Welcome to #102!
You might recall that I used last week’s Mix Tape Edition to share a story about listening to DC101, an FM rock station in Washington D.C. My post drew a surprising response.
You see, DC101 wasn’t the only station in town. It shared the airwaves with WHFS, an iconic progressive rock station. And, my blog apparently attracts an inordinate number of readers who not only listened to D.C. FM rock in the 1990’s, but who preferred WHFS to DC101.
I heard from them.
Here’s an example: a Linkedin post in which a reader (who shall remain anonymous) shared last Friday’s quiz:
I LOVE the share and certainly can’t quibble with the first half of the post. (Worst case, it’s mere puffery.) But “WHFS 102.3 was much better” is a clear violation of the attorney advertising rules!! It’s a qualitative comparison that can’t be substantiated. See, Rule 7.2, Comment .
Alas, let’s not get into which station was better. In fact, I liked WHFS. Not only that, it’s original spot on your FM dial is perfect fodder for the this week’s (#102) column. Check it out:
Disclaimer: by the time I got to D.C., it had changed to 99.1.
In any event, as I said, I liked WHFS. Really, it was my first exposure to alt/progressive rock.
By the way, in last Monday’s post, I mentioned HFStival. Check out the festival lineup over the years. Is there a more sneaky-underrated festival in history? Some of those lineups are legit!
I’m curious – of the HFStivals, if you could only attend one, which would you choose? Personally, I’m having trouble picking between the shows that took place from 1998-2002.
Anyhow, thinking about HFS made me realize one of the most glaring omissions in the history of this blog.
I’ve never referenced The Cure.
It’s an omission that, quite frankly, raises a substantial question as to my fitness as a blogger, not to mention one who uses a “fiveforfriday” to connect legal ethics to pop culture.
I’m not positive, but if I could borrow Bill & Ted’s phone booth (or Doc Brown’s flux capacitor) and travel back to the first time that I heard Friday, I’m in Love, I’d wager that young me would be listening to HFS. It is somewhat embarrassing that the song has never been referenced in this column.
So, in honor of my HFS fans, I’ll end with this:
I don’t care if Monday’s blue
Tuesday’s gray and Wednesday too
Thursday I don’t care about you
It’s Friday I’m in love
Onto the quiz!
- None. Open book, open search engine, text/phone/email-a-friend.
- Exception: Question 5. We try to play that one honest.
- Unless stated otherwise, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct apply
- Team entries welcome, creative team names even more welcome.
- E-mail answers to michael.kennedy@
- I’ll post the answers & Honor Roll on Monday
- Please don’t use the “comment” feature to post your answers
- Please consider sharing the quiz with friends & colleagues
- Please consider sharing the quiz on social media. Hashtag it – #fiveforfriday
Which is doesn’t belong with the others?
- A. Substantially related matter
- B. Materially adverse interests
- C. Informed consent, confirmed in writing
- D. Whether to waive a jury trial, enter a plea, or testify
Lawyer represented Client. Once the representation ended, Client gave Lawyer a gift. Which is most accurate?
- A. Lawyer must not accept the gift
- B. Lawyer may accept the gift, but only if Lawyer handled the matter pro bono
- C. Lawyer may accept the gift, especially if it’s a simple gift such as a holiday present or token of the client’s appreciation.
- D. Mike, objection. The premise of this question is pure fantasy.
Lawyer also works as a mediator. Lawyer mediated a dispute between Brady & Bortles. The mediation did not resolve the dispute. Now, Bortles wants to hire Lawyer in the matter.
True or False: even with Brady’s informed consent, the rules prohibit Lawyer from representing Bortles.
It is not uncommon for me to receive an inquiry in which a lawyer asks what can be included in a particular type of motion. For example: “Mike, I’m thinking of filing a motion __ _______________, but don’t want to disclose any confidences.”
Typically, I reply with something like: “I think it’s best to cite one of the reasons that appears in the rule, then, if asked for more by the court, answer, but only by providing the information necessary to respond to the court’s specific question. And, even then, the motion doesn’t give you license to start blabbing about the case.”
What type of motion?
For purposes of this column, #102 is sufficiently close to ’02, as in 2002.
This week, the United States Supreme Court heard an appeal of a criminal case in which defense counsel conceded a client’s guilt over the client’s objection. Now, the client is on death row. Although styled as a 6th Amendment, effective assistance case, it also involves ethics. Rule 1.2(a) makes it very clear that the decision whether to plead guilty belongs to the client. I intend to blog on the case, either tomorrow or next week.
In any event, in 2002, Halle Berry won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her role as the widow of a man who had been executed for his crime. The movie also starred Billy Bob Thornton, Heath Ledger, Peter Boyle, Sean Combs, and Mos Def.
Yes, I realize that I just broke last week’s promise never again to reference Puffy.
Anyhow, name the movie.