Five for Friday #52

Welcome to the final week of the first year of Five for Friday.  What a run!  People often ask what others say about the quiz.  I’ll tell you what: Question 5 has become a monster!

That’s right, more people comment on the regular pop culture question than on the ethics questions.  Some people think it’s too hard.  Others think I focus too much on “old” movies/songs/tv shows.  Still others think I focus too much on new stuff.

Folks, my audience spans the generations.  If nobody is happy with me, then I’m doing my job.

Speaking of question 5, parts 1 & 2 of this week’s iteration harken back to my days at GW Law.   Which reminds me of Tom Lewis.

I met Tom in September 1990 as 1L.  He’s been one of my closest friends ever since. (fortunately, the Character & Fitness Committee never found him.) Tom beat me to the blogging game by about 10 years, starting his own blog to cover the Indiana Pacers in his spare time. It has since been scooped up by SB Nation.  I need to find the equivalent scooper upper in the law blog world. In any event, IndyCornrows is Ethical Grounds’ offical source for NBA news.

Stick with me here.

As loyal readers are aware, two things near and dear to my heart are tech competence and basketball. Which leads me to what might be the most technically competent play in the history of  basketball.

It’s HERE.  Off a jump ball, Draymond Green hit Steph Curry in stride with a full-court pass.  Curry caught it in the air and, without landing or looking, lobbed it backwards over his head to Kevin Durant for an alley-oop dunk.  For those of you unfamiliar with basketball, Green’s pass traveled approximately 30 yards. In other words, a very long pass in a football game.  Not only that, after the ball left Green’s hand but before it hit the ground, two other players caught it, neither of whom was on the ground, and scored a basket.  Wuuutttt????

Oddly, the play came in a game in which  Klay Thompson scored 60 points.  Here’s the legal equivalent:  Klay’s 60 is like you watcing a trial and  seeing an amazing closing argument that people talk about for days and remember for years.  Arguably, one of the top closings of the past decade. Oh, and by the way, earlier in the trial, co-counsel conducted the best cross-eximination in the history of trials.  The Green-Curry-Durant play is the cross-examination.

And who was present on press row to witness the game in person?  That’s right, Tom Lewis.

To the quiz we go.  A few ground rules:

  • there are no rules. Open book, open search engine, phone/chat/text a friend.
  • except Question 5. We keep that one honest.
  • team entries welcome
  • unless stated otherwise, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct control
  • email answers to michael.kennedy@vermont.gov
  • I will post the answers on Monday morning

Question 1

My view is that Vermont’s rules prohibit “noisy withdrawal.”  What is it that makes “noisy withdrawal” a violation?

  • A.   Lawyer has no grounds to withdraw
  • B.   Lawyer misleads the court as to the reason for withdrawing
  • C.   Lawyer discloses too much information in the process of withdrawing
  • D.   Lawyer allows opposing counsel to communicate directly with Lawyer’s client while the motion to withdraw is pending.

Question 2

Attorney represents Client.  Shortly before trial, Attorney discovers a conflict and moves to withdraw.  The motion is denied.  Despite the conflict, Attorney represents Client at trial.  Which is most accurate?

  • A.  Attorney complied with the rules
  • B.  Attorney violated the rules
  • C.  Attorney violatd the rules, but the circumstances mitigate any sanction
  • D.  It depends – did Attorney seek an interlocutory appeal?

Question 3

Which is different than the others?

  • A.   Lawyer raises competency over a criminal defense client’s objection
  • B.   Lawyer raises sanity over a criminal defense client’s objection
  • C.   Lawyer refuses to allow a criminal defense client to testify
  • D.   Lawyer disburses trust funds in reliance upon the deposit of a client’s personal check in the amount of $1500

Question 4

Attorney called with an inquiry.  I listened, then asked “it depends.  are you holding them in connection with a representation?”

Which rules did Attorney call to discuss?

Question 5

Earlier this week, I presented a CLE for the Windham County Bar Association.  (An aside, the CLE preceded the WCBA’s dinner at The Four Columns Inn.  If you’ve never eaten there, add it to your bucket list.)  Anyhow, the WCBA’s esteemed secretary, L. Raymond Massucco, suggested my topic weeks in advance. I obliged, and the title of my presentation was a common pop culture phrase.

My presentation included 3 parts. Here are the slides I used to introduce each part.  From the slides, what was the title of my presentation? (remember – 2 seconds ago I wrote that it’s a common pop culture phrase.)

Update: seems like we need a hint.  Each slide represents a different word or words in the pop culture phrase. That is, each slide introduced a different section of the seminar.

 

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Five for Friday #52

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