Under PR, acquiring proprietary interest can be achieved via:

Under PR, acquiring proprietary interest can be achieved via:

• A. Ownership stake
• B. Contingency fee
• C. Advancement of litigation expenses; CA allows third-party payments with consent and reasonable expenses
• D. Borrowing cash against the case

Answer: (C)

In professional responsibility, a lawyer generally cannot acquire a proprietary interest in the subject matter of the representation. The permissible way to obtain any financial stake related to the matter is through the advancement of litigation expenses, and in some jurisdictions (such as California) this can include third-party payments with the client's informed consent and with reasonable expenses. This approach lets the attorney be reimbursed for costs without giving them ownership or control over the case itself. Directly taking an ownership stake would violate the prohibition on acquiring a proprietary interest. While contingency fees are a common form of compensation in many contexts, they raise issues about ownership in the suit and are not the mechanism described by this specific exception. Borrowing cash against the case would similarly involve financing rather than a permitted advance of expenses that preserves the client’s and the case’s ownership structure.

In professional responsibility, a lawyer generally cannot acquire a proprietary interest in the subject matter of the representation. The permissible way to obtain any financial stake related to the matter is through the advancement of litigation expenses, and in some jurisdictions (such as California) this can include third-party payments with the client's informed consent and with reasonable expenses. This approach lets the attorney be reimbursed for costs without giving them ownership or control over the case itself. Directly taking an ownership stake would violate the prohibition on acquiring a proprietary interest. While contingency fees are a common form of compensation in many contexts, they raise issues about ownership in the suit and are not the mechanism described by this specific exception. Borrowing cash against the case would similarly involve financing rather than a permitted advance of expenses that preserves the client’s and the case’s ownership structure.