Thursday Tidbits

I used to love Tid-Bits!

See the source image

I didn’t blog much this week.  So, I thought I’d take a few minutes to pass on some tidbits from the world of professional responsibility.

  • If you inform a court that you missed a hearing because your car was in the shop, don’t forget this: the court might follow-up by asking for your mechanic’s name and a receipt for the work done.  An inability to provide either might lead to your (law) license being suspended.   The ABA Journal has the story here.
  • Also from the ABA Journal, JurisBytes was one of the winners at the ABA Tech show.  The startup designed an app that assists lawyers to track the time spent texting clients.
  • In this blog post, Jonathan Turley welcomes the news that New York disbarred Michael Cohen.  I took Professor Turley’s property law class at GW.
  • Professor Alberto Bernabe, a frequent member of this blog’s #fiveforfriday Honor Roll in legal ethics, breaks down the Ohio Bar’s recent advisory ethics opinion on conflicts of interest.
  • My job often includes guiding lawyers through the ethics issues that arise when they leave a firm.  Until today, I’d never run across this one.  As reported by Above The Law, a law firm sued an associate who quit 1 year into a 3-year “employment commitment.”  Per the report, the firm alleges breach of contract and is seeking damages for the time spent training & mentoring the departed associate, time that more seniors lawyers will now have to spend working with someone new instead of billing clients.
  • Finally, and a tip of the electronic hat to Professor Bernabe for calling this to my attention, the Legal Profession Blog posted Sunlight in Vermont, noting that Vermont’s Professional Responsibility Board has a “first-rate transparent web page.”

Who says we’ve had no sunshine lately?????

The bar exam: a Q&A with the examiners

The bar exam begins today.

Forty-one aspiring members of the Vermont bar will be there.  I’ll be there too, as a proctor.  That’s a good thing.  I have a better chance of skiing Paradise from top to bottom without falling than I do of passing the bar exam.  And I say that knowing full well that I don’t know how to ski.

These days, Vermont’s bar exam is much different than many of you remember.  In 2016, Vermont switched to the Uniform Bar Exam (“UBE”).  For an overview of the UBE, check out this post from last summer.

Today, I’m happy to be able to share additional information about the exam, courtesy of Keith Kasper and Andy Strauss.  Keith chairs the Board of Bar Examiners (“BBE”) and is a regular member of the #fiveforfriday Honor Roll in Legal Ethics.  Andy is Vermont’s Licensing Counsel and is responsible for the administration of the bar exam.  They were kind enough to take time out from exam prep to answer questions.

All mistakes are mine.

MK:  In legal ethics, the very first rule requires lawyers to provide clients with competent representation. To some degree, is that what the UBE is intended to do? Help us to identify lawyers who meet (or exceed) a minimal level of competence?  That is, the UBE is more than testing who can remember the most from law school, right?

Keith:  The UBE is a measure to assure that those applicants we certify for licensure are qualified to practice law. Unfortunately, a law school degree is not sufficient. While not part of the UBE, the MPRE (Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam) is utilized by most states to assure that bar applicants have studied not only the substantive aspects of the law but the ethical requirements of being a lawyer. On the other hand, the UBE evaluates the core legal knowledge of the applicants as to the most important aspects of a modern law practice.  It undergoes periodic review and updating to reflect the modern practice of law in this country. One of the most recent changes since you and I took the bar exam is to add federal civil procedure to the Multistate Bar Exam (“MBE”) portion of the UBE, as procedural aspects of the practice of law are also of great importance to the competent practice of law.

MK:  Competence is key!  So, conflicts of interest are a big thing in my world.  I know that some in the state were “conflicted” about the change from the so-called “Vermont-specific essays” to the written portions of the UBE.  Can you share the BBE’s thinking on the change?  Was it a tough decision? And, any thoughts on how it has worked out?

 Keith: It was a tough decision, one that took years to ultimately make. However, I would phrase the decision in terms of competence. The Board ultimately decided that professional test developers would do a better job drafting bar exam questions more consistently year over year than us part-time amateurs were able to do. We did lose the ability to test on Vermont specific items, but we addressed this issue by requiring new lawyers to take 15 hours of CLE in the basics of Vermont practice and procedure. In addition, we replaced the old pre-admission clerkship requirement with a new one year post admission mentorship program to try to push new lawyers out into the legal community to experience as wide an array of Vermont law and practice as pragmatically possible, and to give new lawyers a mentor they can go to at almost any point in their career with questions as to Vermont law and practice. So, while I do miss drafting bar exam questions, (Anybody out there remember a Workers’ Compensation/Tort bar exam question?) I think the bar, bar applicants and the public are better served with these new admission requirements.

