SLLC Attorney Final common mistakes
SLLC Attorney Final · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Runs the conflict check only after the first substantive intake meeting, and once a conflict is found simply declines the case - no Rule 1.18 screening entry in the file, no written declination, and no instruction to staff about what was disclosed in the meeting.
Intake is usually scheduled and conducted by non-lawyer staff before the attorney sees the file, so the attorney assumes conflicts were already cleared. Candidates also assume that a 'prospective client' duty evaporates the moment representation is declined, when the information the meeting produced still restricts the firm.
What to do instead
Treat every intake sign-up as a conflict check that must be cleared before any discussion of the facts. If a conflict surfaces mid-meeting, stop the fact-gathering, note in the file exactly what was disclosed, confirm the declination in writing, and screen the matter so the information is not used against the prospective client or shared with the lawyer handling the conflicting matter.
Answers a question about the limits of confidentiality by citing the attorney-client privilege, or vice versa - for example, saying a client's statement to the lawyer's paralegal is 'privileged' and therefore protected in litigation, rather than analysing it as a Rule 1.6 confidentiality question with a separate evidentiary test.
The two doctrines are taught together and both are described in the same intake materials, so they collapse into a single 'keep it secret' idea. Candidates also reach for the rule with the more familiar label rather than the one that actually answers the question asked.
What to do instead
Before writing, state to yourself which question is being asked: confidentiality governs what the lawyer may reveal and is broader; privilege governs what can be compelled in a proceeding and covers a narrower set of communications. Then apply the correct elements separately, and note the exceptions that differ - the privilege survives termination of the relationship, while the duty of confidentiality continues but permits disclosure in the limited circumstances the rules name.
Effectively abandons a case by simply stopping work - no motion to withdraw, no notice to the client, no return of the file - and then appears at the hearing expecting the court to have removed the attorney from the record.
Withdrawal feels like a client-relations step rather than a procedural one, and candidates assume that telling the client by phone ends the representation. They also under-estimate how much prejudice the tribunal must consider when permission is required.
What to do instead
Distinguish terminating the relationship from withdrawing from the representation. Identify whether permission of the tribunal is required, whether the matter is pending before a court, and what notice and file-return obligations follow; calendar the hearing date so the withdrawal motion is heard before, not after, any scheduled event; and account for the client's ability to obtain new counsel and any prejudice from the timing.
Computes a response deadline from the date the complaint was signed or filed rather than the date of service, and forgets to add the extension that applies when service was made by mail or another specified method.
The filing date is the date printed at the top of the document and is the first date the candidate sees. The service date is on a separate return or affidavit that is often not in the initial packet, and the extension for mail service is a small rule buried in the same section as the base period.
What to do instead
Build the calendar entry from the triggering event named in the rule, not from the document's caption. Ask explicitly whether the period runs from service, from entry of an order, or from receipt of notice, then check the separate provision that adds days for a specified mode of service. Where the period is jurisdictional rather than procedural, note that the extension may not apply at all.
Files an answer that denies the allegations and pleads a handful of affirmative defences, but raises no challenge to personal jurisdiction or venue and no counterclaim - then tries to assert the omitted defence or claim months later, after the plaintiff has moved for summary judgment.
The answer is treated as a denial document rather than as the last realistic chance to raise procedural objections. Candidates also hold back a counterclaim because they want to investigate it further, without realising that a permissive counterclaim filed late may still be barred by the court's scheduling order.
What to do instead
Before drafting, run a checklist over every defence that is waived if not pleaded in the first response - lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient service, and any defence the rules classify as affirmative - and plead or expressly preserve each one. Decide counterclaims at the same sitting, and if more time is genuinely needed, seek leave to amend rather than assuming the claim can be added later as of right.
Opposes summary judgment with an argument built on the allegations in the pleadings and a short brief, without attaching the affidavit, records, or discovery excerpts that would create a genuine dispute, and without responding line by line to the moving party's statement of undisputed facts.
The candidate knows the client's version of events is true and assumes saying so is enough. The separate statement of undisputed facts is treated as a formality, and the local consequence of failing to controvert a numbered fact - that it is deemed admitted - is not in the exam-taker's mental checklist.
What to do instead
Treat the response as an evidence exercise: for each numbered fact, either admit it or cite the specific record material that disputes it. Attach the underlying documents rather than describing them, confirm the declarant has personal knowledge and is competent to testify to each point, and check whether the forum requires a separate response document with its own deadline.
Advises a tenant client to stay put and keep paying, then accepts and cashes a rent payment after the termination notice has expired - or defends the eviction without ever pleading and tendering the rent that would defeat the claim.
Paying rent feels like good-faith conduct that a tribunal will reward, and accepting it feels administrative rather than legal. Candidates also treat rent tender as a factual detail for the hearing instead of a condition that must be satisfied, and pleaded, before the defence is available.
What to do instead
Before any payment is made or accepted, map the notice timeline and ask whether acceptance of rent after the notice date could be read as reinstating the tenancy. Where the defence turns on tender, plead it expressly, tender the amount in the form the rule requires, document the tender, and keep the payment stream separate from any settlement discussion.
Calculates child support from the figure on the payor's pay stub without checking what the guideline counts as income, and drafts a parenting plan that allocates time in a table but never addresses decision-making, dispute resolution, or the statutory factors the court must find.
Gross pay is the most available number in the file, and the guideline definition - which may include bonuses, self-employment income after allowable expenses, in-kind benefits, or imputed earnings for a voluntary underemployment - is a separate provision candidates do not re-read under time pressure.
What to do instead
Work the support calculation as a sequence: establish the guideline income definition, adjust each party's income for allowable deductions and for any imputation argument, apply the shared-parenting or split-custody adjustment if the time division triggers it, then run the worksheet and state the resulting figure. Separately, check each element the parenting plan must contain in the jurisdiction and tie the proposed schedule to the statutory best-interest factors by name.
Pleads a consumer claim under a single statute without checking which limitations period and elements apply, and lets the thirty-day window after a debt collector's initial communication pass without sending a written dispute or validation request.
All consumer claims are filed under the general heading of 'debt collection' in the candidate's notes, and the statutes look interchangeable. The validation window closes quickly and the client often brings the letter in after it has already run, so the candidate treats the missed window as irrelevant rather than as a fact that changes what relief is available.
What to do instead
For each count, write the statute, the limitations period and its accrual rule, and the elements side by side before drafting, since the periods differ materially across the federal debt-collection, credit-reporting, and state unfair-practices statutes. Note in the file whether a validation request was sent and when; if the window has closed, analyse what remains - the collector's obligations are not extinguished, but the dispute rights and the evidentiary posture change.
Misses the appeal deadline stated on the benefits notice, or files the fair hearing request on time but never asks for benefits to continue while the appeal is pending, so the household loses assistance during the months the appeal takes.
The notice is a dense multi-page form and the deadline is one line among many. Continuing benefits is a separate request with its own, often earlier, effective-date condition, so candidates who focus only on the appeal itself never notice they have left a remedy on the table.
What to do instead
Read the notice for the deadline and calendar it the day the client walks in, without waiting to decide whether an appeal is worthwhile. File the hearing request and, on the same day, make the written request for continuation of benefits if the jurisdiction allows it and the request falls within the required window; then diarise the hearing date and any deadline for submitting documents in advance.