This week’s answers come to you live from Boston, MA. I’m preparing to run the Boston Marathon. Unlike most marathons, Boston seeds its start. Faster runners up front, with runners organized, more or less, in numerical order.
It appears that I’m not one of the favorites:
Friday’s questions are HERE. The answers follow the honor roll.
- Evan Barquist
- Penny Benelli
- Beth DeBernardi
- Laura Gorsky
- Robert Grundstein
- Anthony Iarrapino
- Keith Kasper
- Patrick Kennedy
- Nicole Killoran
- Deborah Kirchwey
- Elizabeth Kruska
- Cristina Mansfield
- Hal Miller
- Jim Runcie
Which is most accurate? A contingent fee:
- A. Must be fair
- B. Must be in a writing
- C. Must be in a writing signed by the client; See, Rule 1.5(c) and my blog on the basics of contingent fees.
- D. Must not be calculated until after the client’s expenses are deducted
Attorney called with an inquiry. I listened. I replied “It doesn’t matter that your client ‘initiated’ it, the rule still applies. And the fact that you cc’d your client on the e-mail is not the same as consent.”
What topic did Attorney call to discuss?
Communicating with a represented party. Specifically, Attorney called to discuss whether by cc’ing her client on an email to opposing counsel she had given opposing counsel permission to contact client directly. I blogged on the issue HERE.
Fill in the blank.
In an advisory ethics opinion okaying the use of a particular type of technology, the Philadelphia Bar Association concluded that:
- “CROWDFUNDING sites can be a beneficial source of funds allowing the public to assist in the assertion of valid legal claims that might otherwise go without recourse. Thus, great care should be taken to make sure that the initial development of such sites not affect the ability of subsequent persons to use such a source.”
My blog on crowdfunding is HERE.
North Carolina gained national attention for an amendment to its rules that went into effect last month. If Vermont were to follow the Tar Heel state’s lead, nearly all lawyers would have a duty that, today, only applies to a subset of the bar. It’s the rule that, right now, relates to:
- A. “Admiralty” lawyers being allowed to advertise their area of specialization
- B. Conflicts for defense attorneys who move from a public defender’s office to a state’s attorney’s office
- C. Television ads by lawyers who represent large classes of plaintiffs
- D. A prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence that tends to negate the guilt of an accused.
My blog on the issue is HERE.
Earlier this week, three news media organizations were named co-winners of the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism. The organizations were The Miami Herald, The McClatchy Group DC, and The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The Pulitzer reflected their efforts on reporting a story that involved, among other things, Vladimir Putin, David Cameron, and offshore shell companies. The story came to light after a whistleblower “leaked” 11.5 million documents that a law firm had stored electronically. Review of the documents resulted in the law firm’s name partners being arrested and jailed on suspicion of money laundering.
By what name is the scandal better known?
THE PANAMA PAPERS