Five for Friday #35

Welcome to Week 35!  The Reggie Lewis Edition of the Five for Friday ethics quiz.

If you don’t like basketball, or my writing, skip to the questions.  It’s easier and quicker than sending me an email to complain.  Seriously folks, if you don’t like French Onion Soup, order a different appetizer.

Long time readers know I’m a Bird fan.  However, for me, Reggie is  there with Larry in the Celtic pantheon. I loved watching him play.  Skills that would make Napoleon Dynamite jealous, a match-up nightmare, lock-down defender, and ice in his veins in the final few minutes….he was a star kids. His mid-range jumper should be in a museum. It might not be what today’s fans look for in what’s become a game of 3’s & dunks, but you Vermont readers with middle & high school kids, here’s a tip from an old coach: if your kid can make 15 footers, especially off the dribble, your kid’s coach will find a way to get him or her on the court.

@vtbarcounsel: one stop shopping for legal ethics & basketball advice!

For you true basketball junkies, let’s start the trivia this way:

Warm-Up Question: is Reggie the greatest ever to play in UVM’s Patrick Gym?  Some say so.  Before you weigh-in, don’t forget that UMASS used to play here in the old Yankee Conference days.  That should be a hint as to where I’m leaning with my vote, but I could be swayed.  Maybe my good friend  & fellow lawyer/hoops coach Joe McNeil will weigh in.

I’ve digressed. I needed to get my mind of the ridiculousness that infected my work life this week, and basketball is that escape.  If you’re still reading, thank you for bearing with me.  Now, here we go:

• No rules
• You may enter as a team
• Exception: #5, try to play to play that one honest
• Please share the quiz with colleagues
• Email answers to michael.kennedy@vermont.gov

Question 1

Vermont’s conflict rules do not prohibit common representation of multiple clients. However, a comment to the rules indicates that the risks posed by representation of multiple clients in a specific type of case is “so grave that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to represent” multiple clients.

What type of case?

Question 2

In 2008, you represented Client at trial.  The Court admitted evidence that clearly established that Client had used recreational drugs at her place of employment.  Client is a public figure.

Client died earlier this week.  Tomorrow, a reporter is going to call you.  The reporter is going to ask you to comment on Client’s recreational drug use.  Which is most accurate under Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct?

• A.  You may comment because Client is deceased.
• B.  You may comment because Client’s drug use is part of the public record of the 2008 trial.
• C.  You may comment because the trial was more than 6 years ago.
• D.  You may not comment because the information is related to the representation of Client.

Question 3

Under the Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which does not belong grouped with the others?

• A.  Contingent fee agreement.
• B.  Hourly fee agreement.
• C.  Client’s agreement that you can share her fee with another lawyer who does not work in the same firm as you.
• D.  Former Client’s agreement to waive a conflict of interest

Question 4

Solo called me with an inquiry. I listened.  Then I said something like this:

• “Believe it or not, we actually have a rule on that.  Be careful.  If you do what you described, the rule requires you to stop taking private clients in your geographic area.  You sure you’re ready to do that?  The comment suggests that the ‘geographic area’ is the entire state.”

What did Solo call to discuss?

Question 5

In honor of Cassandra LaRae-Perez entering last week’s quiz, as well as my focus (harping?) on client confidences……

….Earlier this week, a Minnesota court ordered a law firm to turn over Client’s divorce file to Client’s estate lawyers.  Client is a superstar musician who died earlier this year.

Client’s estate lawyers wanted the file, asserting that it might contain information as to Client’s potential heirs.  Client’s divorce lawyers (who work at a different firm than the estate lawyers) refused, arguing that it had a professional obligation not to disclose “information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine which was generated and acquired during the decedent’s lifetime.”

The Court agreed with the estate lawyers.

Who is Client?