MK Note: the CLE & mentorship requirements that Keith mentioned are here.

MK:  I speak and blog often on attorney wellness. Wellness includes stress management.   When I took the bar exam, there was a thunderstorm that knocked out the power.  Talk about stressful!  I know that the Board and Andy work hard to ensure that the testing environment is as conducive to success as possible.  Are there any challenges with making an otherwise stressful event as stress-free as possible?

Andy: One challenge is that we rely on an outside vendor to provide the software for those examinees who want to take the exam by laptop.  It can be stressful when one or two (or more) people are having difficulty getting set up with the software right before the exam.  But the software package is good, and the vendor is responsive on exam day and provides us with an on-site technology person.

MK:  I remember “Barmageddon” in the summer of 2015.  Fortunately, we didn’t run into any serious problems here.  But I worried for some of the examinees as the uploads stalled.

Andy: One thing I’ve noticed is that, although the examinees are involved in a stressful exam situation, they are for the most part polite and friendly on exam day.  Not having people get upset or angry or impatient goes a long way towards a smooth exam administration.

The other thing that is important is for myself and the other staff helping to put on the exam to recognize that the examinees are full of stress and to be as friendly, helpful, patient, and understanding as possible.  I think we do a great job at that.  I also take that approach in all of my interactions with examinees during the application process.

MK: Very interesting point Andy. I love that, at the bar exam, you W.I.N your 3-feet of influence.  I covered 4 or 5 exams and proctored many others. I too was often struck by how nice our examinees are.  Practicing lawyers should take note! Rule 3.5(d)!  Anyhow, as fortunate as we’ve been to enjoy such high-quality examinees, not all states are the same.  I know that folks in your job spend significant time & resources ferreting out cheaters.  What are a few of the craziest cheating stories you’ve heard?

Andy: To be honest, I haven’t really heard any crazy stories!  Sometimes I read about spy-like technology, like camera glasses and speaker earrings, but that’s really about it.

MK:  Dang. I was hoping you’d busted a twin taking it for her sister. But I suppose it’s good that you’ve not had to deal with anyone as audacious as my favorite bar exam fraudster: Mike Ross

So, speaking of technology.  A lot of lawyers might not know that examinees can now use their laptops for the essays.  About how many take advantage of that option? Can I assume the graders love it? Also, do you think we’ll see a day where the multiple-choice segment of the exam is digital or electronic

Andy: Almost all examinees take it on a laptop nowadays.  And I don’t think we’re that far from seeing the MBE (multiple choice) being taken electronically.  The ethics exam that the National Conference of Bar Examiners administers is about to be given electronically, so the MBE will probably follow not long after.

Here, unlike the cheating tools I mentioned, technology is definitely good.  I’m sure the graders are happy not to be trying to decipher handwriting as often as they used to, and I wouldn’t mind not having to sharpen 200 pencils before every exam.

MK:  The bar exam: the last bastion of the #2 pencil!

Next, I asked the same question of both Andy & Keith but had them answer separately and only to me.

For Keith:  You are an experienced practitioner. You’ve served on many VBA and Court projects and committees designed to improve the profession.  What’s something that the exam doesn’t test – in fact that may be impossible to test – that’s critical to a successful career as a lawyer?

Keith: On the national level one area that has been discussed would be client interview skills. My understanding is that they test patient evaluation skills for new doctors for the Doctor licensing exams. I think the issue is that we have so many more lawyers taking the bar exam then doctor’s taking their licensing exam that a nationwide evaluation of one on one people skills is just not practical to add to the bar exam.  However, people skills and listening to your client are vital to many areas of legal practice. (When one of my firm founding partners, John Fitzpatrick, took the bar exam back in 1958, there was an oral component to the bar exam in VT.) I personally have suggested to the National Conference of Bar Examiners adding administrative law to the mix of areas to be tested given how many lawyers deal with administrative law issues. One thing that has changed on the bar exam since you and I took it is adding a performance exam portion to the testing protocol. Essentially the applicant is given a file folder of factual materials and copies of all the law they need to know to complete the project (from the fictional state of Franklin). The applicant needs to complete the project (drafting a memo, for example) and determine what information is relevant and what is not to address the issue and apply the relevant law correctly to the project and understand what law is relevant to the issue. This test a different skill set from taking a multiple-choice test and writing a law school type essay answer which had previously been the focus of the bar exam. Again, the bar exam continues to evolve over time. The MPRE is being given on tablets this year with the thought that ultimately the National Conference would move to providing specially dedicated computers for applicants to take the bar exam. A long way from the old days of handwritten essay exams in blue books. Given my horrendous handwriting it is a miracle I passed!

