Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Intervention

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

InterventionQuestion 1 of 20

The United States sued a state in federal court, alleging that the state's new voting law is unconstitutional. A federal statute grants the United States an unconditional right to sue to enforce federal voting rights. A non-profit organization dedicated to voting rights has filed a motion to intervene as of right on the side of the United States. The organization asserts that it has greater expertise in the local impact of the law than the Department of Justice attorneys.

What is the most likely outcome of the organization's motion to intervene? Select one.

The motion will be granted, because any party with an interest in voting rights may intervene in such a case.

The motion will be denied, because the federal statute only grants the United States the right to bring the suit, not for other parties to intervene.

The motion will be granted, because the organization's specialized local knowledge demonstrates that the government's representation may be inadequate.

The motion will be denied, because the United States, as the sovereign, is presumed to adequately represent the public interest in upholding the Constitution.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Intervention

Practice Intervention in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Intervention, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

What is the most likely outcome of the organization's motion to intervene? Select one.

The motion will be granted, because any party with an interest in voting rights may intervene in such a case.
The motion will be denied, because the federal statute only grants the United States the right to bring the suit, not for other parties to intervene.
The motion will be granted, because the organization's specialized local knowledge demonstrates that the government's representation may be inadequate.
The motion will be denied, because the United States, as the sovereign, is presumed to adequately represent the public interest in upholding the Constitution. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions about intervention in federal civil rights litigation, focus on the legal standards for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and the special considerations when the government is already representing similar interests. The correct answer is D because courts presume that the United States adequately represents the public interest when enforcing constitutional rights. This presumption is particularly strong in voting rights cases, where the federal government has explicit statutory authority and constitutional duty to protect these rights. The organization would need to overcome this presumption by showing that the government's representation is actually inadequate—not just different or potentially less informed. Option A is wrong because intervention as of right requires more than just having an interest in the subject matter. You must show that your interest may not be adequately represented by existing parties and that disposition of the case could impair your ability to protect that interest. Option B incorrectly suggests that federal statutes can categorically prevent intervention. While statutes define who can initiate suits, they don't override procedural rules about intervention when proper standards are met. Option C misunderstands the adequacy standard. Having "greater expertise" or "specialized knowledge" doesn't automatically mean the government's representation is inadequate. The organization would need to show the government might not zealously pursue the claims or might compromise the organization's specific interests. Remember: in government enforcement actions involving constitutional or civil rights, courts start with a strong presumption that federal representation is adequate. Focus on whether there's concrete evidence of inadequacy, not just differences in expertise or approach.

Question 2

A bank initiated a foreclosure action in federal court against a commercial property owner. The property is occupied by a single tenant under a long-term lease. The tenant was not named in the foreclosure action. If the foreclosure is successful, state law provides that the tenant's lease will be terminated. The tenant has filed a timely motion to intervene to argue that the foreclosure is improper.

Which of the following statements provides the strongest support for the tenant's motion to intervene as of right? Select one.

The tenant is an indispensable party under Rule 19 and must be joined to the action.
The bank failed to conduct a proper title search that would have revealed the tenant's lease, making the foreclosure action defective.
The tenant's defense against foreclosure will share common questions of law and fact with the property owner's defenses.
The tenant has a significant property interest (its leasehold) that will be destroyed by the foreclosure, and the property owner may not adequately represent the tenant's distinct interests. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions about intervention, focus on Rule 24's requirements for intervention as of right: the applicant must have an interest in the subject matter that could be impaired by the disposition, and existing parties may not adequately represent that interest. Answer D correctly identifies both prongs for intervention as of right. The tenant has a concrete property interest—the leasehold estate—that will be directly destroyed if the foreclosure succeeds and state law terminates the lease. Additionally, the property owner and tenant have potentially conflicting interests: the owner might accept foreclosure or negotiate a settlement that doesn't protect the tenant's leasehold rights. This creates inadequate representation, satisfying Rule 24(a). Answer A confuses intervention with joinder under Rule 19. While the tenant may be affected by the foreclosure, Rule 19 requires that a party be necessary for complete relief or that their absence would leave existing parties subject to inconsistent obligations. The foreclosure can proceed without the tenant—it will simply result in lease termination under state law. Answer B addresses a procedural defect in the foreclosure itself, not the standards for intervention. Even if the bank's title search was inadequate, this doesn't establish the tenant's right to intervene under Rule 24's framework. Answer C describes permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), which requires common questions of law or fact. However, the question asks for the strongest support for intervention "as of right," which has more stringent requirements than permissive intervention. Remember: intervention as of right requires both a direct interest that could be impaired and inadequate representation by existing parties. Look for concrete property or financial interests, not just general concerns about the litigation's outcome.

