Advice Against Act Defeats Privilege
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Evidence1
Example wrong choices
20313_bethlehem_olivewood_crosses · EVIDENCE · Choice AYes, but only if the customers later fail to prove substantial need for the communications.
Why it's attractive
The student recognizes substantial need as a real discovery phrase and assumes it can defeat privilege. The breaker is that substantial need answers work-product, not attorney-client privilege.
Why it's wrong
Substantial need is a work-product idea, not the attorney-client privilege test.
Spot it next time
Ask which protection the call names before applying any exception phrase.
20313_bethlehem_olivewood_crosses · EVIDENCE · Choice BNo, because any discussion of a potentially fraudulent advertisement triggers the crime-fraud exception.
Why it's attractive
The student sees fraud-related subject matter and treats the exception as automatic. The breaker is that crime-fraud turns on purpose, not mere topic.
Why it's wrong
The word 'any' overreads crime-fraud by making suspicious subject matter automatic.
Spot it next time
Find the client-purpose sentence in the stem.
20313_bethlehem_olivewood_crosses · EVIDENCE · Choice DNo, because Paul ultimately advised against the advertisement.
Why it's attractive
The student treats the lawyer's negative advice as a reason privilege should fail. The breaker is that advice against the act supports the compliance-advice route.
Why it's wrong
Advice against the act points toward compliance advice, not loss of privilege.
Spot it next time
Ask whether the fact points toward compliance or wrongdoing.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →