Quebec Bar Exam

Practice Exams

Sharpened Mock Ethics Exam #1

We worked hard to make this mock exam resemble your actual Quebec Bar Ethics Exam as much as possible. Plan to do this exam in one siting of 5 hours and resist the urge to correct your answers as you go along.

Correct the exam like the Quebec Bar School does: have the right ethical lapse, but the wrong article. give yourself zero on that answer. Have a partially wrong short-answer question, you unfortunately also get zero.

Want to have more practice exams, commission us to prepare more mock exams for the benefit all of students.

Best of luck!

William Henkel is a prolific businessman who owns a company in the textile industry. His company, FitCo Inc., has been making sportswear for over two decades, and has carved out a solid position for itself in this market. The company not only manufactures clothes based on its designs, but it also takes orders from other companies to manufacture clothes based those other companies’ designs. FitCo Inc. employs 100 people in manufacturing, 15 people in its back office and ten delivery personnel.

Recently, while William was on vacation, discussions took place within the company to proceed with the unionization of the manufacturing employees who complained of long hours and not benefiting from ergonomic workstations. Upon returning from his vacation, William was surprised to receive a request for certification from the manufacturing employees. Furious, William intends to contest the request and wants to make sure that no employees are unionized in his company. He feels that he treats his employees well and has always listened to them.

Luckily, during the month of October, on his way out of the grocery store, William spotted a billboard advertising Mtre. Bocker, a lawyer who has 25 years of experience practising ‘against the unions.’ The ad featured a special rate for the months of October and November. William rushes home and calls Mtre. Bocker to obtain more information and to discuss the case. Both of them agree to an in-person meeting to fill in some initial paperwork and to get started on the mandate as early as possible. Mtre. Bocker informs William that he practises law from the basement of his house and provides him with the address.

Upon arriving at Mtre. Bocker’s home, William sees a large sign indicating the street number and knocks on the front door. Mtre. Bocker greets William and invites him down to the basement and next to his desk, which is in the corner of a large room used by Mtre Bocker’s children as a playroom. “It’s almost funny, sometimes they jump around while I’m meeting a client. At least they’re cute!”, says Mtre. Bocker as William takes a seat in front of Mtre Bocker’s desk.

William explains his case and mentions that after seeing Mtre. Bocker’s ad, he was interested in working with him and would like to know if Mtre. Bocker would be interested in collaborating with his corporate lawyer who has been working with FitCo Inc. for quite some time. Mtre. Bocker refuses and mentions, “Once you consult me, you can’t consult another lawyer.” Surprised, William nonetheless accepts to have Mtre. Bocker represent FitCo Inc. exclusively.

Mtre. Bocker takes substantial notes during their meeting and tells him that he has already seen similar cases and explains in detail how he was successful in defending KostKo, a former client, from becoming unionized. William smiles as he hears the story and is now convinced that Mtre. Bocker is a great choice for his needs.

Mtre. Bocker then mentions that there is only one way to take care of a union, “Cut off the snake’s head.” Mtre. Bocker explains that William needs to figure out who started the unionization discussions and he has to fire them right away to ensure that people will be scared and won’t entertain any further discussions about unionization. Mtre. Bocker also explain that, in parallel, he will be taking care of the T.A.T. Unsure what Mtre. Bocker meant, William nods and asks if it would be possible to sue the union for slander as, “It’s obvious they are trying to destroy my reputation by applying for a union in my business.” Even though Mtre. Bocker knows that there is no legal basis whatsoever for such a suit, he nonetheless mentions that it’s a great idea and will work on a lawsuit for William’s approval.

After leading William to the door and shaking his hand, Mtre. Bocker returns to his desk and grabs a file organizer and what he calls a “client sheet” and proceeds to write the following information:

  • Block union for FitCo Inc.;
  • William Henkel, president of FitCo Inc., living at 555-7981, Ville Lasalle

Over the following days, William sends Mtre. Bocker a document containing around fifteen comments on recent developments in the accreditation process at FitCo Inc. William asks Mtre. Bocker to include those comments in his file to ensure that his file contains the most up-to-date information. After going over the comments, Mtre. Bocker decides to scribble some notes on a piece of paper and slides it into his file.

Acting on Mtre. Bocker’s recommendation, William identifies Jeff Séguin as the main initiator behind the unionization process and fires him right away. Shortly afterwards, FitCo Inc. receives a demand letter seeking Jeff Séguin’s immediate reinstatement as he was dismissed without just and sufficient cause. Shocked, William quickly contacts his corporate lawyer and explains the recent actions he took and his conversations with Mtre. Bocker. That lawyer confirms that Mtre. Bocker should have accepted to collaborate with him on the file and, in addition, it’s illegal to fire an employee for his participation in unionization activities.