Question 3

Shareholders brought a derivative suit on behalf of a corporation against its directors for breach of fiduciary duty. Another shareholder, who owned the same class of stock and was aware of the suit from its inception, filed a motion to intervene as of right one week before the scheduled trial. The stated reason for intervention was a belief that the plaintiff shareholders' counsel was not competent to try the case.

What is the strongest reason for the court to deny the motion to intervene? Select one.

The motion is untimely, having been filed on the eve of trial, and would cause prejudice and delay. (correct answer)
The movant's interest is already adequately represented by the existing shareholder plaintiffs who have the same objective.
A mere disagreement with litigation strategy is insufficient to show that representation is inadequate.
The movant lacks a sufficient interest in the action because their claim is derivative of the corporation's claim.

Explanation: Timeliness is a threshold inquiry. Filing a motion to intervene one week before trial, after being aware of the suit for its entire duration, is almost certainly untimely. Allowing a new party to enter at this stage would disrupt the proceedings, potentially requiring new discovery or trial continuances, thereby prejudicing the existing parties. While the other reasons might also have some merit (especially B and C), the extreme untimeliness is the most compelling and dispositive reason for denial.

Question 4

An employee sued her employer for gender discrimination. The employee was a member of a union, and the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) contained an anti-discrimination clause identical to the one in the relevant statute. The union filed a timely motion to intervene as of right, arguing that the court's interpretation of the anti-discrimination language would affect all other union members.

Will the union likely be permitted to intervene as of right? Select one.

Yes, because the stare decisis effect of a ruling on the CBA's clause would impair the union's ability to protect its members' interests in future disputes. (correct answer)
No, because the employee plaintiff is a union member and therefore her interests are aligned with the union, meaning her representation is adequate.
Yes, because the union is an indispensable party to any lawsuit involving the interpretation of its collective bargaining agreement.
No, because the union's interest is identical to the employee's, and it can protect that interest by filing an amicus curiae brief.

Explanation: The union has a clear interest in the interpretation of its own CBA. A judicial interpretation of the anti-discrimination clause in this case will have a strong stare decisis (precedential) effect on future grievances and arbitrations under the CBA. This practical impairment of the union's ability to enforce the CBA for all its members is a strong basis for intervention as of right under FRCP 24(a)(2). The plaintiff, an individual, is focused on her specific claim for damages and may not adequately represent the union's broader institutional interests.

Question 5

A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court. The defendant's liability insurer believed the claim was not covered by the insurance policy and provided a defense to the defendant under a reservation of rights. The insurer then filed a motion to intervene in the tort action to request a special verdict form that would clarify whether any potential liability was based on conduct covered by the policy.

Is the court likely to permit the insurer to intervene? Select one.

No, because the insurer's interest in the coverage dispute is distinct from the underlying tort claim and should be resolved in a separate declaratory judgment action.
No, because the attorney hired by the insurer to defend the insured is presumed to adequately represent the insurer's interests.
Yes, because the insurer has an economic interest in the outcome and its interest in clarifying the basis for liability may not be adequately represented by the defendant. (correct answer)
Yes, because the insurer is the real party in interest and must be joined in the action under Rule 17.

Explanation: Insurers defending under a reservation of rights often have a sufficient interest to intervene for the limited purpose of shaping the verdict to clarify coverage issues. The insurer has a direct economic interest. That interest is not adequately represented by the insured defendant, who is primarily interested in avoiding liability altogether, not in clarifying the grounds for it. Intervention allows the insurer to protect its interest in the coverage determination without prejudicing the defendant on the liability issue.

Question 6

You are representing a client who was a passenger in a multi-vehicle accident. Your client sued the driver of the car she was in. Eighteen months later, after all depositions have been taken and expert reports exchanged, the driver of one of the other vehicles involved in the accident files a motion for permissive intervention to assert his own personal injury claim against the defendant driver. The trial is scheduled to begin in two months.

