Nothing like a little Jay-Z to get people to enter the quiz!
Friday’s questions are HERE. Today, the answers are below the Honor Roll.
- 99 Problems but a Conviction Ain’t 1
- Jordana Levine, Audrey Smith, Rachel Thompson
- Karen Allen
- Matt Anderson
- Evan Barquist
- Alberto Bernabe
- Andrew Costello
- Robert Grundstein
- Keith Kasper
- Deb Kirchwey
- Lon McClintock
- Hal Miller
- Herb Ogden
- Brendan Scherer
Not all rules were created equal. If an attorney’s duties under the rules conflict, which duty is usually viewed as trumping all others?
- A. Duty of zealous advocacy to clients
- B. Duty of fairness to opposing counsel & opposing parties
- C. Duty to provide competent, conflict-free representation
- D. Duty of candor to the courts; See generally, V.R.Pr.C. 3.4. Per the Reporter’s Notes, “if the interests of client and tribunal conflict with regard to candor, the interest of the tribunal prevail.” Also, Comment 11 makes it clear that the duty of candor to the court prevails even in the face of causing “grave consequences” to a client by disclosing the client’s false testimony.
Competence. Conflicts. Candor. There’s another word that begins with “C” that is a serious violation of the rules. However, the word doesn’t appear in any of the rules, notable in its absence from the trust accounting rules and the rule on safekeeping client property.
What’s the word?
This comes up in approximately 30% of the inquiries I receive. So, about 330 times per year.
Imagine I’m speaking at CLE. You hear me say “the idea is that we’re not going to put a client to the ‘Hobson’s Choice’ of having to disclose a confidence in order to protect it.”
What general topic am I discussing?
It is not uncommon for lawyers who encounter former client conflicts to tell me “but Mike, I don’t remember anything about the prior case.” That may be true, but it’s not the standard under Rule 1.9(a). As the Vermont Supreme Court has explained, if the new client’s matter is the same as or substantially related to the former client’s matter, the Court will presume that the former client shared confidential information with the attorney. Why?
- “[t]he purpose of the presumption is to avoid “ ‘putting theformer client to the Hobson’s choice of either having to disclose his privileged information in order to disqualify his former attorney or having to refrain from the disqualification motion altogether.’ ” In re Crepault, 167 Vt. 209, 216-17 (citations omitted).
Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then said,
- “Okay. Since you and Attorney don’t work in the same firm, it is only allowed if you do one of two things. And, since it sounds like Attorney doesn’t want to do any work on Client’s matter, that means that the first option is out. So, your only option is that you each assume joint responsibility for the representation of Client. Otherwise, the rule prohibits it.“
What is “it” that Lawyer called to discuss, and that Lawyer and Attorney propose to do.
Fee Sharing. See, this post.
As another school year approaches, imagine an aspiring 1L heading to law school. Law student is cruising down the highway with the tunes blaring. All of sudden, there are blue lights in the rear view. In the ensuing encounter with police, the law student says to the officer:
- “Well my glove compartment is locked, so is the trunk in the back
And I know my rights, so you gon’ need a warrant for that.”
Problem 1: The situation at hand for our erstwhile law student.
Problem 2: Future issues with the Character & Fitness committee upon applying for admission?
Problem 3: If law student’s statement is based on advice from a lawyer, the lawyer didn’t exactly provide competent & ethical advice.
Your problem: Name the artist & song that was blaring just before law student was pulled over.
Jay-Z, 99 Problems.