Understanding why must questions in the MPRE signal a hard duty in professional conduct

The Must-Have Rule: What “The lawyer must…” really means on the MPRE

If you’ve looked at MPRE-style questions, you’ve noticed something that feels almost like a traffic light: some prompts start with “The lawyer may…,” others with “The lawyer should…,” and then—yes, the big red sign—“The lawyer must….” The last one isn’t just another option. It signals an obligation, a hard rule that lawyers are expected to follow under the professional conduct rules. Let’s unpack why that matters and how to read these questions without getting tangled in the wording.

What counts as a “Must” question?

Here’s the thing: a true Must question uses the exact word must to indicate an absolute duty. It leaves little room for interpretation. The lawyer must do something, period. There’s a difference between this and the other verbs you’ll see:

• May: there’s permission to act, but not a requirement.

• Should: a strong recommendation, with possible exceptions.

• Is encouraged to: a preferred approach, but not mandatory.

So when you spot “The lawyer must…,” you’re looking at a non-negotiable duty. Think of it as the ethical version of a traffic stop sign—you don’t question it, you comply.

Why this framing matters in practice

Why does the “must” framing matter in real life? Because it points you straight to the core obligations that govern professional conduct. In the MPRE universe, many Must statements revolve around core duties like preserving client confidentiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, and telling the truth to tribunals and third parties. Those are the non-negotiables that occupy the backbone of ethical practice. If a choice says the lawyer must do X, you should feel confident that X is a duty you can’t ignore.

A quick guardrail: the contrast with the other verbs

To sharpen your sense, imagine these quick contrasts:

• The lawyer may disclose a client’s information if certain conditions apply. There’s choice involved; it isn’t automatic to disclose.

• The lawyer should consider whether a conflict exists, but there may be factors that allow the action to proceed with steps to mitigate risk.

• The lawyer is encouraged to seek counsel on a tough issue, but the rule itself doesn’t force a single path.

In short, Must = obligation; may/should/encouraged = options, recommendations, or preferred paths.

A concrete example to anchor the idea

Let me explain with a simple contrast:

• The lawyer must maintain confidences. That’s a non-negotiable duty. You don’t disclose secrets unless one of the narrow exceptions applies (and those exceptions themselves are constrained and clearly defined).

• The lawyer may disclose information if the client consents or if a legal requirement exists. This is permissive, not mandatory.

• The lawyer should avoid revealing client information when possible, but there are gray areas where disclosure may be warranted or unavoidable.

So, when the prompt says “The lawyer must…,” you’re looking for a rule that doesn’t depend on the facts changing. It’s about what the law or ethics rules require, not what might be advisable in a specific situation.

Spotting Must questions quickly

If you want to move with confidence, here are some practical cues:

• Absolute verbs: must, shall (in many states’ rules, shall also signals a duty), every, always. If the stem uses these, you’re probably dealing with a Must question.

• No caveats in the stem: if the sentence sounds like a duty “in all circumstances,” that’s a hint.

• The accompanying facts usually set up a non-controversial obligation (like protecting client confidences or avoiding illegal conduct), rather than a discretionary choice.

A tiny caveat: some questions try to trip you by including a must in the stem but pair it with an option that twists the rule. Stay alert for exceptions that the test authors might throw in, but remember, the core Must statement is the anchor.

What kinds of Musts pop up on the MPRE

While the exact list can vary, you’ll typically see Musts around:

• Confidentiality: not sharing what a client tells you, with narrow exceptions clearly spelled out.

• Conflicts of interest: avoiding representations where loyalty to one client conflicts with duties to another, and taking necessary steps to resolve conflicts if possible.

• Truthfulness to the tribunal: candor in communications, avoiding deceptive statements.

• Competence and diligence: meeting the standard of care and staying reasonably thorough in representation.

• Handling client funds and business matters properly.

• Reporting misconduct: the duty to report certain violations by colleagues in some jurisdictions.

Taking a moment to connect these duties to real life can help you remember them better. For example, you don’t casually spill client secrets; you also don’t push through a case at the expense of ethical boundaries. It’s about balance, but the Musts are the hard lines you don’t cross.

A quick scenario to illustrate

Let’s set a tiny vignette. Imagine you’re handling a confidential client matter that’s about to come under public scrutiny. The question could ask you to identify the must on the matter: “The lawyer must protect client confidences even if there’s pressure to reveal them.” If you’re thinking along the Must axis, you recognize the obligation. The correct answer isn’t about what would be nice to do or what could be suggested; it’s what the rules require. This is where clear language in the prompt saves you from wandering into debates about discretion.

How to study Must questions without getting lost

Here are a few tips you can use in your reading and analysis:

• Read the stem first, then check the options. The Must statement often appears in the stem, framing the action as non-negotiable. If the stem is the only place with a must, don’t assume the option is equally rigid without checking the reasoning.

• Eliminate the non-Must options. If options use may, should, or is encouraged to, test whether the must option truly presents an absolute duty. Even if an option sounds reasonable, it’s likely not the must.

• Check for exceptions after you choose. If you’re tempted to pick the must, make sure the few exceptions the rule allows aren’t lurking in the answer choices. The correct must usually stands, but some questions test you on recognizing exceptions to a broader duty.

• Tie it back to core ethics themes. When you’re unsure, anchor your thinking in the big picture: confidentiality, conflicts, candor, and competence. These are the pillars that keep the Musts honest and clear.

The emotional undercurrent of ethical duties

Ethics work isn’t just about memorization; it’s about professional identity. The MPRE asks you to internalize a lawyer’s duty not just to a client, but to the system of justice itself. When you see “must,” feel the gravity. It’s the moment where training meets responsibility. You’re not merely choosing an answer; you’re affirming a baseline standard that keeps the profession trustworthy.

A gentle reminder about nuance

Yes, Must questions emphasize obligation, but ethics rules aren’t cardboard. There are carefully carved exceptions and context. The test will often balance a must with real-world nuance—protecting client confidentiality, but not when there’s a compelling legal obligation to disclose, for example. The trick is to recognize that the must is the anchor, not the entire compass. Use it as the starting point, then weigh the nuances the question presents.

Bringing it all together

If you’re scanning an MPRE item and your mind latches onto “The lawyer must…,” you’re in a good place. That phrase signals a non-negotiable duty and a straightforward path to the right answer—provided you read the surrounding facts and the listed exceptions carefully. By keeping the Musts front and center, you keep your reasoning tight and your confidence steady.

A few closing thoughts

• Must questions reward clarity. If you can spot the absolute obligation quickly, you’ll save time and reduce second-guessing.

• Don’t confuse obligation with advisability. The real trap is mixing up what’s required with what’s merely suggested or preferred.

• Remember the big picture. The MPRE is about professional responsibility in action, not just about ticking boxes. The Musts are the lines you don’t cross, the standards you uphold.

If you’re curious to see more examples, look for items that ask you to determine a non-negotiable duty. Practice with those prompts, and you’ll notice a pattern emerge: when the stem insists on a must, the correct answer should reinforce a core ethical obligation that stands firm across circumstances. And that’s the backbone of credible, principled legal work.

So next time you encounter a “The lawyer must…” prompt, take a breath, lock onto the obligation, and let the rest of the details guide you to the right choice. It’s a small mental win that adds up to a steadier, more confident understanding of professional responsibility.