Furious, William phones Mtre. Bocker and announces that not only was he served with a lawsuit because of Mtre. Bocker’s recommendations, but that William will be moving forward with another lawyer who knows what he’s talking about. William also mentions that he will be filling a complaint with the Syndic du Barreau against Mtre. Bocker. Mtre. Bocker apologizes to William and says that he understands and he wishes that their relationship ended otherwise. Mtre. Bocker mentions he will issue his final invoice to William in the following days.

Upon receiving Mtre. Bocker’s invoice, William is pleasantly surprised to see an invoice for the amount of $890 which corresponds to 4 hours of work and the applicable taxes. William phones Mtre. Bocker to inform that he will be coming by the following day with cash to pay the invoice. William comes by the following day and hands Mtre. Bocker $890 and indicates that he wishes to obtain a copy of his file, to make sure that he is not missing anything for the continuation of the file. Mtre. Bocker informs William that he will not provide him with a copy given that their relationship is over and that after giving it some thoughts, William “should remove his complaint with the Bar or you will have a nice union in your company.” William then leaves Mtre. Bocker’s office.

QUESTION 1

List 15 breaches of ethics and professional practice committed by Mr. André Laroche. For each breach, justify your answer by referring to:

a) the precise and relevant facts contained in the factual framework;

b) to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provision(s).

Mtre. Rocheau is representing Jane Howell in a sexual misconduct case. Jane Howell is a well-known radio journalist and therefore, the case has a whole has generated a lot of interest in the news.

The closed-session trial started on Monday and is scheduled for 12 days. As Mtre. Rocheau is leaving the courtroom at the end of day 3, he is approached by a handful of journalists seeking to obtain details on the case and on Jane Howell’s personal life. Indeed, the journalists are asking about Jane’s potential divorce proceedings which were allegedly filed the previous week by her husband.

Mtre. Rocheau has not discussed the divorce proceedings with Jane, but he has read about them in the newspapers. In that context, he is inclined to answer the journalists’ questions.

QUESTION 2

Can Mtre. Rocheau disclose information regarding Jane’s divorce, considering he is not and will not represent Jane in those proceedings?

Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.

ADDITIONAL FACTS

During the fourth day of the trial, an eyewitness is called by the prosecution to testify on Jane’s entry and exit into the building where the alleged misconduct took place. The witness is a security guard in the residential building in question. The witness will not have to testify again after this day.

QUESTION 3

Once again, journalists gather around Mtre. Rocheau as he exits the courtroom and question him on rumours that a potential eyewitness was to testify that day. Can Mtre. Rocheau explain what was said during the witness’ testimony?

Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.

Mtre. Clearwater is a long-time friend of Martha Johnson who is the sole owner of a sporting goods store in the West Island. About 7 years ago, Mtre. Clearwater helped Martha set up the company that operates the store, and prepared, among other things, the unanimous shareholder agreement, various corporate resolution templates as well as different corporate documents needed to run the business. Mtre. Clearwater continues to do work for Martha.

About a year ago, Martha was approached by Andrei Kovechky and Leila Brook to partner together to launch a new store, similar to the one owned by Martha, but in the eastern part of Montreal. As such, Martha reached out to Mtre. Clearwater to act for the three partners to proceed with the incorporation of the store and to draft the shareholders’ agreement to govern the relationship between the three equal partners.

QUESTION 4

Can Mtre. Clearwater draft the shareholders’ agreement and prepare the necessary corporate documents required by the three partners?

If so, mention any additional steps Mtre. Clearwater might be legally required to take.

Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.

ADDITIONAL FACTS

Mtre. Clearwater incorporated the new store and prepared the shareholders’ agreement which was signed by Martha Johnson, Andrei Kovechky and Leila Brook. Recently, a dispute arose between the three shareholders over the payment of dividends. Martha approached Mtre. Clearwater to see if he can counsel the three shareholders regarding their dispute to which they are all in agreement.

QUESTION 5

Can Mtre. Clearwater counsel Martha Johnson, Andrei Kovechky and Leila Brook regarding their dispute pertaining to the shareholders’ agreement which he drafted for them?

Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.

Two years ago, Mtre. Kaufman helped Andy and Tory with their joint divorce proceedings. The parties agreed on about every aspect of it and the divorce went as smoothly as possible.

Today, Andy contacted Mtre. Kaufman to file a motion to change the existing divorce agreement. Andy would like to obtain more spousal support due to the substantial recent increase in Tory’s salary. In their most recent conversation, Andy mentioned to Tory his desire to increase the amount of spousal support, who responded by accusing him of trying to scam her and mentioned she will be contesting any motion issued to her.

QUESTION 6

Can Mtre. Kaufman represent Andy for the motion to modify the divorce agreement?

If so, mention any additional steps Mtre. Kaufman might be legally required to take.

Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.

ADDITIONAL FACTS

In between Mtre. Kaufman’s completion of the joint divorce proceedings and Andy’s new request to modify the amount of spousal support, Mtre. Kaufman left the firm which he was working at to join Family Law s.e.n.c.r.l., a well-known firm of about 100 lawyers practising in the field of family law.

