When a lawyer lacks competence in a specific area, collaborating with another lawyer with the client's permission is the right move.

Navigating competence in the law isn’t just about knowing the rules—it’s about honoring the client’s trust when the going gets tough. In real life, even sharp attorneys encounter areas where they’re not fully up to speed. The key isn’t to pretend everything’s fine; it’s to address the gap responsibly and ethically. That’s exactly the kind of issue the MPRE topics are built to test: what a lawyer should do when competence is in question, and how to protect the client’s interests without compromising professional standards.

Let’s set the scene with a straightforward question that often pops up in ethics discussions. You’re handling a case and realize you lack the necessary expertise in a specific area of law. Which move best aligns with professional responsibility?

A. Retain the same strategy regardless of competence

B. Associate with another lawyer with client’s permission

C. Ignore the issue until it resolves itself

D. Handle the case independently without additional help

The correct answer is B: Associate with another lawyer with client’s permission. This isn’t just a marginally good idea—it’s a fundamental obligation when competence is at stake. Here’s why, and how this approach works in practice.

Why B is the ethical move

Competence isn’t a suggestion; it’s a duty. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct say a lawyer must provide competent representation. Rule 1.1 spells out what that means: the attorney must have legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. If you’re venturing into unfamiliar terrain, you’re responsible for addressing that gap so the client isn’t left with shoddy or incomplete work.

Pairing with another lawyer who has the relevant expertise is not a sign of weakness—it’s a smart, client-centered decision. It acknowledges your limits and chooses a path that can deliver better outcomes for the client. When you associate with a colleague, you’re effectively expanding your toolkit while still steering the ship. It also sends a clear message to the client: you’re protecting their interests, not guessing your way through a potentially risky situation.

And here’s the essential piece that sometimes gets overlooked: client permission. It isn’t enough to switch gears behind closed doors. The client must be informed about the change and consent to the arrangement. This keeps the client in the loop, preserves trust, and prevents later claims of hidden conflicts or inadequate representation. It’s about transparency, which is a bedrock of professional responsibility.

What “associating with another lawyer” looks like in real life

• Co-counseling or teaming up: You bring in a colleague who has the specific expertise the case demands. The client agrees to this partnership, and the team delineates who handles which aspects of the matter. This approach balances the client’s needs with your own strengths.

• Consulting with specialists: If the matter touches a technical corner (tax, intellectual property, employment law, or a complex civil procedure area), you can consult or affiliate with a specialist. The important thing is that the client is comfortable with the arrangement and understands the roles each person will play.

• Clear boundaries and confidentiality: Even when you collaborate, you must maintain the client’s confidences. Use appropriate mechanisms—screening where necessary, formal waivers, and secure information sharing—to ensure that the client’s information stays protected.

What about the other options? Why they miss the mark

Option A: Retaining the same strategy regardless of competence. This one can be tempting for control freaks or those who want to “handle it themselves.” But it flirts with malpractice. If you’re operating without the necessary knowledge or skill, continuing with the original plan risks harming the client’s interests and violates Rule 1.1. It’s not just risky; it’s ethically untenable.

Option C: Ignore the issue until it resolves itself. Pretending the gap isn’t there doesn’t solve anything. It also signals to the client that their case isn’t a priority or that the attorney isn’t taking duty of competence seriously. In the long run, this can erode trust, invite sanctions, and damage the attorney’s professional reputation.

Option D: Handle the case independently without additional help. If the area is truly outside your competence, this path is a direct breach of professional responsibility. The client deserves representation that is knowledgeable and prepared. Going it alone in a realm you don’t understand isn’t just unwise—it’s ethically questionable and potentially sanctionable.

A practical mindset: competence as ongoing client service

Let me explain this through a simple lens. Competence isn’t a one-time badge you earn after a couple of good briefs. It’s an ongoing standard you uphold for every client, in every matter. When you realize you’re out of your depth, the responsible step is not a fizzled attempt to power through; it’s a strategic adjustment that keeps the client safe and the case on solid ground.

Think of it like this: you’re a general practitioner who runs into a surprisingly specialized medical consult. You don’t pretend you’re an expert in that niche just to avoid asking for help. You call for a specialist, you discuss the plan with the patient, and you coordinate care so the patient isn’t left with ambiguity or sloppy handling.

In law, the exact analog works like this: you assess the scope of the issue, determine whether your existing knowledge covers it, and if not, you seek the right partner. You inform the client, obtain consent for the new arrangement, and set up a clear plan with responsibilities, timelines, and shared notes. It’s not a surrender; it’s a strategic reallocation of resources to ensure the client’s interests stay front and center.

A few practical steps you can take when competence is in question

• Do a quick self-audit: What parts of this matter require specialized knowledge? How deep does the gap go? Can you manage with focused study and independent effort, or is the gap too wide for solo handling?

• Talk to the client early and clearly: Explain what you’re seeing, why it matters, and what options exist. Ask for consent to bring in a co-counsel who has the needed expertise.

• Identify the right partner: Not every expert is the right fit. Look for someone whose track record aligns with the case needs, and who communicates in a way that keeps the client informed.

• Establish boundaries and keep the client in the loop: Decide who handles which pieces of work, how you’ll share notes, and how the team will communicate with the client.

• Preserve confidentiality: Even with collaboration, use sturdy safeguards for information and discuss any screening measures if you work in a shared office or with a large firm.

• Document everything: Get the client’s consent in writing, and reflect the collaboration plan in a formal agreement or engagement letter. This helps prevent misunderstandings down the line.

A quick note on the MPRE themes

The MPRE tests awareness of professional responsibility across several threads: competence, conflicts of interest, client confidentiality, and the duty to the court, among others. The scenario we started with lands squarely in the competence thread. It’s a reminder that the ethical path isn’t about cleverness or bravado; it’s about humility, client-centered decision-making, and a pragmatic approach to getting the job done right.

Ethics isn’t a dry syllabus puzzle; it’s a living standard that governs daily practice. When you’re navigating a gray area, leaning on a colleague who has the right expertise isn’t just clever—it’s ethically sound. It helps you deliver the level of service a client deserves and protects you from stepping into murky waters.

A closing thought—human and practical

Humans aren’t calculators. We bring knowledge, intuition, and sometimes limits to the table. The right move when those limits appear isn’t stubbornness; it’s clarity. By associating with a qualified lawyer with the client’s consent, you demonstrate respect for the client and commitment to doing the best possible work. You also model the professional standard you’d want to see from others.

If you’re part of a firm or a solo practice, this approach pays off in more ways than one. It strengthens client trust, reduces risk, and creates a collaborative culture that’s healthier for everyone involved. And while ethics can feel dense, this particular point—seek appropriate help with client consent—is a practical, down-to-earth guideline you can apply without drama.

In the end, competence is about stewardship. It’s about safeguarding the client’s interests and upholding the integrity of the profession. When in doubt, reach out. Bring in the right expertise. Communicate openly. And proceed with the confidence that you’re doing right by the people you serve. That’s not just good ethics; it’s good practice for a long, respected career in law.