Friday’s questions are HERE. The answers follow today’s honor roll.
- Karen Allen, Karen Allen Law
- Matthew Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
- Bob Fletcher, Stitzel Page & Fletcher
- Bob Grundstein, Esq.
- Anthony Iarrapino, Wilschek Iarrapino Law Office
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Jeanne Kennedy, King Mum, JB Kennedy Associates
- Aileen Lachs, Mickenberg Dunn Lachs & Smith
- Shannon Lamb, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Michael Lipson, Esq.
- Kevin Lumpkin, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
- Pam Marsh, Marsh & Wagner
- Lon McClintock, McClintock Law Offices
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Mental Health Law Project
- Hal Miller, First American
- Herb Ogden, Ogden Law
- Robyn Sweet, CORE Registered Paralegal, Cleary Shahi & Aicher
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
As I mentioned, Rule 1.2(a) is at the core of a case that the U.S. Supreme Court heard last week. I will blog about it tomorrow.
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. See, Rule 1.8, Comment .
- 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.
False. To my surprise, see Rule 1.12(a). I’d urge caution here.
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?
A motion to withdraw. See, Rule 1.16.
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.