Five for Friday: #70 & The Kentucky Derby

Welcome to 70th Five for Friday!

This blog might help me find a new career in math. Turns out, 70 is a sphenic number. As I suspect regular readers Nicole Killoran and Allison Wannop might be able to tell you, a sphenic number factors as 3 distinct primes. In this case (2 x 5 x 7).

Also, did you know that 70 is the smallest weird number?  I didn’t, mainly because I didn’t know that weird numbers were an official thing.  As best as I can tell, a number (X) is “weird” if its non-X divisors add up to more than X, but no subset of the divisors adds up to exactly X.  I wonder if the so-called “weird” numbers are lobbying for a new name.

Nothing like a little Friday morning math to make a legal ethics quiz seem easy!  So, let’s get to it!


  • There are none. It’s open book, open search engine, use whatever resource you have.  Reading the rules is a good thing!
  • Exception: Question 5.  We try to play that one honest.
  • Team entries welcome.  Creative team names encouraged.
  • Unless stated otherwise, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct apply
  • Please e-mail answers to
  • 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

Question 1

Pletcher is a former client of Lawyer’s.  Lawyer took Pletcher’s case on a contingent fee. By rule, what must Lawyer maintain for 6 years following the termination of the representation of Pletcher?

  • A.    A copy of Pletcher’s file
  • B.    A copy of Pletcher’s fee agreement
  • C.    Records of any property or funds held in connection with the representation of Pletcher
  • D.   Nothing.

Question 2

Baffert is a long time client of Attorney. Last night, Baffert met with Attorney for legal advice.  During the meeting, Baffert told Attorney some bad things that he intends to do tomorrow.  As a result, Attorney reasonably believes that Baffert will commit a crime that is certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests of Lukas.  Attorney has no reason to believe that Lukas or anyone else will suffer bodily injury.

Which is most accurate?

  • A.   Attorney must disclose Baffert’s intent
  • B.   Attorney must not disclose Baffert’s intent
  • C.   If Baffert is using or has used Attorney’s services to further the crime, Attorney must disclose Baffert’s intent.
  • D.  If Baffert is using or has used Attorney’s services to further the crime, Attorney may disclose Baffert’s intent.

Question 3

It’s Monday afternoon.

Late Saturday evening, Client was arrested and charged with DUI.  Fortunately (I guess) for Client, he had just won $2500 as a result of McCracken’s stunning victory in the 2017 Kentucky Derby. So, on Monday morning, Client retained Lawyer who agreed to handle the DUI for a $2500 flat fee.  Client and Lawyer decided not to confirm the fee agreement in writing.

Now, on Monday afternoon, which is most accurate?

  • A.   Lawyer violated the rules.
  • B.   Lawyer may not deposit the $2500 into her IOLTA account
  • C.    Lawyer must deposit the $2500 into her IOLTA
  • D.   A & B

Question 4

Attorney represents Irish War Cry.  Opposing Counsel represents Classic Empire.

Reviewing discovery that has been provided by Opposing Counsel, Attorney finds information that Attorney concludes was inadvertently produced.

Which is most accurate?

  • A.   Attorney must notify Opposing Counsel
  • B.   Attorney may notify Opposing Counsel
  • C.   Attorney must first consult with Irish War Cry
  • D.   Attorney’s duties under the Rules of Professional Conduct necessarily depend upon whether the information falls under the evidentiary privilege that Classic Empire shares with Opposing Counsel.

Question 5

Mick is a criminal defense attorney.  His ex-wife is a prosecutor who bears a striking resemblance to one of the players in last week’s Question 5: Mona Lisa Vito.

Mick represents Louis Roulet, an ultra-rich playboy who is accused of a brutal crime. At first, Mick is convinced that Roulet is innocent. However, as the case progresses, Mick’s doubts grow.  Eventually, Roulet tells Mick that he (Roulet) previously committed a different crime . . . a murder for which one of Mick’s former clients, Jesus Martinez, is serving life in prison!

Identify the movie in which Mick confronts the many ethical dilemmas associated with his knowledge that a current client committed a crime for which a former client has been convicted.

(Of lesser importance is whether Mick’s driver, another former client, might have grounds to complain that Mick has charged him an unreasonable fee.)

Footnote:   I predict that the horses referenced in this quiz will finish in the same order of appearance in the quiz.



One thought on “Five for Friday: #70 & The Kentucky Derby

Comments are closed.