Five for Friday – Week #27

I am smack dab in the middle of CLE season.  With “season” defined as “June.”   Retreats that coincide with Judicial College, annual meetings of various groups, and seminars for the procrastinators among you make this my favorite time of the year!

That being said – I’m not very creative. I’m going to borrow from my various seminars for this week’s quiz.  I apologize to those of you who’ve had one of today’s questions over the past few days.  Then again, maybe that will spur you to enter!

Again, the rules are:

  1. There are no rules.  I WANT you to look up the answers or ask a colleague for help.
  2. Exception – #5.
  3. Forward this to colleagues and encourage them to enter
  4. You may enter as a “team.”
  5. Email responses to michael.kennedy@vermont.gov

Question 1

Rule 1.5(e) covers “division of fees,” aka “fee sharing” or “referral fees.”  In April, the ABA issued an advisory opinion concluding that a referring attorney may not be entitled to a referral fee if the case was  referred:

  • A.   Due to a conflict of interest
  • B.   Because the lawyer was terminated by the client
  • C.   After being accepted for no other reason than to refer it
  • D.  To a former law partner.

Question 2

A CLE I attended earlier this week included a discussion on the different ways that States approach a particular issue.  Essentially, the States fall into two camps:  “end product” states, and “work product” states.

It’s an issue that is the subject of numerous phone calls that I receive from attorneys and one that is not limited to a particular practice area.

What’s the issue?

Question 3

In March, the Florida Supreme Court reprimanded  a lawyer for a violation related to his trust account and a “letter of protection.”

What was at issue?

  • A.  A title insurance policy & premium
  • B.  An advance conflict waiver in a flat fee DUI representation
  • C.  Disbursing settlement proceeds to a personal injury plaintiff
  • D.  Escrowing funds at a real estate closing

Question 4

Two word answer.

In a relatively recent opinion that focused on the jury instructions given at a criminal trial, the Vermont Supreme Court stated:

  • “attempting to define _______ _________ is a hazardous undertaking and [we] continue to discourage trial judges from trying such a definition.”

Question 5

There is a high-profile case pending before the US Supreme Court in which 26 states are suing the federal government.  Last week, the federal judge in the court where the case was filed issued an order in which he sanctioned not only the DOJ attorneys working on the case:

  • but every DOJ attorney based in DC, even those not involved with the case,
  • who appears in any proceeding, whether related to the case or not,
  • in any court, whether state or federal,
  • in any of the 26 plaintiff states.

The sanction: 3 hours of ethics training per year for the next 5 years.

The case’s general subject matter a hotly debated political issue.  What is the general subject matter?

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s