What is the four-step method for answering ethics questions as described in the source?

• A. List relevant cases only; provide personal opinion; ignore legislative provisions; conclude.
• B. Identify general principle, identify applicable rule or provision, apply rule, identify active ethical role.
• C. Memorize case names; quote them; restate judgments; finish.
• D. Discuss procedural history of each case.

Answer: (B)

Structured ethical reasoning starts with a general principle, then the specific rule or provision, then applying that rule to the facts, and finally identifying the active ethical role you’re taking. First, name the overarching standard at stake—the principle guiding how a lawyer should act in that situation. Next, pinpoint the exact rule or provision that applies—this grounds your analysis in the actual professional or legal standard. Then apply that rule to the facts, showing how it resolves the issue and noting any limits or ambiguities. Finally, identify the active ethical role, meaning the duties that come with the position you’re occupying (for example, as advocate, adviser, or officer of the court) and how those duties shape conduct in the scenario.

This approach is best because it ensures you anchor reasoning in real rules, connect those rules to the facts, and clearly specify what ethical duties arise from the role you’re playing. It keeps the answer structured and defensible rather than relying on opinion, memorized cases, or a recital of procedural history.