Happy Leap Day!
This week’s questions are HERE.
Spoiler alert: the answers immediately follow this week’s Honor Roll.
- Matt Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Timothy Fair, Blodgett Watts & Volk
- Robert Grundstein, Esq.
- Matthew Little, Esq.
- Alli Wannop, Esq.
- Jonathan Stebbins, Bauer Gravel Farnham
- Josh Stern, Massucco Law Offices
- Ben Traverse, Downs Rachlin Martin
Attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened, then said:
- “here’s the deal: you can’t unilaterally resolve the dispute. if the dispute involves a client & you, you’re supposed to suggest means for prompt resolution. if it’s a dispute between your client and a third person, a comment to the rule indicates that you may consider filing an action asking a court to resolve the dispute.”
In that my response referred to the Rules of Professional Conduct, what is the most likely subject of the “dispute” that Attorney called to discuss?
CLIENT FUNDS. See, Rule 1.15(d), Comment 3
Last month, Potential Client contacted Law Firm. Potential Client discussed representation with Partner. Partner took reasonable steps to avoid exposure to any more information than was necessary to determine whether to represent Potential Client. Partner decided that Law Firm would not represent Potential Client.
Last week, Opposing Party contacted Law Firm. Opposing Party asked Law Firm for legal representation on the same matter that Potential Client discussed with Partner.
Potential Client shared with Partner information that could be significantly harmful to Potential Client. Thus, Potential Client will not consent to Law Firm’s representation of Opposing Party.
Your answer is one of two choices. If you choose A, you also must list the three things.
A. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, Law Firm may represent Opposing Party if it does three things. This is from Rule 1.18, the rule on “prospective clients.”
- Timely Screens Partner from the matter;
- Apportions Partner no part of the fee on the matter;
- Provides prompt written notice to Potential Client
B. This a trick question and Law Firm may not represent Opposing Party.
Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then said: “the rule and its comments say that you’re supposed to raise all non-frivolous defenses against doing so. Then, if the court orders you to do so, you may choose whether to comply with the court order.”
What was I referring to when I said “doing so” and “do so”?
DISCLOSE INFORMATION RELATED TO A REPRESENTATION (CLIENT CONFIDENCES). My recent blog on the issue is HERE.
Which is most accurate under the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct?
A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall:
- A. be responsible for the other lawyer’s violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
- B. be responsible for the other lawyer’s violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, but only those violations committed in the other lawyer’s capacity as an attorney.
- C. make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. See, Rule 5.1(d).
- D. not delegate signatory power over a trust account to the other lawyer.
Speaking of the ethical responsibilities of partners, supervisors, and associates, name the movie in which attorney Mitch Martin meets a woman at a college party, only to find out the next day that she is his supervising partner’s daughter . . . . and a junior in high school. OLD SCHOOL