Teddy Roosevelt & Monday (Night) QBs

Sorry for the delay in posting the answers to last week’s #FiveforFriday quiz. As a Steelers fan, I only just caught my breath after Saturday night’s incredible comeback.

So, now, to the answers.  And to you Monday (Night) Quarterbacks who didn’t enter, remember, “it is not the critic who counts,” not the lawyer who points out where other lawyers answered wrong.  Rather, credit belongs to the lawyer who “strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again” in these quizzes.  But, who, at the worst, “at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

In other words, Teddy R. said it much better than I did in this post urging lawyers to enter.

Spoiler alert: answers follow the honor roll.  If you want to read the questions sans responses, click HERE.

This week’s honor roll:

5 for 5

4 for 5 (* = 4 for 4 in ethics)

Bonus Honor Roll:

  • Kevin Ryan, VBA.  Kudos to Kevin for recognizing the Rolling Stones references in my post on cloud computing.  Kevin cleverly responded “that’s unethical and you have them under your thumb” when I informed him that nobody else had made the connection.  Since then, so has Bob Grundstein.



Potential Client asks Attorney to represent her in a post-judgment divorce matter.  Potential Client’s former spouse has not made court ordered child support payments in 5 months and is even further behind on spousal maintenance.  As a result, Potential Client has little money and asks Attorney to represent her on a contingent fee basis.   Under Vermont’s rules, which is most accurate?

Attorney and Potential Client

  • A. may not enter into a contingent fee agreement
  • B.  may enter into a contingent fee agreement for both the child support and spousal maintenance issues, so long as the Court approves the reasonableness of the agreement
  • C.  may enter into a contingent fee agreement for both, so as long as the Court approves the reasonableness of the agreement with respect to the child support issue – Rule 1.5(d)(1)
  • D.  may enter into a contingent fee agreement for the spousal maintenance issue, but not the child support issue.


JD asks Lawyer to represent him in connection with a matter in which JD’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of Lawyer’s former client.  Under Vermont’s rules, which is most accurate:

  • A.  Lawyer may not represent JD.
  • B.  Lawyer may not represent JD, but the conflict is not imputed to others in Lawyer’s firm.
  • C.  Lawyer may represent JD if the matter is not the same as or substantially related to the matter in which Lawyer represented JD – Rule 1.9
  • D. Lawyer may represent JD, but will have to withdraw if he is likely to be a necessary witness at any trial.


In Vermont’s attorney ethics world, INFORMED CONSENT is defined as:

  • “An agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of an reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.” Rule 1.0.


Attorney represents the plaintiff in a civil suit that is pending in the Vermont Superior Court.  Attorney receives material from defense counsel in response to a discovery request.   Attorney reasonably believes that some of the material that she received was inadvertently produced.

Which is most accurate under Vermont’s ethics rules:

  • A.  Attorney must notify defense counsel of the inadvertent production – Rule 4.4(b)
  • B.   Attorney must notify defense counsel of the inadvertent production and must abide by any instructions to return/destroy the material
  • C.  Attorney must notify defense counsel and her client of the inadvertent production, and must not return/destroy the material absent her client’s consent.
  • D. Attorney may notify defense counsel, but only after consultation with her client as to Attorney’s duties under the rules.


Over the past month, many Americans binge-watched a show that included (1) prosecutors who may or may not have violated their duty to produce exculpatory evidence; (2) a defense attorney who had his investigator extract a detailed confession from his client, shared the confession with detectives, then chose not to attend an interview at which he knew the detectives would question the client; and (3) a prosecutor who resigned as a result of a sexting scandal.