Monday, Monday. Can’t trust that day.
Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll. A safe & peaceful New Year to all.
- Beth DeBernardi, Administrative Law Judge, VT Dept. of Labor
- Jake Durrell, Esq.
- Erin Gilmore, Ryan Smith Carbine
- Bob Grundstein, Esq.
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Jeanne Kennedy, JB Kennedy Associates, My mom
- Lawyers in Cars Eating Chick Fil-A
- Lon McClintock, McClintock Law Offices
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project
- Jeff Messina, Bergeron Paradis Fitzpatrick
- Hal Miller, First American
- Herb Ogden, Esq.
- Eric Parker, Bauer Gravel & Farnham
- Bob Pratt, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Vermont Law School, Class of 2020, Staff Editor, Law Review
I often blog about tech competence.
19 years ago today, there was great fear that we were only days away from a massive tech problem. The Deputy Secretary of Defense warned that the problem was the “electronic equivalent of the El Niño and there will be nasty surprises around the globe.”
What is the name associated with the problem that, in fact, didn’t turn into much of a problem at all?
Somewhat related . . .
. . . Rule 1.6 prohibits lawyers from disclosing information related to the representation of a client. Rule 1.16(d) requires lawyers to deliver the file upon the termination of a representation. I’ve also blogged on what to do when subpoenaed to produce a client file.
In 2016, a Minnesota court considered a dispute between a deceased person’s estate lawyers and divorce lawyers.
Client’s estate lawyers wanted the divorce file, asserting that it might contain “potentially relevant” information as to Client’s potential heirs. Client’s divorce lawyers (who work at a different firm than the estate lawyers) refused, arguing that it had a professional obligation not to disclose “information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine which was generated and acquired during the decedent’s lifetime.”
The Court agreed with the estate lawyers and ordered the divorce lawyers to produce the file.
The Client was a famous musician. Name the musician’s song that somewhat relates to the previous question and today’s New Year theme.
Imagine that someone files a disciplinary complaint against a lawyer. I screen the complaint. The complainant alleges that she met the lawyer at a New Year’s Eve party and was offended when she overheard him refer to her as “a verbally incontinent spinster who smokes like a chimney, drinks like a fish and dresses like her mother.” Yet, the complainant concedes that the insult caused her to resolve to make changes in her life.
Specifically, the complainant credits the lawyer’s rudeness with causing her to write as follows:
New Year’s Resolutions
These are the things I decided I would do this year.
1. Stop smoking.
2. Develop a mature
relationship with an adult man.
3. Go to the gym.
4. Be kinder and help others more.
I ended up dismissing the complaint. Why? Because by the end of the year, the complainant withdrew it, having learned that the lawyer wasn’t as bad as she initially thought. He hadn’t broken up her friend Daniel’s marriage, it was the other way around. The lawyer even bought her a new journal. Plus, the PRB doesn’t have jurisdiction over barristers.
Who filed the complaint?
Regular readers know that I’m a fan of Taylor Swift and The Rolling Stones. I’ve seen each in concert. However, the first concert that I ever attended was U2. I saw the band in Montreal during The Joshua Tree tour.
While I’m pro Taylor Swift, and pro Rolling Stones, perhaps I’d be well-served to refer to U2 when addressing a particular section of the Rules of Professional Conduct. New Year’s Day this time of year, or, better yet, a member of the band.
The section is critically important, but often forgotten when thinking of “legal ethics.” Which section?
Midway thru the day on Friday, I rephrased the question to try to make it easier. I failed. Guess it’s a poor question.
Anyway, I’m also pro Bono.
And pro pro bono. Don’t forget! The public service rules (6.1 – 6.5) are very important! Here are som FAQs.
You represent a client who has been charged with ordering a relative’s death. You’re well aware that Rule 1.2(a) requires you to abide by your client’s wishes whether to plea, whether to waive a jury trial, and whether to testify.
Your client has opted not to plea. Now, he wants to testify in his own defense. Specifically, he wants to testify as to what he meant when, during a New Year’s Eve party in Havana, he said to the now deceased relative:
“I know it was you Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart.”
What is your client’s name?
Bonus: Name the movie.
Michael Corleone, in The Godfather: Part II The scene is here.