Monday Morning Answers: Week 26 – Updated

As I mentioned Friday, week 26 coincided with the Vermont City Marathon.  Tough conditions, but it was great to see so many judges/lawyers/paralegals participating.

I’m sure to miss many, but here’s a list of law-types I either spoke to or saw during the race:  Gavin Boyles,  Judge Devine, Peter Dysart, Judge Harris, Andy Homan, Judge Kalfus, Matt Little, Sarah London, Rob McDougall, Heather Moreau, and Tom Nuovo.

Of course “tough conditions” is poor phrase to use today. It was a running race. It wasn’t a war.  Today, take a moment to pause to consider those who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country.

This week’s answers follow the honor roll.

HONOR ROLL

  • Bob Grundstein
  • Keith Kasper
  • Matthew Little
  • Hal Miller (Perfect Score)
  • Kane Smart (Perfect Ethics – only missed Agnew)
  • Ian Sullivan

Question 1

An advisory ethics opinion issued in New Jersey raised eyebrows this week.  The opinion noted that lawyers may make mention of X only if the basis for X “can be verified” and “adequate inquiry into the fitness of the individual lawyer” was made.

Generally, X falls under which topic in legal ethics?

  • A.   Bar Admissions
  • B.   Referrals/Fee Sharing
  • C.   Advertising – New Jersey’s Supreme Court has a Committee on Lawyer Advertising.  Last week, the Committee issued this reminder on accolade advertising.
  • D.   Sanctions in a disciplinary case

Question 2

What do the rules require lawyers to keep for 6 years following the termination of a representation?

  • A.  Trust account records; Rule 1.15(a)(1)
  • B.  A copy of the representation agreement
  • C.  A copy of the representation agreement, but only in contingent fee cases
  • D.  The file

Question 3

What is the phrase used to describe a business organization that offers clients a range of professional services?  For instance a business that offers its clients both accounting services & legal services, or both family counseling services & legal services.

The exact phrase I was looking for was “Multidisciplinary Practice” (“MDP”).  I gave credit for a variety of answers.  Hal Miller & Kane Smart were the only entrants to answer “MDP.”  For the pros & cons of MDP, check out this piece from the Virginia State Bar.

Question 4

Lawyer call me with an inquiry. We talked about an arbitration scheduled to take place in Burlington in early June.  I said “the underlying case…is it reasonably related to, or does it arise out of, Massachusetts?”

What general concern did Lawyer call to discuss?

Unauthorized Practice of Law. The scenario here was that the VT caller was concerned that a MA lawyer participating in the arbitration was not licensed in VT.  I alleviated the concern by directing the caller to the safe harbors in Rule 5.5(c)(3) and (4).

Question 5

Two different lawyers who served as Vice-President of the United States have been disbarred. One served as the other’s Vice-President.

For one point each, who are they?

Richard Nixon & Spiro Agnew.

Nixon served as vice-president to Eisenhower.  Nixon relinquished his California & US Supreme Court law licenses after resigning the presidency. He tried to resign his New York law license as well, but the NY State Bar would not let him do so absent an admission that he he could not successfully defend against charges of obstruction of justice.  Nixon refused, and NY went ahead with the disbarment.

Agnew, Nixon’s vice-president, was disbarred by the State of Maryland after he pled no contest to tax evasion.  The criminal case related to bribes Agnew took while governor of Maryland.

Five for Friday: Week 26

How fitting!  Week 26 coincides with the Vermont City Marathon.  Many lawyers are in the race, including the chair of the VBA’s Young Lawyers Division, Gavin Boyles. If you’re running, have fun, but be smart! It’s going to be a hot one.

And for those of you wondering why it’s fitting that week 26 falls on marathon weekend, a marathon is 26.2 miles.  In fact, ALL marathons are 26.2 miles.  Why?  The Greeks, the Persians, and Queen Alexandra.  It makes me laugh when someone asks “you’re running another marathon? how far is this one?”

Ok……

……quick recap of the rules:  there are none.  Open book, open link-to-the-rules, text-a-friend, or walk down to a colleague’s office and have what we used to call “a conversation.”  Also, I introduced a new twist last week: the team entry.  A group from Barr Sternberg was the first to take me up on the offer and made the Honor Roll.

Exception to rule that there are no rules: we try to play it honest on Question 5.

