Five For Friday: #5

I’m not sure if this is one of those weird moments similar to when it was 11:11 AM on November 11, 2011. But it’s the 5th Five for Friday, and since that must mean something, please celebrate by submitting answers & getting friends and colleagues to do the same.  Remember – it’s confidential!  And as I’ve written, the ones you get wrong will be the ones you remember in real life.

Rule #1:  there are no rules.  This is open book, open search engine, with phoning friends not only allowed but encouraged.  Rule #2:  Exception to Rule #1 is Question 5.  Email your answers to me at  Please don’t post your answers in the comment section.

With the legalese out of the way, let’s get it started.

(I really wish I’d figured out a way to phrase that as if Five for Friday was talking.  Because I much prefer the Stones and Start Me Up to anything by the Black Eyes Peas.  Of note, my brother and I were in Fenway Park when BEP opened for the Stones.  Has to be Mick’s strangest opening act decision ever. Right?)

Question 1:  By rule, a lawyer may use information relating to the representation of a former client to that client’s disadvantage if ___________.

  • A. Required to do so to provide competent representation to a current client.
  • B. The information has become generally known
  • C. The information is in the public record
  • D. This is a trick question.  A lawyer many never use information relating to a representation to a former client’s disadvantage.

Question 2:  Lawyer was concerned that the area of law in which she practices seems to involve a lot of conflicts. So, she called me.  I shared some thoughts and then I emailed her links to articles on the nature of the “Tripartite Relationship.”

  • What type of law does Lawyer practice?

Question 3:  Lawyer called me with an inquiry. He told me that he recently came into possession of something.  I listened, then said “most states say that you can keep it briefly to review it, examine it, or test it, but then you’ve got to turn it over. And if testing it will alter or destroy it, you can’t test it.”

  • What came into Lawyer’s possession? (I’m looking for a fairly specific answer here. For instance, “evidence” would be a bit too general.)

Question 4:  You represent a defendant that is an organization. Plaintiff’s counsel has actual knowledge that you represent the organization in a matter.  You learn that plaintiff’s counsel, without your permission, discussed the matter with a former employee of the organization. Which is most accurate under Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • A. Plaintiff’s counsel did not violate the rules.
  • B. Plaintiff’s counsel violated the rules.
  • C. Whether plaintiff’s counsel violated the rules turns on whether the former employee was in “the control group.”
  • D. Whether plaintiff’s counsel violated the rules turns on whether plaintiff has filed suit.

Question 5:  In an episode of The Office, Michael Scott ran over a co-worker in the company parking lot. He was driving a company car. When asked by an HR rep whether the accident happened on company property, Michael replied: “On company property, with company property.” Then, citing a legal theory that applies in criminal cases, Michael added “so, we’re fine.”

What legal theory did Michael mistakenly think rendered him and the company “fine?”

Still don’t want to do the quiz?  Here are posts on Encrypting E-Mail, Client Confidences, Harassment via Social Media, Managing Client Expectations, and the Duty of Competence with respect to Social Media/Technology.