Thanks to everyone who entered week 10 of the #FiveforFriday bonzana! For those of you who didn’t, here’s another reason to enter in the future: one entrant reported coming across the answer to an issue he’d been dealing with at work while researching the answers to the quiz. That’s part of my goal!
Lots of really good scores this week. I guess I owed you that after hearing that the preceding weeks were a bit difficult.
If you want to read the questions before I post the answers, go HERE
- Amy Butler Law Office of Amy Butler
- Robert Grundstein
- Andrew Delaney Martin & Associates
- Lon McClintock McClintock Law Office
- Susan McManus Office of the Bennington County Public Defender
- Michael Tarrant Tarrant, Gillies, & Richardson
- Caryn Waxman Barber & Waxman
At least 8 points (* = perfect on the ethics questions)
- Dan Barrett ACLU of Connecticut
- Samantha Lednicky Downs Rachlin Martin
- Matthew Little Law Office of Matthew Little
- Hal Miller * First American
- Mary Parent* Downs Rachlin Martin
- Allison Wannop* Dinse Knapp McAndrew
Last week, in a ruling that the Wall Street Journal reported is believed to be the first of its kind involving a defendant who is located within the United States, a federal judge approved service by FACEBOOK. (I understand service by Facebook may have happened before, but the article referred to in the question is HERE)
Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then asked: “do you think it’s going to cause death or substantial bodily harm?” What did the lawyer call to talk about?
Whether Lawyer was required to disclose client’s intent to commit a crime. See, Rule 1.6(b)(1).
Attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened, then said: “the rule says it’s preferable that it be in writing, but doesn’t require a writing.” What did Attorney ask whether needs to be reduced to writing?
Scope of representation and basis & rate of fee. Rule 1.5(b).
By rule, in trial, there are four (4) things about which a lawyer may not state a personal opinion. 1 point for each that you name.
Justness of a cause, credibility of a witness, culpability of a civil litigant, guilt or innocence of an accuse. Rule 3.4(e).
Alan and Denny were fictional lawyers who practiced together for years. Each had a questionable sense of attorney ethics. Last we saw them, they married. Among the reasons that they decided to marry: to invoke the spousal privilege if Denny was arrested and Alan asked to testify against him.
- Alan Shore & Denny Crane were on Boston Legal and were married by (an actor portraying) Justice Scalia