Which of the following is your strongest argument for opposing the motion to intervene? Select one.

The movant lacks a direct interest in the specific transaction between your client and the defendant, making intervention of right improper.
The motion is untimely and granting it would cause undue delay and substantially prejudice your client's ability to proceed to trial as scheduled. (correct answer)
The movant's claim does not share a common question of law or fact with your client's claim against the defendant.
The movant should be required to file a separate action and then move to consolidate that action with your client's case.

Explanation: Timeliness is a threshold requirement for both permissive intervention and intervention of right. The court considers the stage of litigation and prejudice to existing parties. Here, the motion is filed very late in the litigation process. Allowing intervention would almost certainly require reopening discovery and delaying the trial, which would prejudice the original parties. This is the strongest basis for the court to exercise its discretion to deny permissive intervention.

Question 7

You are representing a plaintiff who sued a single defendant for breach of contract. After months of litigation, the plaintiff and defendant reached a comprehensive settlement agreement and have jointly moved the court for dismissal with prejudice. One day before the court is set to approve the dismissal, a third party files an emergency motion to intervene, claiming it has an interest that will be impaired by the settlement terms.

What is the most likely basis for the court to deny the motion to intervene? Select one.

The motion is untimely, as intervention is sought after the case has been resolved by the parties and there is no longer a live controversy to intervene in. (correct answer)
The third party lacks a legally protectable interest in a private contract dispute between the plaintiff and defendant.
The settlement agreement does not legally bind the third party, so its interests cannot be impaired by the dismissal.
The third party should have sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from settling without its involvement.

Explanation: Timeliness is a critical factor, and motions to intervene filed after a settlement has been reached are strongly disfavored. At this point, the original parties have resolved their dispute. Allowing intervention would unravel the settlement and severely prejudice the parties who relied on the finality of their agreement. The court will almost certainly find the motion untimely because intervention is sought after the substantive litigation is effectively over.

Question 8

Which of the following statements provides the strongest support for the tenant's motion to intervene as of right? Select one.

The tenant is an indispensable party under Rule 19 and must be joined to the action.
The bank failed to conduct a proper title search that would have revealed the tenant's lease, making the foreclosure action defective.
The tenant's defense against foreclosure will share common questions of law and fact with the property owner's defenses.
The tenant has a significant property interest (its leasehold) that will be destroyed by the foreclosure, and the property owner may not adequately represent the tenant's distinct interests. (correct answer)

Question 9

A plaintiff brought a quiet title action in federal court concerning a tract of land, naming the record owner as the defendant. A third party timely moved to intervene as of right, claiming that they have been occupying the land openly and continuously for the statutory period and have acquired title by adverse possession. The plaintiff and the defendant both oppose intervention.

Is intervention of right appropriate for the third party? Select one.

No, because a claim of adverse possession must be brought in a separate action and cannot be asserted through intervention.
No, because the record owner is the only proper defendant in a quiet title action, and the third party's claim is against the record owner, not the plaintiff.
Yes, because the third party claims an interest in the property that is the subject of the action, which would be impaired by a judgment, and their interest is not represented by the existing parties. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the third party can first establish a high probability of success on their adverse possession claim in a preliminary hearing.

Explanation: When you encounter questions about intervention of right in civil procedure, focus on the four-part test from Federal Rule 24(a): the applicant must claim an interest in the subject matter, that interest could be impaired by the disposition, the interest isn't adequately represented by existing parties, and the motion must be timely. The third party satisfies all requirements for intervention of right. They claim ownership through adverse possession of the exact property in dispute, creating a direct interest in the subject matter. A quiet title judgment determining ownership between the plaintiff and defendant would absolutely impair this claimed interest, since it could resolve title without considering the adverse possession claim. Most importantly, neither existing party represents the third party's interests—both the plaintiff and defendant oppose the adverse possession claim and want to exclude the third party from ownership consideration. Option A is wrong because adverse possession claims can absolutely be raised through intervention when they involve the same property being adjudicated. There's no procedural rule requiring separate lawsuits. Option B misunderstands quiet title actions—anyone claiming ownership interest in the disputed property can be a proper party, not just record owners. The third party's claim affects the entire action, not just their relationship with the defendant. Option D incorrectly adds a probability-of-success requirement that doesn't exist for intervention of right—you only need to meet the four-part test, regardless of claim strength. Remember: intervention of right is about protecting interests that existing parties won't adequately represent, not about the merit of the underlying claim.

