The nоrmаl humаn micrоbiоtа ______. Please choose all that apply.
Mаrk wоrked fоr five yeаrs аs in-hоuse litigation counsel for TechNova, a global software and electronics manufacturer. As part of TechNova’s internal legal team, Mark worked closely with senior executives, engineers, and outside counsel to defend the company in several nationwide consumer-fraud and products-liability class actions. These matters involved allegations that TechNova misrepresented the battery performance, data-security features, and safety characteristics of its smartphones and tablets. In this role, Mark gained detailed knowledge of TechNova’s internal litigation playbook, including its strategies for early settlement, criteria for selecting bellwether trials, risk-assessment memos, and internal data-analysis practices. Mark also received confidential communications from TechNova employees concerning product testing and risk mitigation. After leaving TechNova, Mark joined JusticeFirst LLP, a boutique plaintiffs’ firm specializing in consumer protection and mass-tort litigation. The firm hired Mark partly because of his prior experience defending corporate class actions. As part of his transition, the firm asked Mark to bring in clients to expand its consumer-fraud practice. To generate business, Mark created a marketing campaign that included a website, online ads, and targeted social-media spots. His advertisements describe him as a “Specialist in Consumer Protection Law.” The ads further state that Mark “knows how to beat TechNova using his experience from the inside.” Mark did not receive a certification in any area of law during or after law school. Approximately two years into his work at JusticeFirst, a prospective client, Olivia, contacts the firm. Olivia alleges that TechNova’s newest smartwatch overheated during normal use and caused a burn injury to her wrist. A nationwide class action involving the same smartwatch is already pending in federal court, though Olivia has not yet joined it. Mark meets with Olivia and conducts a brief initial consultation. At the end of the meeting, he presents her with a contingent fee agreement, which provides that Mark will receive 50% of any recovery, that litigation costs will be charged to the client at 110% of actual expenses whether or not the case succeeds, and that the agreement “covers any related claims that may arise.” Mark has another potential client waiting for him, so he does not have time to explain the terms or alternative fee arrangements. He tells Olivia that his docket is getting quite full and that he may not have time to represent her if she waits to retain him. Olivia signs before leaving the office. Before filing Olivia’s complaint, Mark decides to refresh his memory about TechNova’s internal product-testing and litigation strategy. He calls two former colleagues whom he was close to at TechNova—Ethan, a mid-level engineering manager, and Julia, a product-testing engineer—using their personal cell phone numbers. Both remain employees of TechNova and have routine involvement with product-safety reports, internal review committees, and regulatory submissions. Mark says that he wants to catch up and does not tell them that he represents any plaintiffs in the pending class action. He asks them questions about overheating incidents, internal testing protocols, and whether any negative data about the smartwatch was “buried” or “downplayed.” Mark does not contact TechNova’s counsel before making these calls, nor does he disclose to his firm that he is doing so. After these conversations, Mark drafts a complaint for Olivia and moves to join the pending federal class action. In signing the pleadings, Mark certifies that he conducted a reasonable investigation. When TechNova learns of Mark’s involvement, it files a bar complaint alleging multiple ethical violations. Discuss all professional responsibility issues raised. (Approximately 30 minutes)
Sаge & Willоw LLP is а twо-lаwyer firm cоnsisting of Jordan (partner) and Riley (junior associate). Because the firm has recently taken on several major matters, Riley has been managing multiple deadlines and increasingly feels overwhelmed. A prospective client, Tyler, calls the firm and speaks with Riley. Tyler explains that he is thinking about bringing a wrongful termination claim against a former employer for discriminatory treatment. He says he was fired a little under two years ago and has been trying to work things out on his own but now feels like he should check his options. Tyler asks Riley whether waiting a bit longer before deciding on a lawyer would make the situation worse and whether there is anything time-sensitive he should be aware of. Riley, juggling several assignments and feeling flustered, tells him that these kinds of cases can take time and that he should call back if he decides to move forward. Tyler never calls back. Months later, he attempts to file a pro se lawsuit and discovers that the filing deadline passed shortly after his initial call with Riley. He files a bar complaint alleging that Sage & Willow misled him during the intake process. Two days after Tyler’s call, a prospective client named Lena contacts the firm. Riley takes the call. Lena says she is considering suing her competitor, Apex Supply, for misappropriation of her client list. In the discussion, Lena hints that she has “ways of seeing what they’ve been doing behind the scenes” and mentions accessing “documents that Apex probably didn’t expect outsiders to see.” Riley takes notes but does not ask how Lena obtained the materials or warn her about potentially unlawful conduct. Lena later arrives at the office with several documents that appear to be internal Apex emails. She signs a brief retainer agreement that states: “Client pays $12,000 to begin representation; firm will bill against this amount. Partner rate is $400 per hour; associate rate is $200 per hour.” Over the next several weeks, Lena frequently emails Riley asking for updates, clarification of strategy, and explanations of upcoming events. Under pressure from Jordan to keep communications efficient, Riley decides that it is unnecessary to respond to some emails and responds to others with messages such as “Still working,” “In review,” and “Will update soon,” without answering Lena’s questions. Lena learns from a former colleague at Apex that the company is aware of her planned lawsuit. Fearing that Apex will destroy evidence, Lena pressures the firm to seek an immediate temporary restraining order (TRO). Jordan, who is juggling trial prep in another case, instructs Riley to draft the TRO brief. Knowing that Riley is busy, Jordan tells her to “just get it done and filed in in 24 hours.” Feeling overwhelmed and behind on several deadlines, Riley uses a generative AI tool to draft portions of the TRO brief. The draft includes several case citations that appear legitimate. Riley does not have time to verify the citations. Jordan glances quickly at the brief, adds his electronic signature, and files it with the court without checking the authorities, assuming Riley did so. Riley takes a much-needed trip to Miami Beach after the TRO hearing. While Riley is out, Lena emails Riley that she “got more Apex emails the same way as before” and is “prepared to do it again” if it will “strengthen the case.” She asks Riley to tell her “what kinds of files would help us most.” Riley reads the email and promptly forgets about it. She does not warn Lena, does not advise her to stop, and does not inform Jordan about the conversation. Before the judge issues a ruling on the TRO, opposing counsel files an objection pointing out multiple nonexistent cases cited in the TRO brief that Jordan filed. Two days later, the judge issues an order denying the TRO and requiring Sage & Willow to explain the filing. Frustrated with the firm’s performance and the lack of communication, Lena terminates the representation. She demands the return of the $12,000 retainer. Jordan does not have $12,000 available because he used the money to finance discovery in another client’s case. In any event, he does not believe the firm owes any money to Lena because he put five hours of work into the case and Riley put twenty hours of work into it. Lena informs the firm that she plans to file a bar complaint against Jordan, and Riley. Discuss all professional responsibility issues raised by the facts. (Approximately 30 minutes)