For Andy: You have a varied background: private practice, criminal prosecutor, in-house counsel to a government agency. In your experience, what’s something that the bar exam doesn’t test – indeed, might be impossible to test – that is critical to success as a lawyer?

Andy:  I think the bar exam is good at testing legal analysis skills: discerning key facts, applying the law to those facts.  These skills are essential to success as a lawyer.  But unless you are an appellate lawyer, much if not most of your time will be spent doing other things.  As a prior litigator, I see the two most important “other things” as (1) communicating with clients, attorneys, and judges, and (2) gathering facts (i.e. depositions, client interviews, document review, etc.).  The MPT (the performance section of the exam) only grazes the surface of these.  So, if we are using the bar exam to ensure minimal professional competence, we need to figure out a way to test these areas.

That said, my personal experience from law school leads me to think that people are not getting much training in these areas during their legal education.  So, ensuring that new attorneys can communicate effectively and successfully gather facts likely requires a much larger change in how we train and evaluate new lawyers.

MK: Each of you has mentioned technology.  Has anyone ever suggested the bar exam should be open book? I mean, really, these days, our mobile devices allow us to look up answers on demand. So, it’s not like a lawyer will ever have to do something by memory.

Keith:  The open book issue has been raised in the past, but not recently. Not sure what the answer to that question is from a testing metrics perspective. I think the bigger problem with mobile devices is cheating: Is this your work or not? The National Conference usually has an eye-opening seminar every year on the new devices and methods of cheating. These days, we do not allow you to even bring your own watch or pencils into the testing room. A few years ago, someone’s wife took the bar exam for him in California after he had had multiple failures. I think they both got disbarred.

MK:  You are right!  The Los Angeles Times has the story here.  I admit, I had to look it up. I didn’t know it by memory.  Maybe she’s the one who inspired the creators of Mike Ross!

Several years ago, I was an associate examiner.  One of the essay questions was on professional responsibility.  Believe it or not, I was assigned to grade answers to that question.  True story: one person wrote something like: “I don’t know. I’d call Mike Kennedy.”    That must be worth something, right??

Keith:  That is definitely worth at least one point! It is impossible to know all the law. Knowing who to ask if you don’t know the answer is almost as good as knowing the answer itself.

 MK:  Great point, Keith. And one that goes to the value of the new mentorship program.  Okay, final question for each of you, a question related to attorney wellness.

Andy – you race Dragon Boats.  Not only “race,” you were in the world championships! I assume there won’t be drummers in the exam tomorrow.  Are there similarities in preparing for a dragon boat race and, say, the bar exam or an important hearing?

Andy: Now that’s an interesting question!  Here’s one thought:  Going into big performance challenges, such as a competition or a bar exam or a trial, there can be a rush of nervousness and even fear of failure.  I think that at those points, it is extremely important to consciously recognize how hard you have worked to prepare for the event and consciously put your trust in that training.  The nervousness may still be there, but your focus will be elsewhere.

And no, no drummers at the exam.  Just the silent ticking of the countdown clock!

MK:  Ha! If only Poe had written about the bar examKeith – you’re a huge fan of The Grateful Dead.  A few weeks from now, you’ll be grading bar exams.  Which Dead show will be playing on your sound system?

Keith: Philadelphia 1987 (Place and year I graduated from law school.) Favorite song from that 3-night stand of concerts, and my theme song for when I was studying for the VT bar exam later that year: “I Need a Miracle Every Day!”

 MK:  Don’t we all!  Here’s the video.  Great stuff guys!  Thank you for taking the time, and thanks for all you do for Vermont’s legal profession!

 

Monday Morning Answers #152

Welcome to a new week!  Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Honor Roll

Answers

Question 1

Each of the following words is in the name of its own rule. Three of the rules involve the same type of ethics issue.   Which is associated with a different ethics issue than the other three?

  • A.  Prospective
  • B.  Meritorious
  • C.  Current
  • D.  Former

A, C, and D are types of clients in the conflicts rules (Rules 1.18, 1.7, 1.9).  B is different.  Rule 3.1 is entitled “Meritorious Claims & Contentions” and is the ethics equivalent of civil rule 11.

Question 2

Attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened, then replied, “yes, but only in an amount reasonably necessary for the purpose.”

