Welcome to #182!
It’s rare that the blog comes live from the scene of the week’s number. Of course, it’s appropriate for today to be marked by a rare occasion. After all, “rare occasion” seems to be a theme in the legal ethics news this week: (1) two lawyers were reprimanded for almost fighting in court; and, (2) three judges were suspended as a result of a late-night fight that led to one of them being shot.
Let’s hope “rare occasion” remains the most accurate descriptor for such conduct.
Anyhow, this morning, I’m live and local from the kitchen table in my dad’s house in Flat Rock, North Carolina. I’m here for two reasons.
- Tomorrow I’m running the Tryon Half Marathon.
- 82 years ago today, my dad burst onto the scene live & local at Colchester’s Fanny Allen Hospital.
Happy Birthday Dad!
(For you naysayers, 82 is close enough to 182.)
Earlier this morning, I drafted this blog. Before I hit “post,” I went for a run. I had a nagging thought that I shouldn’t post the draft. As I ran, I realized I was right. It was a bit too preachy and self-indulgent. Thankfully, I took time to reflect before posting. Here’s what I wanted to say.
In 2014, my dad and I ran a 5K in Asheville on Thanksgiving. My dad won his age group.
Just over two months ago, my dad had open heart surgery. He’s doing great and rehab is going well. But, as well as it’s going, it frustrates him a bit. So far, he’s been limited to walking. Some of the walks are on the treadmill under the supervision of his rehab providers, others are around his neighborhood. Yesterday, he told me that, next week, he’s going to ask his doctor if he can start to incorporate jogging into the rehab routine. This morning, I asked him what his goal is:
- 200 yards.
It might not sound like much, and certainly isn’t a 5K, but my dad’s goal is an important lesson.
Lots of us set goals that we never meet. If you’re anything like me, the failure to meet a goal often results less from an inability or unwillingness than from a failure to break the goal into manageable steps. If my dad tried to run a 5K next week, he’d end up on the operating table. Or worse. But, by starting with a few hundred yards at a time, he might someday again run the Turkey Trot.
When I speak on attorney wellness, the goals I most often hear lawyers profess are (1) catch up on my work; and (2) improve my work-life balance. Each is a fantastic goal. Remember, though, you likely aren’t going to accomplish either by the end of the weekend. But you can take the first steps.
Somewhere in that pile on your desk, there’s a letter to write or call return. Write it, make the call.
Saturday morning will be here before you know it . When you wake up, don’t check your work email while you’re having coffee.
The letter, phone call, and 3 minutes away from your email might not sound like much. But each is a manageable step. In other words, each is your 200 yards. Repeated consistently, you’ll reach your goals. And when you do, thank my dad.
Onto the quiz!
- None. Open book, open search engine, text-a-friend.
- Exception: Question 5. We try to play that one honest.
- Unless stated otherwise, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct apply
- Team entries welcome, creative team names even more welcome.
- E-mail answers to firstname.lastname@example.org
- I’ll post the answers & Honor Roll on Monday
- Please don’t use the “comment” feature to post your answers
- Please consider sharing the quiz with friends & colleagues
- Share on social media. Hashtag it – #fiveforfriday
A lawyer has a duty to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished.
- A. False. The lawyer controls the means.
- B. False. The lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions with respect to the means by which the client’s objectives are pursued.
- C. True.
In representing a client, a lawyer _______ not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.
Which is most accurate?
- A. This is a rule. And the blank is “shall.”
- B. This is not a rule. It’s an aspirational comment to one of the rules. And the blank is “should.”
A lawyer is holding funds to which both a client and third person claim interests. Their interests are in dispute. By rule, the lawyer must:
- A. disburse the funds as directed by the client
- B. hold the funds until the dispute is resolved
- C. withdraw from representing the client
- D. A or C
If an attorney calls me with an inquiry and my response includes use of the word “imputed,” what did the attorney most likely call to discuss?
- A. Reviewing an adverse party’s social media posts
- B. Trust account management
- C. A potential conflict of interest
- D. Advising a client to change the privacy settings on her social media platforms
Earlier this year, I blogged about Andrew Manitsky. Not only is Andrew in a band, he’s my go-to guy when I have questions related to intellectual property and trademarks.
The 2019 American Music Awards are scheduled for November 24. The artist who will be honored as the AMA Performer of the Decade planned to perform the songs that helped the artist earn the honor. Songs that the artist wrote, sang, and made famous.
However, this week, the artist took to social media to allege that the label that owns the rights to the artist’s catalogue is refusing to let the artist perform the artists own songs during the ceremony and, further, has also banned the artist from using the music in an upcoming Netflix documentary about the artist’s career. The label responded by accusing the artist of disseminating “false information.”
Regular readers will certainly know whose side I’m on!
Name the artist.