[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

6-9. “Now that I’m selling my business,” the 85-year-old patriarch tells Fox, “I want
you to make arrangements to give half of the proceeds to dear Margaret. I don’t know what
I’d do without her.” Margaret is patriarch’s 30-year-old companion. What may (must) Fox
do?
2. Privilege and Work Product Waiver RLGL §§ 73, 78-81, 86, 91-92
Problems
6-10. “Let’s get the EPA off our back. Give ’em the damn notes,” Clean Energy’s
general counsel tells Martyn & Fox. Can Martyn & Fox turn over notes of their interviews
with Clean Energy employees to the Justice Department as part of a settlement on Clean
Energy’s behalf?
6-11. “We’re cleaning things up around here,” the new CEO declaimed. “You can
testify to all conversations with that pathetic old management. The SEC should know how
inept my predecessor was.” Can Fox testify to privileged communications with the old
CEO of the client?
3. Lawyer Receipt of Inadvertently or Anonymously Sent Information
Model Rules 4.4(b), 8.4(d)
RLGL §§ 78, 91
Merits Incentives, LLC v. The Eighth Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada
262 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2011)
By the Court, HARDESTY, J. . . .
Bumble & Bumble, LLC, manufactures and sells high-end salon products. Petitioners
Merits Incentives, LLC, Ramon DeSage, and Cadeau Express, Inc. (collectively,
petitioners), contracted with Bumble to distribute Bumble’s products to the Wynn Hotel
in Las Vegas, Nevada. . . . Bumble sued petitioners for breach of contract, fraud, and
injunctive relief because of the alleged distribution of Bumble products by petitioners to
entities other than those authorized by the parties’ contract.
Prior to Bumble’s suit against petitioners, Cadeau Express fired one of its logistics
engineers, Mohamed Issam Abi Haidar. In a separate action from this one, petitioners sued
Haidar, alleging that he stole “confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets.”
The district court in that case permanently enjoined Haidar from distributing any of the
stolen information to petitioners’ “customers, manufacturers, suppliers, or business
partners.”
181