When a lawyer is screened from a case, they cannot receive any fees.

Let’s unpack a scenario you’ll hear about in ethics discussions and on the MPRE topic map: a lawyer is screened from a case because of a potential conflict. The big question that often comes up is about fees. If a lawyer is kept out of the representation, can they still collect any part of the fees tied to that case? The straightforward answer you’ll see echoed in ethical guidelines is: no. The screened attorney can get no fee from that particular case.

What does “screened” really mean?

Think of screening as a protective barrier. When a conflict of interest is in play, a law firm may set up an internal firewall. The attorney who creates the conflict is kept entirely out of the matter—no access to files, no meetings, no consultations, nothing that could blur loyalty to the client. It’s not about punishment; it’s about fairness and protecting the client’s right to loyalty and confidentiality.

You might wonder, why can’t that attorney still profit from the work they did elsewhere? The principle behind the prohibition is simple: once a conflict exists, any appearance of influence or information-sharing could undermine the current representation. Fees tied to the case could smell like impropriety, even if the attorney intends to stay strictly on the sidelines. The ethics rules want to ensure the client’s interests are front and center, not tinged by prior relationships or earlier work that could be interpreted as bias.

What the MPRE topics are really testing here

The scenario sits at the crossroads of two core ideas in professional responsibility:

• Loyalty and conflict management. A lawyer owes a client undivided loyalty. When a potential conflict arises, institutions use screening to keep that loyalty intact for the current client.

• Fees and the appearance of impropriety. If a disqualified lawyer were to receive a fee from the case, it could imply a different motivation shaping the representation. The ethics framework is built to prevent that.

You’ll see this reflected in the Model Rules, especially those that address conflicts of interest and screening. The rules aren’t trying to punish once-usable relationships; they’re designed to preserve trust in the client-attorney relationship itself.

A quick look at the incorrect paths (why they don’t hold up)

Let’s run through the other options to see why they don’t fit the ethical guardrails:

• A. The attorney can receive a portion of the fees. This would imply that a lawyer who didn’t participate in the case still benefits from its outcome. That’s exactly the kind of incentive misalignment screening is meant to prevent. If fees are shared or partially paid to the disqualified attorney, there’s a risk—however small—of influence or leakage of confidential information. So, this is a red flag, not a remedy.

• B. The attorney may be compensated based on the outcome. Tying compensation to the result blurs the line between advocacy and potential influence. The ethical rulebook favors neutrality in representation, and paying a disqualified attorney based on how the case ends undermines that neutrality.

• D. The attorney can charge hourly for unrelated work. While it’s perfectly fine for a firm to bill for other matters not tied to the screened case, the key point is that the fee for the specific case in which the attorney is screened must not go to them. So, unrelated work might happen, but it doesn’t change the fact that the screened case’s fees should not be funneled to the disqualified lawyer.

What actually happens in practice (in plain terms)

If a firm screens a lawyer, think of the case as moving forward with the attorney’s involvement paused, not paused forever, but paused for this matter. The rest of the team continues, and the client’s interests are protected by the barrier. The financial arrangement around that case doesn’t include the screened lawyer’s share. The firm may still bill for other tasks the lawyer performs not related to the case, but the fee from the screened matter goes to the remaining eligible team members or to the firm as a whole—never to the disqualified attorney.

This isn’t about blaming someone; it’s about preserving trust. Clients deserve to know that the lawyer who represents them is not influenced by prior work, prior relationships, or any information that could skew judgment. The screening mechanism is a practical, enforceable way to keep that promise.

A few practical takeaways you can carry into your study notes

• The core purpose of screening is loyalty and confidentiality protection. The disqualified attorney stays out of the matter entirely.

• Fees tied to the screened case do not go to the screened attorney. The money stays with the team actively handling the case.

• The ethics framework emphasizes neutrality. Even the appearance of a conflict should be addressed before it can affect representation.

• Related work can be billed, but only if it’s truly separate from the case in which there’s a screening.

A quick, memory-friendly way to remember this

Imagine a courtroom relay race. The baton must stay with the runners who are cleared to represent the client in that leg. The screened attorney doesn’t run that leg, and they don’t receive a share of the baton’s reward. The leg is completed cleanly by the allowed team, with the client’s trust as the finish line.

Why this matters beyond a single question

Ethics rules aren’t just test fodder. They shape how lawyers practice every day. When you read about conflicts, think about the thread that runs through each rule: protect the client, preserve loyalty, and maintain public confidence in the legal system. The concept of screening and the fee constraint is a compact example of that bigger picture.

If you’re exploring the MPRE topics in depth, you’ll notice several recurring themes—loyalty, confidentiality, conflict management, and the integrity of the attorney-client relationship. Understanding these ideas in concrete terms, like the fee rule for screened attorneys, helps you connect the dots across different scenarios you may encounter on the timeline of your studies.

A friendly note to wrap this up

No one wants to see a case tainted by doubts about loyalty. The “no fee” rule for a screened attorney is one of those clear, practical standards that keeps the system honest and the client protected. It’s not about punishment; it’s about safeguarding trust. And that trust is the backbone of every successful legal profession, isn’t it?

If you’re curious to explore more ethics topics that tend to pop up in discussions and on the MPRE map, I’m happy to walk through them with you—keeping the tone approachable, the explanations crisp, and the examples relatable. After all, ethics isn’t just theory; it’s how lawyers show up for their clients every day.