2026 Clarke Family Prize in Legal Ethics & Professionalism Student Competition Problem*
You run a legal ethics firm that provides confidential ethics guidance to attorneys, firms, and government offices across the State of Gonzaga. Your work sometimes involves advising attorneys facing complex professional responsibility dilemmas implicating public trust and institutional integrity. Earlier this week, you received a request for guidance from Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Angie Torres, who works in the Criminal Justice Division of the Gonzaga State Attorney General’s Office. In seeking your guidance, AAG Torres shares the following with you:Approximately 15 months ago, Torres and two other AAGs, Royce Hayes and Tina Smith, were assigned to prosecute State v. Rich, a felony fraud case involving a prominent local business owner, Daniel Rich. The case has received moderate media attention due to Rich’s connections to regional political and business leaders. Torres reports that the case is strong. The State has substantial evidence supporting the charges, including cooperating witnesses and financial records. Simply put, Torres, Hayes, and Smith believe the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Rich committed the crimes for which he is charged. Discovery is complete, and the trial is scheduled to begin in six weeks.
Two days ago, Torres, Hayes, and Smith were called into a meeting with the elected Attorney General (AG). Also present at that meeting were the AG’s Chief of Staff and the direct supervisor of the three AAGs. During that meeting, the AG instructed Torres, Hayes, and Smith to dismiss the case against Rich. The AG stated that “dismissal of the Rich case is in the broader interests of the State,” referencing a potential economic consequence of prosecuting Rich: he employs a substantial number of people in the region. The AG also referred to a separate, ongoing negotiation involving Rich’s company and a state economic development initiative. The AG said “it would be helpful” if the case is dismissed in light of “cooperation we are receiving on other matters.”
Torres, Hayes, and Smith believe these statements suggest a quid pro quo. They believe the AG wants the case dismissed because it will benefit the State economically or give the State leverage in political negotiations. Torres responded during the meeting that she and her trial team are not comfortable dismissing the case on the grounds suggested by the AG. The AG replied that the decision was ultimately his, and that Torres, Hayes, and Smith should “trust the broader judgment of the office.”
Following that meeting, Torres, Hayes, and Smith reviewed internal office policies but found no guidance addressing a scenario like the one they are facing. The three AAGs have not taken any action thus far, and they have not submitted anything to the court. Additionally, they have not communicated with Rich’s defense counsel regarding a possible dismissal. None of the attorneys documented the meeting with the AG beyond their personal notes.
Torres, Hayes, and Smith are hoping you can advise them on how to proceed in light of their obligations under the (the State of Gonzaga has adopted the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct). Torres, Hayes, and Smith are aware that, as AAGs, they are subject to supervisory authority within the office. At the same time, the three attorneys are concerned about their individual ethical obligations, including their duties of good faith, candor, and their separate duties as prosecutors. The three AAGs are seeking your advice as they consider different possible courses of action. They are also concerned about their obligations if they believe the directive is improper or unlawful. Should they move to dismiss the case, they would like to know if they need to disclose the basis for the dismissal to the court. Finally, the AAGs worry about the potential impact their decision may have on public trust in the criminal legal system. Please prepare a memo addressing these issues and advising the AAGs on how they should proceed.
In sharing your guidance, Torres, Hayes, and Smith ask that you focus on the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. You may also include in your discussion any cases or other persuasive authority you find. Please do not analyze whether the court would accept a motion to dismiss. After sending your memo on the above issues, the AAGs would like to meet briefly to discuss your guidance. Please prepare a 2–3-minute presentation summarizing your guidance and be prepared to discuss the issues with Torres, Hayes, and Smith. You may also ask any questions you have of them at that time. They will reach out to schedule that meeting.
—End of 2026 Competition Problem—
*This Competition Problem is hypothetical. All names and events are fictitious. Please see the Clarke Family Prize in Legal Ethics: Student Competition webpage for full competition instructions. Please see the Clarke Prize Student Competition webpage for full competition instructions.