Exercise Answer Key

[1] Correct. Here the writer paraphrased from the source and properly acknowledged that source in the citation as required by Rule 2.

[2] Incorrect. This passage violates Rules 1 and 2. The first sentence should be followed by a citation to the Penasack article because it is a direct paraphrase from that source. The rest of the paragraph is a direct quote. To avoid an allegation of plagiarism, that passage should be block quoted. The quote must be properly attributed through the use of a citation.

This is how the passage should be punctuated and cited:

In holding these agreements unenforceable, the courts routinely rely on the legal profession’s own per se ban on restrictive covenants of any form. Id.

The per se ban originated within the American Bar Association in 1961, was subsequently adopted in both the Model Code and the Model Rules, and has universally prevailed in state courts as well as bar ethics committees for three decades. Model Rule 5.6 and its Model Code counterpart DR 2-108, which forbid restrictions on the right of the lawyer to practice law, have been justified by the need for lawyer personal autonomy and the principle that clients should have an unfettered right to choose representation from the widest possible pool of lawyers. Id.

[3] Correct. This passage properly attributes the analysis—the rationale of the majority rule—to the source, which is consistent with Rule 3. Note, also, that the tone of the passage is more authoritative because it does provide a source.

[4] Incorrect. This passage violates Rule 3 because it expresses the same idea as the Draper article. To avoid an allegation of plagiarism, there should be citation to the Draper article.

This is how the passage should be cited:

This reasoning, however, is open to attack. Doctors, accountants, and other professionals routinely enter into non-competition agreements, and the courts just as routinely hold them enforceable if they are “reasonable.” Glen S. Draper, Student Author, Enforcing Lawyers’ Covenants Not to Compete, 69 Wash. L. Rev. 161, 174-75 (1994). The public interest in choosing one’s doctor is as important as the public interest in choosing one’s attorney. Id.

[5] Correct. Here, consistent with Rules 4 and 5, the writer acknowledged the idea and case that came from another source, which the writer will now build upon in the rest of analysis. Determining when and how to comply with Rules 4 and 5, as well as when and how to use signals, can be complex. These matters likely will be discussed in your legal writing course.

[6] Incorrect. Most of the second sentence (the court held that an agreement imposing a reasonable cost on departing partners who compete with the firm in a limited area is enforceable) is a direct quote from Whiteside. To avoid an allegation of plagiarism, that text should be punctuated with quotation marks, followed by a citation to Whiteside. Better yet, when discussing the facts, reasoning, and holding of a case, use your own words, followed by a proper citation. Moreover, in this situation, the Howard case is the better source to cite.

Sometimes, even when you are paraphrasing the facts and reasoning from a case, you may want to quote specific, important words. In this example, the term “reasonable cost” could be put in quotation marks.