Question 10

Which of the following is your strongest argument for opposing the motion to intervene? Select one.

The movant lacks a direct interest in the specific transaction between your client and the defendant, making intervention of right improper.
The motion is untimely and granting it would cause undue delay and substantially prejudice your client's ability to proceed to trial as scheduled. (correct answer)
The movant's claim does not share a common question of law or fact with your client's claim against the defendant.
The movant should be required to file a separate action and then move to consolidate that action with your client's case.

Question 11

A plaintiff sued a defendant for patent infringement. The defendant's primary defense is that the plaintiff's patent is invalid. A university professor, a leading expert in the relevant field who has published articles arguing that patents like the plaintiff's are invalid as a matter of law and public policy, has moved to intervene in the case to advocate for her position. The professor has no financial stake in the outcome.

How is the court most likely to rule on the professor's motion to intervene? Select one.

Grant intervention of right, because the professor has a strong intellectual and academic interest in the development of patent law.
Deny intervention, but invite the professor to submit an amicus curiae brief to present her arguments to the court.
Grant permissive intervention, because the professor's arguments raise a common question of law with the defendant's invalidity defense.
Deny intervention, because a purely ideological or academic interest, without a direct and legally protectable stake in the outcome, is insufficient to support intervention. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter intervention questions, focus on whether the potential intervenor has a legally protectable interest that could be impaired by the litigation outcome. Federal Rule 24 requires more than academic curiosity or ideological alignment. The professor lacks the requisite legal interest for intervention. While she has strong academic views on patent validity, she has no financial stake, property rights, or other legally protectable interest that the litigation could affect. Her interest is purely intellectual—she wants to advance her scholarly position on patent law policy. Courts consistently hold that ideological, academic, or policy interests alone cannot support intervention, whether of right or permissive. Option A incorrectly suggests that academic interest suffices for intervention of right, which requires an even stronger showing of legal interest than permissive intervention. Strong intellectual interest doesn't create a legally protectable stake. Option B recognizes the professor lacks grounds to intervene but offers the appropriate alternative—an amicus brief. However, courts typically don't "invite" amicus participation; parties request it. More importantly, this isn't how courts "most likely" rule when intervention is improperly sought. Option C misapplies permissive intervention standards. While the professor's arguments do raise common legal questions with the defendant's invalidity defense, permissive intervention still requires some form of legally protectable interest, not just shared legal theories. Remember: intervention requires a concrete legal stake in the outcome, not just strong opinions about the legal issues. When you see purely academic or ideological interests, think amicus brief, not intervention.

Question 12

A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of consumers against a pharmaceutical company, alleging that its marketing for a drug was deceptive. A competing pharmaceutical company, which manufactures a rival drug, seeks to intervene in the class action. The competitor claims it was harmed by the defendant's deceptive marketing, which it alleges constituted unfair competition and drew market share away from its own product.

How should the court rule on the competitor's motion for permissive intervention? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the competitor's unfair competition claim shares common questions of fact with the consumers' deceptive marketing claim.
Deny the motion, because the competitor's interest is purely economic and is not the type of interest that intervention is designed to protect.
Grant the motion, because the competitor has an interest in the litigation that will be impaired if it is not allowed to join the suit.
Deny the motion, because allowing a competitor to join the suit would introduce complex new issues that would unduly delay and prejudice the consumers' claims. (correct answer)

Explanation: Even if a common question of law or fact exists for permissive intervention under FRCP 24(b), the court must also consider whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the original parties. The competitor's claim for unfair competition involves different elements of proof (e.g., its own damages, market definition) than the consumers' claims. Introducing these issues into a consumer class action would likely complicate discovery, create conflicts of interest, and prejudice the original plaintiffs by delaying the resolution of their claims. The court has broad discretion to deny permissive intervention on these grounds.

Question 13

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought a civil enforcement action against a chemical company in federal court, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act. An environmental advocacy group, which has members who live near and use the affected waterway, filed a timely motion to intervene as of right. The group seeks to pursue a more aggressive litigation strategy and request a stricter injunction than the EPA has indicated it will seek in settlement negotiations.