Email answers to me at michael.kennedy@vermont.gov and please forward this to friends and colleagues and encourage them to enter, perhaps as part of your new team.

Question 1

An advisory ethics opinion issued in New Jersey raised eyebrows this week.  The opinion noted that lawyers may make mention of X only if the basis for X “can be verified” and “adequate inquiry into the fitness of the individual lawyer” was made.

Generally, X falls under which topic in legal ethics?

  • A.   Bar Admissions
  • B.   Referrals/Fee Sharing
  • C.   Advertising
  • D.   Sanctions in a disciplinary case

Question 2

What do the rules require lawyers to keep for 6 years following the termination of a representation?

  • A.  Trust account records
  • B.  A copy of the representation agreement
  • C.  A copy of the representation agreement, but only in contingent fee cases
  • D.  The file

Question 3

What is the phrase used to describe a business organization that offers clients a range of professional services?  For instance a business that offers its clients both accounting services & legal services, or both family counseling services & legal services.

Question 4

Lawyer call me with an inquiry. We talked about an arbitration scheduled to take place in Burlington in early June.  I said “the underlying case…is it reasonably related to, or does it arise out of, Massachusetts?”

What general concern did Lawyer call to discuss?

Question 5

Two different lawyers who served as Vice-President of the United States have been disbarred. One served as the other’s Vice-President.

For one point each, who are they?

 

 

 

What Say You Wednesday: Time for ABS?

It’s time for another edition of What Say You Wednesday.  Today’s poll question: should Vermont amend (or rescind) Rule 5.4 so as to allow nonlawyer ownership & management of law firms, as well as multidisciplinary practice.

The poll is HERE.

To make an informed decision, here are some options:

  1. Read last month’s issues paper from the ABA’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services; or
  2. Read my series of blog entries on the issues paper.

Of course, as anyone who knows me would tell you, the road to where I find myself today is littered with uninformed decisions.  So, I totally get it if you just want to skip to the vote.  However, to paraphrase the old Gatorade ad, “don’t be like Mike.”

Please forward this blog post to colleagues.

Thank you.

ABS: How’s it doing?

This is the fifth entry in my series on Alternative Business Structures (“ABS”).  I’ve posed the question: is it time to amend (or rescind) Rule 5.4 so as to allow

  • nonlawyer ownership of law firms;
  • nonlawyer management of law firms;
  • multidisciplinary practice.

My posts aren’t original.  Rather, I’m summarizing an issues paper issued last month by the ABA’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services.  My previous entries:

ABS – Arguments Against

A is for Alliteration.

Anyhow, this is part 4 in a series on whether Rule 5.4 should be amended (or rescinded) so as to permit:

  • nonlawyer ownership of law firms;
  • nonlawyer management of law firms; and
  • multidisciplinary practice.

The series summarizes an issues paper on Alternative Business Structures (“ABS”) issued last month by the ABA’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services

Previous entries in the series:

As noted by the Commission, those who oppose ABS offer four main arguments against:

  1. Threat to Lawyers’ Core Values
  2. Decreased Pro Bono Work
  3. Threat to the Attorney-Client Privilege
  4. Failure to Deliver Promised Benefits

Let’s look at each in turn.

Threat to Lawyers’ Core Values

Opponents argue that ABS will lead to a system in which lawyers focus on the bottom line at the expense of their clients’ best interests, sacrificing client loyalty and ceding professional judgment to untrained nonlawyers who are not subject to disciplinary rules.

Among other sources, the Commission’s issues paper cites Nick Robinson’s manuscript: When Lawyers Don’t Get All the Profits: Non-Lawyer Ownership of Legal Services, Access, and Professionalism, 29 GEO. J. L. ETHICS (forthcoming).  On page 14 of his manuscript, Robinson notes that “while some have claimed that non-lawyer ownership will lead to an increase in quality of legal services, it is not obvious this will be the result and pressure for investors for profits may actually undercut standards in the profession.”

There is no doubt that I’m less than qualified to debate ABS with those who study and write about the topic.

However,this is an argument that puts (what I hope is) a wry smile on my face. Implicit in the argument is that lawyers who own their own firms do not let the “bottom line” influence their work. I mean, it’s not like I’ve never heard “mike, once the retainer ran out, my lawyer dumped me.”

