JULY 2017 ESSAY AND PERFORMANCE TEST CONVERSE
Question 1：Community Property
Question 2：Professional Responsibility/Evidence
Question 4：Civil Procedure
PT Task：Persuasive Letter--Criminal Law and Procedure
下文为加州律师考试2017年7月份的ESSAY真题，考试一共考5篇，每篇ESSAY限时1小时，此为其中2篇。 QUESTION 1
Wanda, a successful accountant, and Hal, an art teacher, who are California residents, married in 2008. After their marriage, Wanda and Hal deposited their earnings into a joint bank account they opened at Main Street Bank from which Wanda managed the couple’s finances. Each month, Wanda also deposited some of her earnings into an individual account she opened in her name at A1 Bank without telling Hal.
In 2010, Hal inherited $10,000 and a condo from an uncle. Hal used the $10,000 as a down payment on a $20,000 motorcycle, borrowing the $10,000 balance from Lender who relied on Hal’s good credit. Hal took title to the motorcycle in his name alone. The loan was paid off from the joint bank account during the marriage.
At Wanda’s insistence, Hal transferred title to the condo, worth $250,000, into joint tenancy with Wanda to avoid probate. The condo increased in value during the marriage.
On Hal’s 40th birthday, Wanda took him to Dealer and bought him a used camper van for $20,000, paid out of their joint bank account, titled in Hal’s name. Hal used the camper van for summer fishing trips with his friends.
In 2016, Wanda and Hal permanently separated, and Hal filed for dissolution. Just before the final hearing on the dissolution, Hal happened to discover Wanda’s individual account, which contained $50,000.
What are Hal’s and Wanda’s rights and liabilities, if any, regarding:
1. The condo? Discuss.
2. The motorcycle? Discuss.
3. The camper van? Discuss.
4. The A1 Bank account? Discuss.
Answer according to California Law. QUESTION 2
Claire had been a customer of Home Inc., a home improvement company owned by Don. Dissatisfied with work done for her, she brought an action against Home Inc. and Don in California state court, alleging that they had defrauded her.
Don entered into a valid retainer agreement with Luke, engaging Luke to represent him alone and not Home Inc. in Claire’s action. Luke then interviewed Don, who admitted he had defrauded Claire but added he had never defrauded anyone else, before or since. Luke subsequently interviewed Wendy, Don’s sister. Wendy told Luke Don had admitted to her that he had defrauded Claire. Luke told Wendy that Don had admitted to him too that he had defrauded Claire. Luke drafted a memorandum recounting what Wendy told him and expressing his belief Wendy would be a good witness for Claire.
Shortly before trial, Don fired Luke. Don soon died unexpectedly.
Claire filed a claim against Don’s estate and a claim against Home Inc., alleging as in her action that they had defrauded her. As the final act in closing Don’s estate, the executor settled Claire’s claim against the estate, but not against Home Inc.
At trial against Home Inc., which was now the sole defendant, Claire has attempted to compel Luke to testify about what Wendy told him, but he has refused, claiming the attorney-client privilege. She has also attempted to compel him to produce his memorandum, but he has again refused, claiming both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
1. Should the court compel Luke to testify about what Wendy told him? Discuss. Answer according to California law.
2. Should the court compel Luke to produce his memorandum:
a. To the extent it recounts what Wendy told him? Discuss. Answer according to California law.
b. To the extent it expresses his belief that Wendy would be a good witness for Claire? Discuss. Answer according to California law.
3. What ethical violations, if any, has Luke committed? Discuss.
Answer according to California and ABA authorities.小编智商已下线，请自备翻译.....