbeatthestationtoidentifyCathleeninalineupat p 5:00p.m.WhenShellyarrivedat4:45p.m.shelearnedthatthelineupoccurredat4:30p.m.and \ thatJasonpositivelyidentifiedherclientastheshooter. H  4  ` Attrial,JasonwascalledasawitnessandidentifiedCathleenastheshooter,over  p Shellysobjection.Cathleenwasfoundguiltyofmurder,1stdegreeassault,andpossessionofa  \ firearmbyafelon.Shewassentencedtothreeyearsforthehandgunchargeandconsecutive H prisontermsof30yearsformurderand10yearsfor1stdegreeassault. 4     ` Twomonthslater,thefederalprosecutorconvenedafederalgrandjurywhich   returnedanindictmentagainstCathleenchargingherinfederalcourtwithpossessionofafirearm  byafelon,afederaloffense.       X XB+4 44 <DL!X(#B   0 ` a.Assumeallobjectionsweretimely.Discusstheadmissibilityofall l JasonsidentificationsofCathleen.X ` #` #  D!   0 ` b.Discussthelikelihoodofsuccessofanyappealbasedonthesentences 0"  Cathleenreceivedformurderand1stdegreeassault.#l!` #` #   XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E  XB+4 44 <DL!X!B  0 ` c.Discussthebasisandlikelihoodofsuccessofamotiontodismissthe $D # federalchargeagainstCathleen.%0!$` #` #  &"%  '#&   X  E+ 4 <DL!444X!EREPRESENTATIVEANSWER1 (#'   a.JasonmadethreeidentificationsofC:(1)atthescene(2)atthepolicestation(3)incourt. |*%) The4thAmendprotectsagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.TheIDatthescenewas h+&* overlysuggestiveandviolatesthe4thAmendbecause JsawChandcuffedandrestrainedby T,'+ policeinpolicethecar.Thelineupalsoviolatesthe6thAmendbecauseChasa6thAmendright @-(, tocounselatcriticalstagesofthecriminalprocess.Here,thelineupwassuchastage,andthePO ,.|)- violatedCsrightswhentheyconductedthelineupearly,despiteknowingthatCsattorneywas  toldthatthelineupwouldoccurat5.TheinCourtlineupmighthavebeentaintedbecauseofthe  ConstitutionalviolationsthatoccurredinthepreviousIDs,butJhadpreviousknowledgeofCsID  becausehewashermanager.Therefore,theCourtwillallowJsIDofCbasedonthisknowledge. t b.Ccansuccessfullychallengethesentenceof consecutiveprisontermsof30yearsformurder L  and10yearsfor1stdegreeassault.Thisisbecausetheassaultchargeisalesserincludedoffenseof 8  murder.Thus,Ccannotbesentencedtoboth.TheCourtwilloverturntheassaultconviction. $ t c.Doublejeopardypreventsapersonfrombeingchargedandtriedforthesameoffensetwice.  L  However,thisprincipleonlyappliestochargesbroughtbythesamejurisdiction.Ibelievethe  8  federalsystemisaseparatejurisdictionandcantryitsownchargeswithoutimplicatingdouble $  jeopardy.     REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2     a.   OnSceneID  p   ThepolicearrestedCintheparkinglotandaskedJtoIDCasshewashandcuffedand L sittingintherearofamarkedpolicecruiser.Thiswasashowup.Showupscanbeallowedif 8 theyarenotoverlysuggestive.ThisIDviolatedthe4thAmendrightagainstwarrantlessand $t unreasonablesearchesandseizuresbecauseitwasoverlysuggestive.Thecourtwouldexcludeit ` exceptthatJasonalreadyknewCbecauseshewashiscoworker. L    LineUp  $   ThepoliceseemtohaveintentionallytrickedCslawyerbytellingherthewrongtimefor  thelineup.ThePOviolatedCsrighttohavecounselpresentatthepretriallineupwhichisa  criticalstageoftheproceedings.Thecourtshoulddisallowthisevidenceentirely.     InCourtID  \    TheincourtIDshouldbeallowedbecauseJasonalreadyknewCanddidnotneedalineup 8"  orshowuptoIDhisemployee. $#t! b.0   AssaultAppeal $L ###   Cwillwinonappealofhersentence.ThejudgeerredbysentencingCtotimeforboththe &("% assaultandthemurderbecausetheassaultchargeisalesserincludedcrimeofmurder. '#& c.0   DoubleJeopardy *%)## Ѐ  Cwilllosetheappealontheseeminglyidenticalfederalchargesbecausethefederal d,'+ jurisdictionisaseparatejurisdiction.Thus,doublejeopardydoesnotapplyandtheyarefreeto P-(, maketheirownchargesbasedonfederallaw.