Welcome to May! Before I get to the answers, Friday’s questions are HERE. Click before you scroll, because the answers follow the honor roll.
- Matt Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
- Beth DeBernardi, ALJ, Dept. of Labor
- Andrew Delaney, Martin & Associates
- Laura Gorsky, Law Offices of David Sunshine
- Robert Grundstein,
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Patrick Kennedy, First Brother, Dealer.Com
- Nicole Killoran, Vermont Law School, JD Externship Program
- Elizabeth Kruska
- Team Marsicovetere & Levine Law Group
- Hal Miller, First American, Oceanside Division
- Emily Tredeau, Prisoners’ Rights Office
A comment to one of the rules includes the following language.
- “a lawyer should adopt reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, to determine in both litigation and non-litigation matters the persons and issues involved. Ignorance caused by a failure to institute such procedures will not excuse a violation of this rule.”
What’s the topic of the rule?
Conflicts. Rule 1.7, Comment . In other words, ignorance caused by a failure to adopt reasonable procedures to check for conflicts will not excuse a violation of the rule.
Solo just opened a new practice. Solo used to work for the Alliance Firm.
At new practice, Solo represents Vader in matter against Luke.
Luke asks Alliance for representation. Prior to asking, Luke has never been represented by Alliance.
Which is most accurate?
- A. Alliance may not represent Luke.
- B. If Vader is a former client of Alliance, Alliance may not represent Luke
- C. If Vader is a former client of Alliance, Alliance may not represent Luke absent Vader’s informed consent.
- D. If Vader is a former client of Alliance, Alliance may represent Luke unless (1) the matter is the same as or substantially related to a matter in which it represented Vader; and (2) any lawyer working at Alliance has information about Vader that the rules prohibit from being disclosed. See, Rule 1.10(b).
Not a single reader commented on the Star Wars reference.
Vermont’s rules prohibit lawyers from asking a person other than to client to voluntarily refrain from giving information to another party. The rule does not apply if (a) the person is a relative, employee, or agent of the client; AND (b) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person’s interests will not be adversely affected by choosing to refrain from giving the information.
The rule applies to all types of cases. However, the Reporter’s Notes caution lawyers that conduct permitted by the rule:
- A. Is discouraged.
- B. Adversely reflects on a lawyers’ fitness to practice law if done regularly
- C. Might constitute obstruction of justice in a criminal case. See, Rule 3.4(f), Reporter’s Notes to 2009 Amendments.
- D. Likely violates the rule on dealing with the unrepresented person
Attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened, then responded by saying “generally, it’s prohibited if one of your significant motives for doing so is pecuniary gain. Though, if motivated by pecuniary gain, it’s okay if the person is a lawyer or has a close family/personal/professional relationship with you.”
What general topic did Attorney call to discuss?
Solicitation/Direct Contact with Prospective Clients. Rule 7.3(a).
Vincent Gambino meandered back & forth across the line between “ethical” and “not ethical.” But, talk about tech competence! (positraction is technology!) Plus, in the end, Gambino’s trial skills demonstrated an ability to provide competent & diligent representation. Question 5 invokes Gambino.
The question: What color am I?
- I am a color. Attorney Gambino asked witness Mona Lisa Vito about a similarity between the 1963 Pontiac Tempest and the 1964 Buick Skylark. Specifically, he asked if both GM models were available in me. Ms. Vito answered “They were!”
What color am I?
I am Metallic Mint Green.