But congrats Jeanne Kennedy! My mom had Always Dreaming to win AND to place, which was good enough for a tidy little payoff and, more importantly, honorable mention Honor Roll status. Given her success and Saturday’s sloppy track, I guess my mother is a mudder.
Spoiler alert – the answers to Friday’s questions appear immediately after the Honor Roll.
- Matthew Anderson, Pratt Vreeland
- Team Churchill Downs
- Beth DeBernardi, ALJ, Department of Laber
- Robert Grundstein, Esq.
- Patrick Kennedy, Systems Engineer, Dealer.Com
- Nicole Killoran, Vermont Law School, JD Externship Program
- Team Marsciovetere & Levine
- Hal Miller, First American, Oceanside Division
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. V.R.Pr.C. 1.15(a)(1)
- D. Nothing.
Note: the rules do not require lawyers to maintain copies of closed files. Rather, Rule 1.16(d) requires a lawyer to surrender the file upon the termination of a representation. If a lawyer chooses to keep a copy (which the lawyer’s liability policy might require) the lawyer is keeping a copy for the lawyer’s own purposes, not because the rules require it.
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. V.R.Pr.C. 1.6(b)(2)
- D. If Baffert is using or has used Attorney’s services to further the crime, Attorney may disclose Baffert’s intent.
The key here is whether Baffert is using or has used Attorney’s services to further the crime. If so, disclosure is mandatory.
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
The rules do not require the fee agreement to be reduced to writing. However, since it was not reduced to writing, it does not qualify as a type of advanced fee that Lawyer may treat as “earned upon receipt.” See, V.R.Pr.C. 1.5(e)(2). We are left, then, with a fee that is paid advanced. Per Rule 1.15(c), the $2500 must go into trust until earned.
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. V.R.Pr.C., 4.4(b)
- 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.
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.)
The Lincoln Lawyer.