Monday Morning Answers: Beatles v. Stones

Mystery solved.

  • Mystery:  what can I blog about that will cause lawyers to respond?
  • Solution:  Assert that the Stones are better than the Beatles.

The responses were fantastic!  My non-scientific analysis:

  • 1/3 flat out disagreed with me
  • 1/3 disagreed, but argued that there’s room to like both bands
  • 1/3 agreed

Even within the final group, the responses revealed an affinity for Their Satanic Majesties Request that took me by surprise. Also, within my readership, there’s a healthy undercurrent of support for the The Kinks as being as important to the British Invasion as both the Beatles and Stones.

In any event, I love when lawyers argue passionately about an issue that has nothing to dow with the law. Indeed, one of the goals behind this blog is to demonstrate that we’re much more than the stereotype of our profession.  Readers:  you responses to Friday’s blog proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we are.  Thank you!

Stay tuned – I’m toying with the idea of a turning Friday’s debate into a moot court argument that I’ll use as a fundraiser.  And I already have an excellent idea of who will represent each side!

Friday’s questions are HERE.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Honor Roll


  • Easiest:  Question 1
  • Most difficult: Question 5
  • Most difficult in ethics:  Question 2

There’s a rule that imposes “special responsibilities” upon:

  • A.  Prosecutors; Rule 3.8
  • B.  Judges
  • C.  Juvenile defenders
  • D.  Real estate lawyers who also sell title insurance

Question 2

The “self-defense” exception to Rule 1.6 is often discussed with respect to:

  • A.  Disclosing a client’s intent to commit a crime
  • B.  Disclosing a client’s past commission of a crime
  • C.  Responding to a client’s negative online review; See this blog post.
  • D.  Withdrawing from a matter to keep from violating the ethics rules

Question 3

Which is most accurate?

  • A.  A fee violates the prohibition on unreasonable fees only if it is collected
  • B.  Vermont’s rules require lawyers to self-report violations of the rules
  • C.  A comment to the rule on conflicts of interest with a former client suggests that the rule does not apply if 10 years have passed since the prior representation.
  • D.  A lawyer must deliver the file upon the termination of the representation.  Rule 1.16(d).

Question 4

Attorney called with an inquiry. I listened, then replied:

“If you reasonably believe Client is telling you the truth, you can disclose it to the police or his family or someone who can help.  You don’t have to disclose, but you aren’t prohibited from disclosing.”

What did Attorney learn from or about Client that prompted Attorney to call me?

Attorney learned that Client intended to commit an act that is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm to Client.  See, Rule 1.6(c)(1); Comment [10].

Question 5

With a hidden shout out to regular reader, here’s this week’s question 5:

This week, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with two fantastic groups of lawyers: the state’s prosecutors and the state’s public defenders.  You can’t swing a dead cat in Vermont’s criminal courts without hitting a dedicated, competent public service attorney.  To each group, thank you for all that you do.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys often ask me about Rule 3.8 and a prosecutor’s Brady obligations.  As most of you know, Brady v. Maryland involved a prosecutor’s decision to withhold potentially exculpatory information.

What specific item of evidentiary value to the defense did the Brady prosecutor fail to disclose?

A co-defendant’s written statement that the co-defendant acted alone.