Several new entrants this week and a record 15 lawyers on the weekly Honor Roll! I appreciate the interest and enthusiasm. Please continue to share with friends and colleagues.
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. This is rule 1.9(c)(1). Kevin Ryan and I did an entire CLE on how “generally known” differs significantly from “in the public record.”
- 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? Insurance Defense. A slide show on the issue is HERE.
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.) The lawyer came into possession of evidence of a client’s crime (or of a crime with which client has been charged). As this article from the ABA Journal indicates, there are no easy answers.
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. This is straight from Comment 7 to Rule 4.2.
- 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?” Double Jeopardy. (see the :48 second mark)
WEEK 5 HONOR ROLL
5 for 5
- Andrew Delaney – Martin & Associates
- Lon McClintock – McClintock Law Office
- Mary Parent – Downs Rachlin Martin
- Daniel Richardson – Tarrant Gillies Richardson
- Ben Traverse – Downs Rachlin Martin
4 for 4 on Ethics – but missed #5
- Hal Miller – First American
- Sarah North
- Emily Tredeau – Prisoners’ Rights
3 for 4 on Ethics ( * = also got question 5)
- Dan Barrett – ACLU of Connecticut
- Bob Grundstein*
- Deb Kirchwey
- Elizabeth Kruska* – Marsicovetere Law
- Jordana Levine – Marsicovetere Law
- Scott Mapes, Esq. — coaches know their ethics
- Jonathan Stebbins *- – Bauer Gravel Farnham