What is the environmental group's strongest argument in favor of its motion to intervene? Select one.

The group's members have a direct interest in the health of the waterway, and the EPA, as a government entity, may not adequately represent that interest due to differing litigation objectives. (correct answer)
A federal statute grants citizen groups an unconditional right to intervene in any enforcement action brought by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.
The group's claims against the company share common questions of law and fact with the EPA's action, making permissive intervention appropriate.
Without intervention, the group's members would be forced to file a separate, less efficient lawsuit to protect their interests.

Explanation: The group's strongest argument for intervention of right under FRCP 24(a)(2) rests on demonstrating that its representation by the EPA is inadequate. While governments are often presumed to represent their citizens' interests, this presumption can be rebutted by showing divergent goals. The group's desire for a stricter injunction and more aggressive strategy, compared to the EPA's focus on settlement, is a classic example of potentially inadequate representation of the members' specific interests.

Question 14

A tech company sued a rival manufacturer in federal court for patent infringement. A third-party company holds an exclusive license from the plaintiff to sell the patented product in a specific, highly profitable geographic market. The value of this license is directly dependent on the validity and enforceability of the patent at issue in the lawsuit. The third-party company has filed a motion to intervene as of right, arguing that an adverse judgment would destroy its business.

How is the court most likely to rule on the third-party company's motion to intervene? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the licensee has a direct economic interest relating to the subject of the action that may be impaired if the patent is invalidated. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because the licensee is not the owner of the patent and therefore lacks a legally protectable interest in the litigation.
Deny the motion, because the plaintiff patent holder is presumed to adequately represent the interests of its exclusive licensee.
Grant the motion under permissive intervention, because the licensee's claim will have questions of law and fact in common with the main action.

Explanation: The court is likely to grant intervention as of right under FRCP 24(a)(2). The licensee has a significant, direct, and legally protectable economic interest in the patent's validity. The disposition of the action could practically impair this interest by rendering the license worthless. The patent holder may not adequately represent the licensee's specific interest, especially in settlement negotiations where the licensee's regional market could be sacrificed. Therefore, intervention of right is appropriate.

Question 15

A school district in State A was sued in federal court over the constitutionality of its novel student assignment plan. Another school district in State B, but within the same federal circuit, uses an identical assignment plan. Fearing that an adverse ruling in the State A case would create binding precedent that would cripple its ability to defend its own plan in a future lawsuit, the State B school district filed a timely motion to intervene as of right.

Which element of intervention as of right is most strongly supported by these facts? Select one.

The movant's interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties.
The disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest. (correct answer)
The movant has a claim that shares a common question of law with the main action.
The movant has an unconditional right to intervene conferred by a federal statute.

Explanation: The doctrine of stare decisis (precedent) is a key consideration for the 'impairment' prong of FRCP 24(a)(2). An adverse ruling from the circuit court in the State A case would become controlling precedent for the district courts in State B. This would practically, if not legally, impede the State B district's ability to defend its identical plan later. This 'practical impairment' through precedent is a well-recognized basis for intervention.

Question 16

Will the union likely be permitted to intervene as of right? Select one.

Yes, because the stare decisis effect of a ruling on the CBA's clause would impair the union's ability to protect its members' interests in future disputes. (correct answer)
No, because the employee plaintiff is a union member and therefore her interests are aligned with the union, meaning her representation is adequate.
Yes, because the union is an indispensable party to any lawsuit involving the interpretation of its collective bargaining agreement.
No, because the union's interest is identical to the employee's, and it can protect that interest by filing an amicus curiae brief.

Question 17

A construction company sued a property owner for nonpayment under a construction contract. The construction company had used a particular subcontractor for all the electrical work. The property owner's defense is that the electrical work was defective and did not conform to the contract. The subcontractor, who has not been paid by the construction company, has filed a timely motion to intervene to assert its own claim for payment and to defend the quality of its work.

How is the court most likely to rule on the subcontractor's motion to intervene as of right? Select one.