You may assume that my response accurately (and exactly) quoted the rule.  Thus, Attorney asked whether the rules permit a lawyer to:

  • A.   charge for copying
  • B.   bill for travel time
  • C.   take time off to relax
  • D.   deposit the lawyer’s own money in a trust account.   Rule 1.15(b)

Question 3

There are two rules that impose a duty to take “reasonable remedial” action or measures.  One is the rule that addresses a lawyer’s duties when a nonlawyer assistant does something that would violate the rules if the lawyer did it.  The other is the rule that addresses a lawyer’s duties when the lawyer learns that:

  • A.   the lawyer deposited the lawyer’s own funds into a trust account
  • B.   opposing counsel violated the Rules of Professional Conduct
  • C.   the lawyer inadvertently communicated with a represented party
  • D.   a client engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to a proceeding in which the lawyer represents the client.  Rule 3.3(b).

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then asked:

  • “I understand the first part: you have reason to believe that your client is going to commit a criminal act.  What I didn’t understand is this: is the criminal act going to result in substantial bodily harm to your client? Or to someone other than your client?”

Lawyer’s inquiry related to the rule on:

  • A.   Client confidences.  
  • B.   Withdrawal
  • C.   Concurrent conflicts of interests
  • D.   Duties of a Prosecutor

This is Rule 1.6If the harm will result to the client, disclosure is permissive under Rule 1.6(c)(1).  If it will result to someone other than the client, disclosure is mandated by Rule 1.6(b)(1).  

Question 5

Speaking of Shakespeare, what did Dick the Butcher suggest to Jack Cade that they do first?

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Henry VI, Part II, act IV.

As the Wall Street Journal points out here, many have argued that the line is “pro-lawyer.”  Cade aspired to power.  Dick the Butcher was one of his henchmen.  The path to power included sowing disorder and depriving citizens of their rights, a plan that, first, required ridding society of the stewards of order and protectors of those rights: lawyers.

See the source image

Five for Friday #152

Welcome to February’s final Friday.  You know what that means?

Spring is near!

Indeed, as @CounselorAdrian has hashtagged of late, #TheLightIsWinning.

That’s wellness!

On the other hand, I’m not certain that the light was winning in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 152.

I know next to nothing about Shakespeare.  With “next to” being defined as “immediately adjacent to, if not leaning upon.”  It’s my worst category in Jeopardy.  Even worse than “Opera.”

Sometimes I watch Jeopardy with my mom.  When “Opera” is a category, I drive her crazy by yelling “Puccini!!” as soon as each clue is revealed.

You know what?  Every now and then “Who is Puccini” is right!

Alas, I have no such luck in “Shakespeare.”  That’s because the easiest clues are worth $200.  Not 2 cents.

Anyhow, looking for something to tie to this week’s number, I stumbled across Sonnet 152.  It’s the last of the so-called Dark Lady sonnets.   Literally, here’s the CliffsNotes version.  In short, in Sonnet 152, the writer acknowledges that love has rendered him blind. It left him unable (or unwilling) to see what was obvious.

Thinking on it, I was reminded of an article that I read in yesterday’s ABA Journal: Jeffrey Bunn’s Is there anybody in there? Lawyers can learn something about mindfulness from Pink FloydIt’s worth a read.  Bunn observes:

  • “We have, regrettably, become comfortably numb to something we need to prioritize and invest in—lawyer well-being, including mindfulness and meditation.”

As most readers know, I’ve banged the drum on attorney wellness, both on this blog and at presentations around Vermont.  Overall, and over time, the reception has been positive.  The profession now realizes that it has to do something for lawyers who are coping with significant behavioral health issues.

Mindfulness?  Folks seem a little more fuzzy on that, less willing to agree that it’s a critical component of competence. That’s where Sonnet 152 and Comfortably Numb collide.

Please read the ABA Journal’s full post.  Otherwise, in short, Bunn argues that being mindful of mindfulness is a good thing for the profession.  His argument reminds me that attorney wellness is much more than helping lawyers whose practices are at risk due to crippling and unaddressed substance abuse & mental health problems.  Wellness includes mindfulness, or, as Bunn writes:

  • “Don’t get me wrong—I don’t believe that the legal profession is broken. But it certainly is sick. Sick, as in: Not sustainable as currently constituted. That’s because our profession comprises women and men who can all use a little TLC, once in a while.”

He continues:

  • “Mindfulness and meditation are important pieces of the well-being pie, and our institutions would do us all a great service—they’d do themselves a great service—if they could find a way to normalize those practices and bring them into the everyday realm of our profession. Neither is a panacea for everything that ails our profession, but they can provide us with precious time—time to sharpen our awareness, time to contemplate and reflect—time for ourselves, which, in turn, can benefit our institutions.”

In Sonnet 152, the speaker realized he’d long turned a blind eye to the obvious.  In a way, we’ve done the same.  Every single one of us needs a little TLC every now and then.  It’s time to open our eyes to mindfulness.