Decreased Pro Bono Work

The Commission points out that opponents also contend that ABS will lead to a decrease in pro bono work.  Again, the issues paper cites to Nick Robinson’s manuscript, specifically page 11 where he argues that nonlawyer ownership may “undermine the public-spirited ideals of the profession, making it less likely lawyers in these firms will engage in pro bono or take on riskier cases that may have a broader social benefit.”

Again, color me jade(d), but I’m not so sure that lawyers hold a monopoly on the “public-spirited ideals” traditionally (quaintly?) associated with the legal profession.

Threat to the Attorney-Client Privilege

Per the issues paper, ABS opponents argue that “[i|f nonlawyer partners are privy to privileged conversations between attorneys and clients, courts might refuse to uphold the attorney-client privilege.”  Issues Paper, p. 10, Section 4(B)(3).

As an aside, and as my readers know, the ethics rule is much broader than the privilege.  See, V.R.Pr.C 1.6, Comment 3.  For my thoughts on Rule 1.6 and the disclosure of information relating to a representation, check out these posts:

Failure to Deliver Promised Benefits

Finally, the Commission notes that ABS critics argue that ABS will not deliver the benefits its proponents promise.  For example,

  • THIS STUDY commissioned by the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association concludes that there is “no empirical data to support the argument that [nonlawyer ownership] has improved access to justice” in jurisdictions that have approved ABS.
  • Similarly, on page 14 of his manuscript, Nick Robinson argues that “many other areas of legal work may be difficult to scale or commoditize, meaning non-lawyer ownership will be less likely to occur in these areas or bring unclear access benefits.”
  • Finally, critics contend that firms can attract top, nonlawyer talent with generous salaries & compensation packages that do not include ownership/management interests.

That’s all for tonight.  Next up:  ABS has been permitted for quite some time in jurisdictions around the world.  Some have data.  So….what has been the impact of ABS in jurisdictions where it is allowed?

 

Monday Morning Answers – Update

Answers rolled in today….great participation!  I had to update the Honor Roll to reflect some late submissions.

Week 25’s questions are HERE.

The HONOR ROLL spans the gamut.  

Large firms, solos, government lawyers, and my brother – the systems engineer.

Family law, elder law, title insurance, insurance litigation, labor law, telecommunications law, criminal law, transactional work, trial work.

Bennington County, Chittenden County, Rutland County, Washington County, and Windham County.  Orange County too, but not the one where my grandparents lived for over 50 years. Nope, the one they make television shows about.

PERFECT SCORES

  • Matthew Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
  • Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
  • Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett Law Office
  • David Kennedy, JD, GAL Programs Administrator, Office of the Court Administrator
  • Patrick Kennedy, Principal, Systems Engineer, Dealer.Com
  • Brian Martin, Green Mountain Care Board
  • Hal Miller, First American
  • Team Silver & Andrews, Barr Sternberg
  • Kane Smart, Downs Rachlin & Martin

HIGH HONORS

ANSWERS

Question 1

In 1977, the United States Supreme Court opined that it is permissible as long as it is not  false, deceptive, or misleading.  In the context of this blog, what is “it”?

“It” is lawyer advertising.  Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 US 350 (1977).  The Court held that lawyer advertising is commercial speech entitled to First Amendment protection.  The upshot is HERE.

Question 2

Lately, I seem most interested in the rule that relates to:

  • A.  Conflicts of Interest – why shouldn’t firms with offices in multiple jurisdictions be allowed to represent clients who are adverse to each other as long as Office A does not share information with Office B?
  • B.  Disclosure of Client Confidences – why shouldn’t information relating to the representation of a former client, and that is in the public record, be fair game?
  • C.  Unauthorized Practice of Law – should paralegals be allowed to represent clients  without being supervised by attorneys?
  • D.  Nonlawyer Ownership – should nonlawyers be allowed to have ownership interests in law firms?

I’m doing a series on Alternative Business Structures. So far, I’m 3 posts in.

Question 3

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened. I replied “you should write to your clients, tell them what’s happening, and give them the option of you, your firm, or someone else. Unless you hear back that it’s you, it’s the firm.”

Based on my statement, what is Lawyer most likely about to do?

Lawyer is most likely about to leave her firm for another (or to go out on her own).

Question 4

Which response best fills in the blank?

Attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened. Then I said “okay, the matters aren’t the same or substantially related.  So you’re okay on section (a) of the rule.  But, don’t forgot about section (c).  Be wary of _____________ :”

  • A.   charging an unreasonable fee.
  • B.   cross-examining or deposing a former client
  • C.  removing funds from trust before you’ve earned them
  • D.  communicating with a represented party

Rule 1.9(a) prohibits an attorney from representing a client in a matter in which the client’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of a former client whom the attorney represented in the same or a substantially related matter.

If the two matters aren’t the same or substantially related (or if the current client’s interests aren’t materially adverse to the former client’s), then Rule 1.9(a) does not apply. Still, Rule 1.9(c) might apply.  Section c requires lawyers to protect information related to the representation of former clients.  So, while a conflict might not exist under section (a), the duties imposed by section (c) should give a lawyer pause if in a position to cross-examine or depose a former client.  The duty to protect that client’s information might create a concurrent conflict under Rule 1.7.  

For more, check out this oldie, but goodie, from the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers on “Conflicts in Cross-Examination.”

Question 5

This 2002 movie is based on a real-life story and is not about lawyers or practicing law.  It featured two megastars. One played Carl, the other Frank.

Frank spent much of the movie trying to avoid Carl.  However, by the end of the movie, Frank was working for Carl.  A scene in their office included this conversation:

  • Carl:   “How’d you do it Frank? How did you cheat on the bar exam in                                               Louisiana?”
  • Frank: “I didn’t cheat. I studied for two weeks and I passed.”

Name the movie.

Catch Me If You Can, starring Tom Hanks as Carl Hanratty and Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Abagnale.

catch me if you can

Monday Morning Answers

Week 25’s questions are HERE.

The HONOR ROLL spans the gamut.  

Large firms, solos, government lawyers, and my brother – the systems engineer.

Family law, elder law, title insurance, insurance litigation, labor law, telecommunications law, criminal law, transactional work, trial work.

Bennington County, Chittenden County, Rutland County, Washington County, and Windham County.  Orange County too, but not the one where my grandparents lived for over 50 years. Nope, the one they make television shows about.

PERFECT SCORES

  • Matthew Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
  • Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
  • Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett Law Office
  • David Kennedy, JD, GAL Programs Administrator, Office of the Court Administrator
  • Patrick Kennedy, Principal, Systems Engineer, Dealer.Com
  • Brian Martin, Green Mountain Care Board
  • Hal Miller, First American
  • Team Silver & Andrews, Barr Sternberg
  • Kane Smart, Downs Rachlin & Martin

HIGH HONORS

ANSWERS

Question 1

In 1977, the United States Supreme Court opined that it is permissible as long as it is not  false, deceptive, or misleading.  In the context of this blog, what is “it”?

“It” is lawyer advertising.  Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 US 350 (1977).  The Court held that lawyer advertising is commercial speech entitled to First Amendment protection.  The upshot is HERE.

Question 2

Lately, I seem most interested in the rule that relates to:

  • A.  Conflicts of Interest – why shouldn’t firms with offices in multiple jurisdictions be allowed to represent clients who are adverse to each other as long as Office A does not share information with Office B?
  • B.  Disclosure of Client Confidences – why shouldn’t information relating to the representation of a former client, and that is in the public record, be fair game?
  • C.  Unauthorized Practice of Law – should paralegals be allowed to represent clients  without being supervised by attorneys?
  • D.  Nonlawyer Ownership – should nonlawyers be allowed to have ownership interests in law firms?

I’m doing a series on Alternative Business Structures. So far, I’m 3 posts in.

Question 3

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened. I replied “you should write to your clients, tell them what’s happening, and give them the option of you, your firm, or someone else. Unless you hear back that it’s you, it’s the firm.”

Based on my statement, what is Lawyer most likely about to do?

Lawyer is most likely about to leave her firm for another (or to go out on her own).

Question 4

Which response best fills in the blank?

Attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened. Then I said “okay, the matters aren’t the same or substantially related.  So you’re okay on section (a) of the rule.  But, don’t forgot about section (c).  Be wary of _____________ :”

  • A.   charging an unreasonable fee.
  • B.   cross-examining or deposing a former client
  • C.  removing funds from trust before you’ve earned them
  • D.  communicating with a represented party

Rule 1.9(a) prohibits an attorney from representing a client in a matter in which the client’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of a former client whom the attorney represented in the same or a substantially related matter.