Deny, because the subcontractor lacks privity of contract with the property owner and must pursue its claim against the construction company separately.
Grant, because the finding on the quality of the electrical work will practically impair the subcontractor's ability to get paid, and its interest is not adequately represented. (correct answer)
Deny, because the construction company has the same interest as the subcontractor in proving the electrical work was not defective and thus provides adequate representation.
Grant, but only permissive intervention, because the primary basis for the motion is the common factual question about the quality of the work.

Explanation: The subcontractor has a direct interest: getting paid for its work. A determination in the main action that its work was defective would, as a practical matter (through stare decisis or issue preclusion), impair its ability to recover payment from the construction company. While the construction company also wants to prove the work was adequate, it might have conflicting interests (e.g., settling the case by blaming the subcontractor). This potential conflict means representation may be inadequate, making intervention of right proper.

Question 18

What is the most likely basis for the court to deny the motion to intervene? Select one.

The motion is untimely, as intervention is sought after the case has been resolved by the parties and there is no longer a live controversy to intervene in. (correct answer)
The third party lacks a legally protectable interest in a private contract dispute between the plaintiff and defendant.
The settlement agreement does not legally bind the third party, so its interests cannot be impaired by the dismissal.
The third party should have sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from settling without its involvement.

Question 19

A parent organization sued a state university, challenging a policy that restricted student speech on campus. The case was litigated for over a year. The parties then engaged in settlement negotiations, and the university proposed changing its policy in a way that the parent organization found acceptable. A student at the university, who believes the proposed new policy is still unconstitutional, learned of the proposed settlement and immediately filed a motion to intervene as of right to block it and continue the litigation.

How should the court rule on the student's motion to intervene? Select one.

Deny the motion as untimely, because the student should have moved to intervene when the lawsuit was originally filed.
Deny the motion, because the parent organization is presumed to adequately represent the interests of all those affected by the policy.
Grant the motion, because the parent organization's willingness to settle may show it no longer adequately represents the student's interest in obtaining a full judicial ruling. (correct answer)
Grant the motion under permissive intervention, because the student's claim has common questions of law with the original complaint.

Explanation: When you encounter questions about intervention of right, focus on the four key requirements: timeliness, legally protectable interest, potential impairment of that interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties. The student's motion should be granted because the parent organization's willingness to settle demonstrates it may no longer adequately represent the student's interests. The student wants a full judicial ruling declaring the policy unconstitutional, while the parent organization is satisfied with policy changes through settlement. This divergence in goals—constitutional vindication versus practical resolution—shows the representation has become inadequate, satisfying the fourth requirement for intervention of right. Answer A is wrong because timeliness doesn't require intervention at the lawsuit's inception. Courts consider factors like prejudice to existing parties and the reason for delay. Here, the student learned of potential inadequate representation only when settlement discussions began, making the motion timely. Answer B incorrectly applies a presumption of adequate representation. While such presumptions exist in some contexts (like class actions), they can be rebutted when parties' interests diverge, as happened here when the parent organization chose settlement over continued litigation. Answer D reaches the right result but for the wrong reason. The student qualifies for intervention of right, not merely permissive intervention. Intervention of right provides stronger protection and doesn't depend on the court's discretion. Remember that adequate representation is dynamic—parties who initially shared interests may develop conflicting goals as litigation progresses. Watch for situations where original plaintiffs become willing to settle while potential intervenors seek broader relief.

Question 20

A plaintiff sued a corporation in federal court, alleging securities fraud. The United States, though not a party, is investigating the corporation for related criminal conduct. A federal statute provides: 'In any action raising a claim of fraud affecting a public interest, the United States shall have a conditional right to intervene.' The United States timely moved to intervene.

On what basis is the court most likely to allow the United States to intervene? Select one.

Intervention of right, because the government's interest in enforcing criminal law would be impaired by the civil action.
Permissive intervention, because a federal statute confers a conditional right to intervene. (correct answer)
Intervention of right, because a federal statute confers an unconditional right to intervene.
Permissive intervention, because the government's potential criminal case shares common questions of fact with the civil fraud case.

Explanation: FRCP 24(b)(1)(A) explicitly allows for permissive intervention when a federal statute confers a conditional right to intervene. The statute described in the fact pattern does exactly that. While there might be common questions of fact (Choice D), the most direct basis for intervention is the specific statutory right granted by Congress. Choices A and C are incorrect because the statute grants a 'conditional' right, which falls under permissive intervention, not intervention of right.