Five for Friday – Week 29

I love June.  With the CLE deadline looming, I get the chance to get out and see people at seminars.  As always, I’m beyond impressed by how seriously Vermont lawyers take their professional obligations. It’s humbling and reminds me why I do what I do, and why I do it here.  And the best part?  I’ve still got 4 more county bar meetings this month, and 2 general admission CLEs.

Thank you all for making this a great job.

Now, if I had to do a CLE on the “rules for Five for Friday,” i’d be certified for .001 hours CLE credit.  Slide #1:  “there are no rules. It’s open book, open note, open search engine, call a friend, or even a foe.”

In a question for a logician, despite having no rules, there’s an exception: question #5 is closed book.  So where’s that leave us?  There are no rules, but there’s an exception. But if there’s an exception, that must mean that there’s a rule.  But if the rule is that there are no rules, is it still a rule?

It’s like being on that island where half the people never lie and the other half never tell the truth.

I’m getting dizzy. Time for the questions. Oh, email answers to michael.kennedy@vermont.gov    Team entries are allowed.

Question 1

As long-time readers know, the duty of competence includes tech competence.  With that in mind, what’s the most common basis for a court to issue a sanction for a discovery violation related to Electronically Stored Information?

  • A.  Failure to preserve
  • B.  Failure to produce
  • C.  Failure to produce in usable format
  • D.  Overly broad requests for ESI

Question 2

At a seminar I did earlier this week, I explained that “the rule used to be that no matter what you called it, it had to go into trust until earned.  That rule has been somewhat relaxed.”

What is “it”?

I need a rather specific answer here.  “Client money” won’t cut it.

Question 3

FILL IN THE BLANK

The ethical duty of competence also includes knowing how to introduce (or object to) evidence.  In a case it decided this year, the Vermont Supreme Court stated that:

  • Unlike a past recollection recorded, a declarant need not specifically avow to the reliability of an excited utterance in order for it to be admitted.Rather, the fact that the statement was caused by a “_______ _______” generally is sufficient.

Question 4

A former client posts a negative review of you online.  Which is most accurate?

  • A.   The rules prohibit you from replying or commenting
  • B.  You may reply or comment, but you may not do so in way that violates the rules.
  • C. The prohibition on the disclosure of information relating to  the representation no longer applies.  The client waived it.

Question 5

Speaking of technology and evidence, a trial that’s taking place in LA made the news this week.    The issue at trial is whether a band “stole” a rift from another writer’s song and used the rift in one of the most (over)played songs in classic rock history.  During his opening statement, the plaintiff’s attorney played a video that showed a musician playing the plaintiff’s song, then the defendant’s.   The video was not on the exhibit list. The trial continues, but by playing a video that wasn’t on the exhibit list, plaintiff’s attorney might cause a mistrial.

Name the band that’s on trial.

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