Update at 3;49 PM. I can’t believe I forgot to dedicate this week’s column to Pedro Martinez.
Here we go:
- no rules, except #5 is one we try to play honest
- team entries are welcome
- please share the quiz with colleagues
- email answers to at firstname.lastname@example.org
- i’ll post the answers on Monday.
Vermont’s version of this rule remains on the books. However, many states have repealed the rule, choosing instead to prosecute the conduct it prohibits under other rules. Although it is NOT the standard in the rule, discussions of the rule often & mistakenly focus on whether a lawyer did something “solely” to gain an advantage. What is the something?
Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened and responded “you’re on the hook if you ratified it or if you knew about it and failed to take actions to stop it or to mitigate its consequences.”
Most likely, Lawyer called to discuss:
- A. A client’s misleading response to a discovery request
- B A client’s false statement to a tribunal in a non-criminal case
- C. A client’s crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client used the lawyer’s services
- D. Actions by a subordinate lawyer or non-lawyer employee
Fill in the blank. The same word goes in each blank.
Attorney called me with an inquiry. Attorney outlined a proposed course of conduct, concluding with “yes, she’s ________, but she’s a not a party. So, I don’t think the rule applies.”
I replied, in my best Lee Corso voice, “not so fast my friend. the rule applies to all _______ ‘persons’ whether or not they’re parties. If it concerns the matter, the rule applies to her.”
Again, the same word goes in each _______. What is the word?
Lawyer called with an inquiry. I listened and then responded “look, you can do what you want because the rule isn’t mandatory. But, the rule makes it clear that this type of case doesn’t count. The rule doesn’t apply when you expect a fee but the client never pays.”
What general topic did Lawyer call do discuss?
Immigration is often in the news.
This week, the ABA Journal ran an article & podcast about an immigration case. A couple had come to the US to search for the woman’s child. The child had been abducted by the woman’s former husband. The man who came with her was a musician and had previously been convicted in the United Kingdom of possession of cannabis resin.
For various reasons, President Nixon ordered the Justice Department to deport the couple. Thanks in large part to their lawyer, the couple prevailed in court and eventually secured green cards and permanent status.
The couple was quite famous, yet the lawyer they hired had never heard of them. In addition, per the ABA Journal, the lawyer “didn’t know when accepting the case . . . that he and his clients were facing a five-year legal battle that would eventually expose corruption at the highest levels of the Nixon administration and change the U.S. immigration process forever.”
Who were the lawyer’s famous clients?