If the two matters aren’t the same or substantially related (or if the current client’s interests aren’t materially adverse to the former client’s), then Rule 1.9(a) does not apply. Still, Rule 1.9(c) might apply.  Section c requires lawyers to protect information related to the representation of former clients.  So, while a conflict might not exist under section (a), the duties imposed by section (c) should give a lawyer pause if in a position to cross-examine or depose a former client.  The duty to protect that client’s information might create a concurrent conflict under Rule 1.7.  

For more, check out this oldie, but goodie, from the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers on “Conflicts in Cross-Examination.”

Question 5

This 2002 movie is based on a real-life story and is not about lawyers or practicing law.  It featured two megastars. One played Carl, the other Frank.

Frank spent much of the movie trying to avoid Carl.  However, by the end of the movie, Frank was working for Carl.  A scene in their office included this conversation:

  • Carl:   “How’d you do it Frank? How did you cheat on the bar exam in                                               Louisiana?”
  • Frank: “I didn’t cheat. I studied for two weeks and I passed.”

Name the movie.

Catch Me If You Can, starring Tom Hanks as Carl Hanratty and Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Abagnale.

catch me if you can

ABS: Arguments in Favor

This is the third in a series on Alternative Business Structures (“ABS”).  The series focuses on whether it is time to amend the Rules of Professional Conduct so as to allow:

  • nonlawyer ownership of law firms; and,
  • nonlawyer management of law firms; and
  • multidisciplinary practice.

Today, Rule 5.4 prohibits each.

The first two posts in the series are HERE and HERE.

My posts are not original.  Rather, I am summarizing (and borrowing from) an issues paper issued last month by the ABA’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services.

The arguments in favor of ABA appear in Section IV(A), pp. 7-9, of the issue paper.  Per the Commission, proponents offer four benefits of allowing ABS:

  1. Increased access to justice;
  2. Enhanced financial flexibility;
  3. Enhanced operational flexibility; and,
  4. Increased cost-effectiveness & quality of services.

Each relates to the belief that allowing ABS will infuse law firms (and the profession) with much-needed capital and talent.

Increased Access to Justice

Noel Semple is on the faculty of law at the University of Windsor. Professor Semple studies access to justice and, in 2014, published Legal Services Regulation at the Crossroads:  Justitia’s Legionsin which he argued that ABS will improve access to justice.

A quote from Profession Semple appears on page 7 of the Commission’s issues paper.  He makes 3 arguments in favor of ABS.  He writes better than I, so here’s the quote:

  • “[f]irst, [limits on nonlawyer funding] constrain the supply of capital for law firms, thereby increasing the cost which the firms must pay for it. To the extent that this cost of doing business is passed along to consumers, it will increase the price of legal services. Second, bigger firms might be better for access to justice, due to risk-spreading opportunities and economies of scale and scope. Individual clients . . . must currently rely on small partnerships and solo practitioners, and allowing non-lawyer capital and management into the market might facilitate the emergence of large consumer law firms. Large firms would plausibly find it easier than small ones to expand access through flat rate billing, reputational branding, and investment in technology. Finally, insulating lawyers from non-lawyers precludes potentially innovative inter-professional collaborations, which might bring the benefits of legal services to more people even if firms stay small.”

Then, citing a 2014 report from the Canadian Bar Association’s Legal Futures Initiative, the Commission concludes:

  • “[i]n short, it is said that ABS may improve consumer choice and value because additional sources of capital may encourage legal service providers to ‘take greater risks in improving their services.’ That innovation in turn, may allow lawyers to deliver better services at lower prices.”

Enhanced Financial Flexibility

  • Citing a report from the Queensland (Australia) Law Society, the Commission notes that ABS might lead to significant financial benefits, including “asset protection, greater flexibility for raising and retaining capital, greater flexibility for remunerating employees, possible tax advantages, and opportunities to introduce more effective management and decision-making arrangements.”
  • The Commission notes that law firm funding relies almost exclusively on partners and banks.  Then, the Commission quotes this 2008 report in which the author states that in:
    • “[t]his pre-industrial model of financing the firm . . . The owners bear significant risk, which effectively increases their cost of capital and restricts available funding. Part of the risk is from a mismatch of revenues and expenses. Even a fundamentally viable firm may face a liquidity crunch when its bank loans come due and its only assets are accounts receivable and pending cases.”
  • Finally, the Commission suggests that
    • “[p]ermitting nonlawyer investment might also help young lawyers who would be able to afford, for example, to partner with skilled information technology professionals to develop innovative ways to deliver legal services.”

