If you’re not already planning to attend, consider the VBA’s Annual Meeting at Lake Morey on October 13 & 14. Thursday night’s events include a conversation in which Bill Lee, Sue Minter & Phil Scott will share their thoughts on some of the key issues facing the Judiciary and legal profession.
The conversation won’t be pub-quiz style. But the rest of this post will be! For any newbies:
- No rules – open book; open search engine; ok (by me) to bother colleagues for help; ok to consult the rules,which I’ve posted HERE
- Exception: #5
- Team entries allowed
- Email answers to email@example.com
- Consider signing up for the blog (home page, over on the right side)
- I’ll post answers on Monday morning
One of the rules includes a so-called “self-defense exception.” I’ve blogged on it twice. Essentially, the rule says “don’t do this” but then says “but, you can do this to defend yourself.” Last month, the Texas State Bar became the latest jurisdiction to conclude that the self-defense exception “cannot reasonably be interpreted” as allowing a lawyer to:
- A. punch a client.
- B. engage in discourteous conduct in response to unfair criticism from a judge that was made in the presence of a jury.
- C. arrange for a bank to use the lawyer’s operating account to cover overdrafts to a client trust account.
- D. disclose information relating to the representation of a client in response to a negative online review from the client.
Under the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, which is different from the others?
- A. the representation will result in a violation of the rules of professional conduct.
- B. the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services.
- C. the representation has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client
- D. other good cause exists.
Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to provide competent representation. I have previously blogged that competence includes tech competence.
With that in mind, what specifically am I referring to when I respond to an attorney inquiry by saying “you need to know if your client has any, where it is, and how to produce it. You also need to know how to ask it for it from an opposing party, how to handle it, how to review it, and how to use it.”
Opposing counsel sends responses to your discovery requests. Reviewing the material, you find a document that you know or reasonably should know was inadvertently sent. Under the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, your ethical duty is:
- A. to notify opposing counsel.
- B. to notify opposing counsel & return the document upon request.
- C. to use the document if it helps your client.
- D. to take steps necessary to determine whether the production waived the privilege.
In the 1980’s, Jan Schlictmann was a young attorney in Massachusetts. He filed a class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that discharge from two tanneries had contaminated the local water supply and caused a leukemia cluster. During the litigation:
- opposing counsel responded to the suit with a Rule 11 motion, arguing that Schlictmann had filed a frivolous complaint and committed other ethical missteps;
- Schlictmann invoked Rule 1.6 and the attorney-client privilege to avoid having to submit to cross-examination by opposing counsel at a hearing on the Rule 11 motion;
- analyzing Rule 1.13, opposing counsel determined that the owner of one of the tanneries needed personal counsel;
- the owner was eventually found to have lied while testifying at trial; and,
- according to some commentators, Schlictmann may or may not have rejected settlement offers without communicating them to his clients.
What is the name of the movie about the case? Who played Attorney Schlictmann?