We cannot afford to remain Comfortably Numb.

Onto the quiz!

Rules

  • None.  Open book, open search engine, text/phone/email-a-friend.
  • Exception – but one that is loosely enforced – #5 isn’t open book.  (“loosely enforced” = “aspirational”)
  • 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@vermont.gov
  • 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

Question 1

Each of the following words is in the name of its own rule. Three of the rules involve the same type of ethics issue.   Which is associated with a different ethics issue than the other three?

  • A.  Prospective
  • B.  Meritorious
  • C.  Current
  • D.  Former

Question 2

Attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened, then replied, “yes, but only in an amount reasonably necessary for the purpose.”

You may assume that my response accurately (and exactly) quoted the rule.  Thus, Attorney asked whether the rules permit a lawyer to:

  • A.   charge for copying
  • B.   bill for travel time
  • C.   take time off to relax
  • D.   deposit the lawyer’s own money in a trust account

Question 3

There are two rules that impose a duty to take “reasonable remedial” action or measures.  One is the rule that addresses a lawyer’s duties when a nonlawyer assistant does something that would violate the rules if the lawyer did it.  The other is the rule that addresses a lawyer’s duties when the lawyer learns that:

  • A.   the lawyer deposited the lawyer’s own funds into a trust account
  • B.   opposing counsel violated the Rules of Professional Conduct
  • C.   the lawyer inadvertently communicated with a represented party
  • D.   a client engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to a proceeding in which the lawyer represents the client

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then asked:

  • “I understand the first part: you have reason to believe that your client is going to commit a criminal act.  What I didn’t understand is this: is the criminal act going to result in substantial bodily harm to your client? Or to someone other than your client?”

Lawyer’s inquiry related to the rule on:

  • A.   Client confidences
  • B.   Withdrawal
  • C.   Concurrent conflicts of interests
  • D.   Duties of a Prosecutor

Question 5

Speaking of Shakespeare, what did Dick the Butcher suggest to Jack Cade that they do first?

See the source image

 

 

 

Judges & Facebook Redux

In November, I posted Judges & their Facebook Friends.  

The post highlighted the Florida Supreme Court’s conclusion”that an allegation that a trial judge is a Facebook ‘friend’ with an attorney appearing before the judge, standing alone, does not constitute a legally sufficient basis for disqualification.”  I blogged that I agreed, but concluded with:

  • “Finally, remember: just like real-life relationships, a Facebook friendship or other social media connection might create an appearance that provides a basis to inquire further.  So maybe it’s best to avoid such connections.”

At the time, I didn’t think it necessary to add “for instance, a judge shouldn’t accept a FB friend request from a litigant a week after a contested hearing, but before the judge has issued a ruling.”  Seems obvious, right?  Apparently not to all.

Yesterday, Kevin Lumpkin tipped me off to this opinion from an appellate court in Wisconsin.  Besides being timely – the opinion only issued yesterday – Kevin is also a regular member of the #fiveforfriday Honor Roll in legal ethics.

Kevin – thanks for the tip!

Here’s what happened.

In 2011, Angela and Timothy stipulated to an order granting them joint legal custody of their child. In 2016, Angela moved to modify the order.  A hearing on the motion took place in June 2017.  Among other things, Angela argued that Timothy had physically abused her.  The judge allowed the parties 10 days to file post-hearing memoranda and took the matter under advisement.

The critical section of the timeline:

  • June 16: Angela and Timothy each filed post-hearing memos.
  • June 19: the judge accepted a Facebook friend request from Angela.
  • June 19-July 14: Angela “liked” 18 of the judge’s Facebook posts and commented on two of them.  She had also liked or shared multiple third-party posts related to domestic violence.
  • July 14: the judge issued his ruling.

The judge granted Angela’s motion.  He concluded that had established that Timothy’s pattern of domestic abuse was a substantial change in circumstances that warranted a modification of the order.

Angela’s Facebook friendship with the judge eventually came to light.  Timothy appealed, arguing that, at the very least, the e-relationship created an “appearance of partiality.”

The appellate court agreed that it had.  Indeed, given the facts peculiar to the case, the court saw no need to address when, exactly, a social media relationship requires disqualification. As they say, it was a no-brainer.  The court reversed and remanded the judge’s decision, and directed that a different judge consider Angela’s original motion.

I remain of the opinion that a social relationship, standing alone and whether electronic or “real life,” is not a sufficient basis to disqualify a lawyer from appearing before a judge.  I also remain of the opinion that such relationships merit further inquiry before proceeding.