Enhanced Operational Flexibility

I like this one. Essentially, lawyers aren’t the only smart people in the world.

As proponents of ABS point out, precluding nonlawyers from managing law firms certainly precludes one thing:  it precludes firms from employing talented nonlawyers who might offer insightful and innovative ways to improve the delivery legal services.

Essentially, lawyers aren’t the only smart people in the world.

Increased Cost Effectiveness and Quality of Services

This argument centers on multidisciplinary practice (“MDP”).  MDP is a business model in which the owners offer legal services and non-legal services.  For example, a family law practitioner could own a business with a family counselor, providing legal and counselling services to a clients in a “one stop shopping” approach.

The Virginia State Bar laid out the pros and cons of MDP HERE.

The Commission quotes this law review article, in which the authors argue that the:

  • “major benefit of multidisciplinary services is the delivery of an integrated team approach to serving client interests – in other words, providing clients with a ‘one-stop shopping’ approach for problems requiring services in different fields [which leads to]  efficiency that translates into savings of time or money, and ensures the delivery of a higher quality product to the client with lower transaction costs.”

Tomorrow, I’ll have the answer to last Friday’s quiz, as well as a post in which I set out the arguments against ABS, as noted by the Commission in its issues paper.

 

 

Five for Friday #25

Last week I referenced some famous people associated with #24.  Willie Mays, Jeff Gordon, Jack Bauer.  Since some of you know I’m a Red Sox fan, a few of you asked why I hadn’t referenced Manny Ramirez.

Please.  That’d be like referencing Chloe instead of Jack Bauer.

Dwight Evans.

As any self-respecting Red Sox fan from the self-loathing days prior to 2004 knows, Dewey is the true owner of #24.

Anyhow, this is a long-winded way of saying I don’t have a clever, or even not so clever, tie-in to Week 25. All I can think of is that I was a big fan of this number 25.  I’m sure some will wonder how bar counsel could root for such an ethically challenged player. To quote another B.B., it’s my prerogative.

Rules

  • there really aren’t any
  • open book, open search engine, collude with a colleague
  • enter as a team if you want! for instance, a firm, or a county bar
  • email answers to michael.kennedy@vermont.gov

Question 1

In 1977, the United States Supreme Court opined that it is permissible as long as it is not  false, deceptive, or misleading.  In the context of this blog, what is “it”?

Question 2

Lately, I seem most interested in the rule that relates to:

  • A.  Conflicts of Interest – why shouldn’t firms with offices in multiple jurisdictions be allowed to represent clients who are adverse to each other as long as Office A does not share information with Office B?
  • B.  Disclosure of Client Confidences – why shouldn’t information relating to the representation of a former client, and that is in the public record, be fair game?
  • C.  Unauthorized Practice of Law – should paralegals be allowed to represent clients  without being supervised by attorneys?
  • D.  Nonlawyer Ownership – should nonlawyers be allowed to have ownership interests in law firms?

Question 3

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened. I replied “you should write to your clients, tell them what’s happening, and give them the option of you, your firm, or someone else. Unless you hear back that it’s you, it’s the firm.”

Based on my statement, what is Lawyer most likely about to do?

Question 4

Which response best fills in the blank?

Attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened. Then I said “okay, the matters aren’t the same or substantially related.  So you’re okay on section (a) of the rule.  But, don’t forgot about section (c).  Be wary of _____________ :”

  • A.   charging an unreasonable fee.
  • B.   cross-examining or deposing a former client
  • C.  removing funds from trust before you’ve earned them
  • D.  communicating with a represented party

Question 5

This 2002 movie is based on a real-life story and is not about lawyers or practicing law.  It featured two megastars. One played Carl, the other Frank.

Frank spent much of the movie trying to avoid Carl.  However, by the end of the movie, Frank was working for Carl.  A scene in their office included this conversation:

  • Carl:   “How’d you do it Frank? How did you cheat on the bar exam in                                               Louisiana?”
  • Frank: “I didn’t cheat. I studied for two weeks and I passed.”

Name the movie.