Five For Friday: #68

Welcome to Friday. #68.

Did you know that 68 is the highest known number that is the sum of EXACTLY TWO different sets of prime numbers?  7+61, and, 31 + 37.  All higher even numbers are sums of THREE different sets of prime numbers. This is exactly why I went to law school.

Rules

  • None. It’s open book, open search engine, open-the-office-door-and-ask-a-colleague
  • For fun, try to play Question 5 honest, but it’s not a requirement this week.
  • Team entries welcome.  Creative team names encouraged.
  • Unless stated otherwise, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct apply
  • Please e-mail answers to michael.kennedy@vermont.gov
  • Please do not use the “comment” feature to submit your answers
  • I will post the answers Monday, along with the week’s Honor Roll
  • Please consider sharing the quiz with friends
  • Hashtag & share: #fiveforfriday

Questions 1 & 2

There is a rule that prohibits an act, but only if the act is done to gain an advantage in a certain type of case.

Your mission: identify the act & the type of case.

Question 3

There is a rule that requires a lawyer to “take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests . . ..”

You’ll find the specific language that I quoted in the rule that applies:

  • A.  upon the termination of a representation
  • B.  when the client suffers from a diminished capacity
  • C.   when the client has submitted false testimony or evidence to a tribunal
  • D.   when the client fails to communicate with the lawyer

Question 4

Galen & Meb are contemplating a lawsuit.  They asked Attorney to represent them both in the matter.  Attorney had inkling that a conflict would arise down the road.

Attorney shared his concerns with both Galen & Meb.  Then, sitting with both, Attorney asked Galen & Meb to agree in advance to waive any conflict that might arise.  Both Galen & Meb agreed to waive any future conflict.

Which is most accurate?

  • A.   Attorney violated the rules – VT doesn’t allow advanced waivers
  • B.   Attorney violated the rule on client confidences
  • C.   Attorney violated the rules by failing to provide Galen & Meb an opportunity to seek independent legal advice.
  • D.   If a conflict arises, the rules might require Attorney to withdraw despite the waiver.

Question 5

Several years ago, a PRB case resulted in a debate about Rule 4.1.  In particular, the extent to which it applied to undercover investigations supervised by government attorneys.

Which gives me a hook to this question.

Earlier this week, the New York Attorney General announced that an undercover operation had resulted in the arrest of man named “Newman.”  Newman is alleged to have spent many years defrauding businesses by pretending to be an architect.

In a tweet announcing the arrest of the fake architect, New York’s Attorney General acknowledged the obvious Seinfeld connections.  In fact, the NY AG tweeted that the undercover operation had been given a code name that reflected its Seinfeld ties.

What’s the code name?

Thank you Debbie Emerson, my fake doctor, for the tip!!

the-quiz

 

 

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Five For Friday: #68

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