But the Wisconsin case did not involve a pre-existing relationship.  Angela actively sought the judge’s electronic friendship while her motion remained pending! As the Wisconsin appellate court noted:

  • “First, the time when [the judge] and [Angela] became Facebook ‘friends’ would cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s partiality. Although [the judge] apparently had thousands of Facebook ‘friends,’ [Angela] was not simply one of the many people who ‘friended’ him prior to this litigation. Rather, [Angela] was a current litigant who reached out to [the judge] and requested to become his Facebook ‘friend’ after testifying at a contested hearing, at which [the judge] was the sole decision-maker. [The judge] then took the affirmative step to accept this ‘friend’ request before issuing his decision in this case.

Take social media out of it.  The result – an  appearance of partiality – is no different than if the judge had agreed to buy a ticket to a calcutta to raise money for Angela’s kid’s school trip.  Or accepted an invitation to join her gym.

As I blogged a few weeks ago, don’t fear tech.  Instead, use common sense.

Finally, the decision makes me wonder: does the duty of competence include advising clients NOT to forge social media relationships with judges while a matter is pending?

If you know the client intends to? Yes. Generally, probably not. But it’s worth keeping in mind.

Social Media

 

 

Wellness Wednesday: Meet Andrew Manitsky

It’s Wednesday, so you know what that means!

I like to use the Wellness Wednesday posts to introduce you to members of the legal profession who make sure to make time for non-legal, non-lawyerly things. As the VBA’s Jennifer Emens-Butler says, “pursuits of happiness.”  Links to my prior posts on lawyers and their non-lawyerly interests appear at the end of today’s blog.

Today, I’d like to introduce you to Andrew Manitsky.

Andrew is an attorney at Lynn, Lynn, Blackman and Manitsky.  He sits on one of the PRB’s hearing panels (our version of a trial court) and is a member of the VBA Board of Managers.  Andrew chairs the VBA’s Intellectual Property section.

None of that is wellness.  At least, not mind kind of wellness.  This is:  Andrew is in a band!

Andrew was kind enough to agree to answer questions directly related to his band & attorney wellness, and loosely related to professional responsibility.

MK: Thank you for doing this!  So, keeping in mind that Rule 7.1 prohibits lawyers from making false or misleading communications about their services, and there’s Vermont case law that holds that the rule prohibits advertisements that make qualitative comparisons to other lawyers, tell us about your band and how awesome it is.

AM: Thanks for asking me!  (I think.)  Well, I’m quite mindful of Rule 7.1, as well as comment 2, which prohibits “paltering” – statements that are true, but misleading.  But more to the point: my current band is McKenna Lee & The Microfixers.  Our set list is based on the Eva Cassidy songbook, but we also play a variety of classic soul and dance tunes. 

MK: Trust me, we will cover paltering later! For now, let’s lay a foundation:  which Microfixer are you and who are your band mates?  Other lawyers?

AM: I’m the keyboardist, and the music director.  The band is mostly folks who work at UVM Medical Center and are actively involved in the “Patient Safety Movement” to eliminate preventable medical errors.  In the United States alone, more than 200,000 people die in hospitals every year from things like not washing hands, bad hand-offs between doctors on shift changes, wrong medications, wrong dosage, infections, and the like.  These are mistakes that can be avoided, so the movement works on sharing data and establishing best practices.  Last month, the band played the annual world summit in Huntington Beach, California, and it was a great event.  Bill Clinton was the keynote speaker.

AM 3

MK: Bill Clinton! In some states, the advertising rules prohibit lawyers from paying famous people to endorse them. I saw you play once at The Lincoln Inn. Who is the most famous person you’ve ever spotted on the dance floor? Did President Clinton dance at your gig in Huntington Beach?

AM: No, I’m sorry to report that President Clinton didn’t dance.  Or sit in on sax, either, which would have been awesome.

MK: I guess that means that I remain the most famous to grace a McKenna Lee & The Microfixers dance floor!  From what I’ve read, the band is sort of the “house band” for the Patient Safety Movement. How’d that come about?

AM: I was playing in a band with Charlie Miceli, who is a VP at UVMMC.  He formed Microfixers.  Then they brought me in just to music direct (they had a keyboardist).  Then I joined them (we had two keyboardists at one point), and then the other keyboardist quit.  But right: we are kind of the house band.  Last year, a stripped down version went to London for the summit.  I didn’t go, but still ran the practices.

MK: By the way, what’s a “microfixer?”

