Yes, 32. Last week’s title was a typo.
A few reminders:
- No rules
- Exception: #5
- Please share the quiz with colleagues
- Email answers to firstname.lastname@example.org
Builder is a plaintiff in a suit vs. Developer. Attorney represents Builder. The case is pending in Chittenden Superior Court.
Builder also owns property in Addison County. He’s asked a local zoning board to rezone the property. Neighbor opposes the request.
Builder is represented by zoning lawyer in the zoning case. Neighbor wants to hire Attorney.
Which is most accurate under Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct?
- A. Attorney may not represent Neighbor.
- B. Since the two cases are not substantially related, Attorney may represent Neighbor.
- C. Attorney may represent Neighbor if Attorney complies with the waiver provisions in the rule on concurrent conflicts of interest.
- D. Attorney may represent Neighbor if Attorney complies with the waiver provisions in the rule on communicating with a represented party.
Which is the more accurate statement?
- A. Vermont’s rules require lawyers to charge reasonable fees.
- B. Vermont’s lawyers prohibit lawyers from charging unreasonable fees.
** – i’ll reprint the “best answer” for anyone who goes the extra step and explains why the answer is what it is.
Fill in the blank. Four words.
“In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of _______ _______ _____ ______ to a third person.”
Hint: size doesn’t matter. The length of the blanks is irrelevant.
Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then answered:
“The rules don’t reference ‘standby counsel.’ I worry for lawyers who agree to do it. At the very least, I urge them to review an advisory opinion that the NH Bar issued in April. The opinion states that serving as standby counsel isn’t per se unethical. However, it goes on to suggest that the first thing standby counsel should do is to clarify what’s expected of her. I agree with that suggestion.”
Most likely, what area of law does Lawyer practice?
Another fill in the blank (kind of).
Earlier this week, the Second Circuit issued this order:
“_____________________, filed a petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc. The panel that determined the appeal has considered the request for panel rehearing, and the active members of the Court have considered the request for rehearing en banc.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied.”
Given the 2nd Circuit’s Order, whose unethical behavior may finally be behind us once and for all?