Assume that Andy did not reach out to Mtre. Kaufman but instead reached out to Mtre. Chaney, a partner at Family Law s.e.n.c.r.l.

QUESTION 7

Can Mtre. Chaney represent Andy for the motion in modification of the divorce agreement?

If so, mention any additional steps Family Law s.e.n.c.r.l. might be legally required to take.

Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.

QUESTION 1 (50 points)

1 Mtre. Bocker must abide by the fees announced for a minimum period of 90 days after they are last advertised or published. Art. 148 C.D.A.
2 Mtre. Bocker’s professional domicile has no signage Art. 3 R.c.n.e.p.a.
3 Mtre. Bocker received Martin in a room that did not allow for confidentiality Art. 5 R.c.n.e.p.a.
4 Mtre. Bocker failed to acknowledge William’s right to consult another lawyer. Art. 25 C.D.A.
4 By explaining in detail a previous case, Mtre. Bocker failed to respect attorney-client privilege (professional secrecy)

Art. 60.4 C. Prof

Art. 131 Loi sur le Barreau

5 Mtre. Bocker encouraged William to act unlawfully by firing someone for being involved in the unionization process Art. 14 C.D.A.
6 By mentioning that he will be taking care of the T.A.T., Mtre. Bocker failed to provide William with sufficient information with regards to how the mandate will be conducted Art. 28 C.D.A.
7 Mtre. Bocker failed to dissuade William from exercising a defamation suit and failed to inform him of the possible consequences Art. 41 C.D.A.
8 Mtre. Bocker failed to fully identify his client by not indicating FitCo Inc.’s address or telephone number Art. 14 R.c.n.e.p.a.
9 Mtre. Bocker failed to identify his client by not indicating FitCo Inc.’s name, its business number (the number of its articles of incorporation and the location of its delivery), as well as the general nature of its activities Art. 14 R.c.n.e.p.a.
10 Mtre. Bocker did not provide any information with regards to his fees or the financial modalities of his services Art. 99 or 100 C.D.A.
11 Mtre. Bocker failed to file William’s written comments in his file Art. 55 C.D.A.
12 Mtre. Bocker refused to provide William with a copy of his file Art. 53 C.D.A.
13 Mtre. Bocker intimidated William by mentioning “he should remove his complaint or you will have a nice union in your company” Art. 136 C.D.A.
14

Mtre. Bocker did not provide any information with regards to his fees or the financial terms of his services

Art. 99 or 100 C.D.A.
15

Mtre. Bocker did not provide William with a receipt after being paid in cash

Art. 71 R.c.n.e.p.a.

3 points per ethical breach correctly identified. (45 points)
5 points for not including any incorrect breaches

QUESTION 2 (8 points)

No, Mtre. Rocheau cannot disclose information regarding Jane’s divorce. Even though he is not representing Jane in the context of her divorce proceedings and did not discuss those divorce proceedings with her, and as such, this information is not covered by solicitor-client privilege, this information is covered by his obligation of discretion regarding information learned outside of the context of his professional relationship. Art. 20 C.D.A.

QUESTION 3 (8 points)

No, considering that the trial is being conducted in a closed-session format, Mtre. Rocheau may not disclose publicly any information with regards to the trial. Art. 18 C.D.A.

QUESTION 4 (10 points)

Yes, Mtre. Clearwater can act for the three partners to incorporate the new company and to prepare the shareholders’ agreement. However, he must first ensure that the three partners do not have opposing interests (83 C.D.A.). Then, he needs to advise the three partners that he will be acting for all three of them in this matter, that no confidential information obtained from one partner may be deemed to be confidential from another partner and that if a dispute arises between them, he may have to cease representing all of them (84 C.D.A.) Finally, as Mtre. Clearwater regularly acts for Martha, he must advise the other partners of this fact and recommend that they obtain an independent legal opinion before providing him with the mandate (86 C.D.A.).

QUESTION 5 (8 points)

Yes, Mtre. Clearwater can counsel Martha Johnson, Andrei Kovechky and Leila Brook regarding their dispute since the three of them consented. Art. 85 C.D.A.

QUESTION 6 (8 points)

No, Mtre. Kaufman may not represent Andy for the motion to modify the divorce agreement as this would mean that he would be acting against a previous client (Tory) and this could give an undue advantage to Andy. Art. 87 C.D.A.

QUESTION 7 (8 points)

Yes, Mtre. Chaney is allowed to represent Andy as long as reasonable measures are taken to ensure that no confidential information pertaining to Tory from Mtre. Kaufman is divulged to him. Art. 75 and 88 C.D.A.

(Reference to a Chinese Wall is also accepted as part of the answer to this question.)

Unhappy with your result

Consider joining hundreds of other students who have taken advantage of our tutoring services to give yourself the tools you need to succeed and pass your Quebec Bar Exam.

SIGN UP FOR TUTORING

Bar Province

Exam Semester

OR WRITE US AT:
info@sharpened.ca