AM: The idea behind the name “microfixers” is that very small fixes can make a big difference.  In fact, the band has an original song called “Little Things” which is about that concept, and it was inspired by the tragic story of Emily Jerry.  Emily was diagnosed with a tumor.  After multiple surgeries and treatment, an MRI showed that the tumor was gone.  She was undergoing a last round of chemotherapy, just to ensure that the cancer was truly gone, when the pharmacy technician decided not to use a standard prepared bag of sodium chloride (with less than 1% solution) but instead compounded a bag herself with a concentrate of 23.4%.  Emily died.  She was two years old.  Her father, Chris, is a leading patient safety advocate pushing for changes in the way IV drugs are compounded. 

AM 1

MK: Such a sad story, but what a great concept. I’m a big believer that the legal profession could accomplish a lot by doing “Little Things,” like saving one starfish at a time.  Anyhow, I digress.  As you know, conflicts of interest are huge in my world. As music director, do you run into conflicts with your band mates when, as keyboardist, there’s a particular song that you like to play, but maybe the rest of the band isn’t so high on?  Or, I noticed you answered “music director,” not “manager.”  Are there conflicts between music & management in a band?

AM: Good questions.  As for song choice, it routinely happens that a suggestion of mine isn’t embraced.  That’s ok.  If I can’t convince them that the song is a good choice, then that’s my fault.  And no, I’m not band manager.  My role is to help with arrangements and make sure it’s all working.  Frankly, the musicians are so good that I don’t need to do much at all.  But I like to be value-added, so each time we play through a song I listen for one or two minor adjustments that could be made to improve the overall mix.  Maybe it’s having a part drop out for a few bars to allow another part to shine, or maybe it’s tinkering with the effects on a guitar.

MK: I’m intrigued by your point that it’s your fault if you can’t convince the band that a song is a good choice. That’s a lot like legal advocacy.  I can recall struggling with how to shape my presentation prior to hearings or Supreme Court arguments. On the one hand, I want to capture the judge’s attention early, but on the other I know that I have to provide a reason to believe in my position. Is songwriting similar? I mean, simply, sometimes I stop listening to a new song after 10 seconds if I’m not into it.

AM: Absolutely.  Studies show that people decide whether they like a song in the first 5 or 6 seconds.  And I think oral arguments and briefs and other presentations are exactly the same.  You need to tell the judge why she is reading this, why she should care about it.  If you can’t do that in one or two sentences, you haven’t figured out your case yet.  

MK: The Hook by Blues Traveler! Set the hook early and, like Popper sang, it’s what brings ‘em back!  Another reason to make your point quickly with judges & juries, there aren’t “encores” in the law. Once you rest, you rest.  What’s the band’s go-to encore?

AM: It changes and depends on the crowd.  We have done everything from “Yeah!” by Usher to, yes, “Don’t Stop Believin.”

MK: A few weeks ago Jeff Messina joked that audiences always request “Free Bird!!”  Knowing that you can’t ever guarantee results for a new client, what song can you (almost) guarantee someone in the audience will request?

AM: I really enjoyed your interview with Jeff.  And I will note that he and I shared that drummer!  He happened to be a great cook who made wonderful curry.  Good drummer, great curry.  Anyway, the requests depend on the venue, but he’s absolutely right: “Free Bird” is a sure thing.  With my old band, I would sometimes introduce a song by saying: “This one is by special request.”  But the song request was from me.  I just felt like playing whatever song that was.  I guess that’s paltering.

MK:  Turn it up to 11.  Plus, I KNEW we’d find a way to work “paltering” in!  Great job!  By the way, I’m trying to teach myself how to play piano.  I’m barely a beginner and don’t really have the patience for the basics. So, instead, I focus on riffs from famous songs.  Right now I’m trying to master the intro to Don’t Stop Believin’.  It’s a lot harder than it sounds!

AM: It is!  And part of the problem is the “official” sheet music.  It’s wrong. 

MK: Damn them.  Not cooperating with bar counsel is an ethics violation in and of itself. Ok, so, I often talk about tech competence.  Some lawyers seem reluctant to adopt new technology.  I often hear grumbles that “this way has worked for ever, why change?”  Conversely, I doubt that you lug a string piano to your gigs. And, I’m guessing Mozart would be fascinated by a modern keyboard and its electronic & digital bells & whistles.  Thoughts?

AM: I love new technology, and how it enables us to better serve our clients.  As you have frequently pointed out, if you aren’t taking advantage of it, you run the risk of violating Rule 1.1 (Competence).  As for music, back in the 1980s I used to lug (with help from a band mate) a Rhodes Stage 73 electric piano to gigs.  It was 100 pounds.  But now, I use a Korg X-50, which is 9.5 pounds.  And I can get virtually any sound out of it, including a Rhodes sound!

