PrepTest 135, Section 4, Question 5
Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff(61 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the judge's(16 more words not shown)
- AA court cannot(14 more words not shown)
- BDefendants have the(10 more words not shown)
- CPeople being questioned(11 more words not shown)
- DA plaintiff in(15 more words not shown)
- EA defendant's legal(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The shared lawyer seems to create a problem. Imagine two of the defendants are Alex and Blair, and Morgan represents both. When Alex is questioned, the requested order would keep Blair's lawyer out. But Blair's lawyer is Morgan, who is also Alex's own lawyer. We can't exclude one of those roles while keeping the very same person in the room.
The court also won't make a defendant find a new lawyer. It's tempting to think that settles it: the requested arrangement is impossible.
But notice what we've quietly assumed. Why can't Alex simply be questioned without Morgan present? That would remove the other defendant's lawyer too. The argument needs a reason that solution is unavailable.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle supporting the judge's conclusion. Look for a rule protecting the defendant's ability to have their own lawyer there. A familiar-sounding right still needs to be supplied if the argument relies on it without stating it.
Working the answers
- A
This protects information a client has revealed to a lawyer. The requested order concerns who may be in the room during questioning, not whether a lawyer must disclose a client's information. A confidentiality rule doesn't establish that the lawyer must be present.
- BCorrect
Defendants have the right to have their own legal counsel present during questioning. Apply that to Alex: excluding Morgan because Morgan also represents Blair would deprive Alex of that right. Keeping Morgan would violate the requested exclusion, and the court won't require a replacement lawyer. This principle explains why the judge cannot grant the requested order.
- C
A right to refuse self-incriminating answers doesn't establish a right to have counsel in the room. Someone could be questioned without a lawyer and refuse certain questions. That would leave the problem we identified unresolved.
- D
The judge isn't comparing a right granted to the plaintiff with that same right denied to a defendant. The problem is whether a defendant's own lawyer can be excluded because that lawyer also represents someone else. A general equal-treatment principle doesn't tell us whether counsel must be allowed to attend.
- E
This reverses who is doing the questioning. The requested order lets the plaintiff question the defendants; E gives defense counsel a right to question the plaintiff. That separate right doesn't determine who must be present when a defendant answers questions.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.