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.
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.
- 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 email@example.com
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”?
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?
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?
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
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.