MPRE Practice Questions (2026) — Free Sample Questions with Answers

Answer: B

She may report Ward but is not required to, because the victim is not her client.: Rule 8.3(a) does not depend on the victim being the reporting lawyer's client. If the lawyer knows of a qualifying violation, reporting is mandatory.

She must inform the appropriate professional authority about Ward's conduct.: Correct. Misappropriating client funds is a violation that raises a substantial question about Ward's honesty. Ortiz knows of it, and the information is not protected by Rule 1.6 because it did not come from a client of hers, so Rule 8.3(a) requires her to report.

She must first ask Ward to repay the funds and report only if he refuses.: The Rules give no 'cure first' option. Repayment does not erase the violation or the duty to report, and conditioning a report on repayment could look like using the threat of discipline as leverage.

She must report Ward only after he has been criminally charged or convicted.: The reporting duty is triggered by the lawyer's knowledge of misconduct, not by criminal proceedings. A charge or conviction is not required.

Rule 8.3: a lawyer who KNOWS of another lawyer's violation that raises a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness or fitness MUST report it, unless the information is confidential under Rule 1.6.

Answer: D

A $5,000 bonus payable only if the client's divorce decree is granted: Prohibited. Rule 1.5(d)(1) bars a fee in a domestic relations matter whose payment depends on securing a divorce.

Twenty percent of whatever alimony the court awards to the client: Prohibited. A fee contingent on the amount of alimony or support is expressly barred by Rule 1.5(d)(1).

A share of the property settlement the client receives in the divorce: Prohibited. Rule 1.5(d)(1) also covers a property settlement 'in lieu' of alimony or support, and this fee depends on the outcome of the divorce itself.

One-third of past-due child support she collects under an existing decree: Correct. Comment [6] to Rule 1.5 says the prohibition does not stop a contingent fee for recovering post-judgment balances owed under support or alimony orders. The policy worry about discouraging reconciliation does not apply once the decree exists.

Rule 1.5(d): there are no contingent fees for obtaining a divorce or tied to alimony, support or property settlements, and none in criminal defense. Collecting arrears under an existing order is the recognized exception. Any contingent fee agreement must be in writing and signed by the client.

Answer: B

Nothing, because the terms were fair and the client signed a written consent.: Fairness and signed consent are only two of the three requirements. The advice about independent counsel must also be in writing.

The client was not advised in writing of the desirability of independent counsel.: Correct. Rule 1.8(a)(2) requires that the client be advised IN WRITING of the desirability of seeking independent legal advice and be given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Oral advice is not enough.

The client did not actually retain independent counsel before the deal was signed.: The rule requires advice and a reasonable opportunity to consult independent counsel. It does not require the client to hire one.

A lawyer may never enter into a business venture with a current client.: Business transactions with clients are allowed if all three requirements of Rule 1.8(a) are met. They are not banned outright.

Rule 1.8(a): (1) fair terms fully disclosed in writing; (2) WRITTEN advice to seek independent counsel plus a reasonable chance to do so; (3) client's informed consent in a signed writing covering the essential terms and the lawyer's role.

Answer: C

Nothing, because finding adverse authority is the responsibility of opposing counsel.: Rule 3.3(a)(2) places an independent duty on the lawyer when opposing counsel has not disclosed directly adverse controlling authority.

Disclose it only if the judge specifically asks whether any contrary cases exist.: The duty applies whether or not the court asks. Waiting for a question does not satisfy it.

Disclose it to the court, though he may argue that it is distinguishable or wrong.: Correct. Rule 3.3(a)(2) requires disclosure of known, directly adverse authority in the controlling jurisdiction that opposing counsel has not disclosed. He may still argue against it.

Disclose it along with every adverse decision from other states' appellate courts.: The mandatory duty covers authority in the controlling jurisdiction. Out-of-state decisions are generally not covered.

Rule 3.3(a)(2): disclose directly adverse, controlling authority that the lawyer knows of and the other side has not cited. Then argue that it is distinguishable or should be overruled.

Answer: A

Report the matter to the company's higher authority, including the board if needed.: Correct. Under Rule 1.13(b), when a constituent's violation of law is likely to cause substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer must act in its best interest, ordinarily by referring the matter up the ladder to the highest authority that can act.

Report the manager directly to federal regulators before telling anyone else.: Reporting outside the organization is permitted only in limited situations under Rule 1.13(c), after going up the ladder has failed. It is not the first step.

Take no action, because his duty runs to the company's officers who direct him.: Rule 1.13(a) says the lawyer represents the organization itself, not its individual officers. He cannot ignore a violation that will harm the entity.

Resign immediately, because continuing would make him a party to the violation.: Resignation without first acting to protect the organization skips the duty under Rule 1.13(b). Withdrawal may come later if needed.

Entity client (Rule 1.13): the client is the organization. If a constituent's illegal act is likely to substantially injure it, go up the ladder. Reporting outside is permitted only if the highest authority fails to act and the other conditions in 1.13(c) are met.

Answer: A

Personally asking his sister to contribute to the league's new field fund: Correct. Rule 3.7(A)(2) allows a judge to solicit contributions from members of the judge's family, or from judges over whom he has no supervisory or appellate authority.

Mailing donation requests on court letterhead to lawyers who appear before him: Prohibited. It is a solicitation to non-family members, and using court letterhead abuses the prestige of office (Rule 1.3).

Appearing as the featured speaker at the league's annual fundraising dinner: Prohibited here. Under Rule 3.7(A)(4), a judge may be featured at a fundraising event only if the event concerns the law, the legal system or the administration of justice.

Asking a business that often litigates in his court to sponsor the league: Prohibited. It is a solicitation to a non-family member that could reasonably be seen as coercive, because the business appears before him.

CJC Rule 3.7: a judge may help plan fundraising and manage funds, but may personally SOLICIT only family members and judges he does not supervise. He may be featured at fundraising events only if they are law-related.