AM 2

MK: Now that’s tech competence!  I confess, until you mentioned her, I’d never heard of Eva Cassidy. Now, I’ve learned that one of her more famous songs is her cover of “Over the Rainbow.” Your practice includes intellectual property.  You’re the Chair of the VBA’s Intellectual Property Section. You’re in a band that covers other artists.  Is a song intellectual property?

AM: Yes, songs are protected under the Copyright Act.  Copyright is a bundle of rights, and one of the rights is public performance.  When a band performs another artist’s song at a gig, the band is technically infringing the copyright — unless the band has a license.  Now, bar bands obviously don’t go around negotiating licenses, and the performance rights organizations (like ASCAP) that administer copyrights for artists don’t expect them to.  Instead, the organizations enter into licenses with the establishments, so that bands can play the covers.  Not so long ago, there was a bar in the Burlington area that only hired bands that played original music.  Why?  So they wouldn’t need to pay for the license for cover songs!

MK: Very interesting.  Have you ever cited the U.S. District Court opinion on the request for a preliminary injunction in Metallica v. Napster?

AM: Not specifically.  When advising clients, though, I point out that in peer-to-peer network cases, infringers have been found liable for substantial sums of money even when they aren’t charging for the songs (or movies or whatever).  Often, folks think that giving the work away for free means as a matter of law that there are no damages, or that it’s “fair use.”  Wrong.

MK: That case always makes me think of the movie The Italian Job.  But that’s a story for another blog.  Ok, a few final questions:  As a lawyer, I think it’s important to mentor and to have a mentor. A good mentorship can make both the mentor & mentee more competent.  I’m sure you’ve had some great legal mentors.  Who is a musician who has inspired you?

AM: Paul Simon is one.  And he’s inspired me not just musically, but in legal writing, too.  He begins the second verse of “Something So Right” with the line: “They got a wall in China, it’s a thousand miles long.”  I remember he once explained that part of the power of that line was credibility.  By saying something so obviously true, it helped lend credibility to the rest of what he’s saying.  That’s useful to keep in mind in legal writing, because credibility is everything. And on a related note, in my view, all songs are really just arguments.  The most persuasive songs climb to the top of the charts. 

MK: Nice! Too bad Kodak never hired you in an IP case.  You could’ve used the lyrics to “Kodachrome” in your brief.  How important is it to you to have the band as an outlet or alternative to the law?

 AM: I’ve been playing in local bands for the past 10 years actually, and it’s been great – except when I’m breaking down equipment and loading into the car on Saturday night at 2 a.m.  That part isn’t so fun.  But I love performing, and also writing and recording.  Doing music has certainly been a good “outlet,” and a break from the grind of the law.  I think everyone needs to find at least one thing like that.  At the same time, though, music isn’t so different from what I love about my law practice.  The focus, the analysis, the problem-solving, the crafting of the work product.  When you’re writing a brief, there needs to be a rhythm to it.  For example, if you have an unusually long sentence (which sometimes can’t be avoided), the next sentence needs to be super crisp.  You need to make it interesting.  You have to be sensitive to the reader and keep them engaged as best you can.  Same with a gig.  Of course, people rarely dance when I file a brief.

MK: People should dance more often no matter the occasion!  One last question: you’re both a food connoisseur and a member of one of the PRB’s hearing panels.  Imagine: at a restaurant, you order Wagyu steak.  The chef talks you into ordering it “medium rare.”  I’m not sure what the disciplinary terms are in the culinary world. Whatever they are, should the chef be sanctioned, perhaps disbarred, for suggesting that Wagyu should be served anything but rare?

AM: Ha!  Maybe not disbarred, but at least a public reprimand.  I was happy I sent that steak back.

Thank you Andrew!

*********************************************

Related posts:

So far, the non-lawyerly pursuits that Wellness Wednesday has featured include:

Also, before I ever imagined this column, Elizabeth Kruska & Wesley Lawrence were kind enough to take the time to discuss their interest in horse racing, Scott Mapes talked soccer with me, and many lawyers & judges shared their marathon stories.

 

 

Monday Morning Answers #151

Welcome to another week!

Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.  Special thanks to all who sent birthday wishes for my bro!

Honor Roll

Answers

Question 1

Which doesn’t belong with the others?

  • A.   Keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter.
  • B.   Promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
  • C.   As far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-attorney relationship with the client.
  • D.   Explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

C is in Rule 1.14 and is the critical duty when representing a client who suffers from a diminished capacity.  A, B and D are part of Rule 1.4’s duty to communicate with a client.

Question 2

Yesterday at a CLE, my answer to a question included the following words & phrases:

  • same as or substantially related to;
  • materially adverse
  • informed consent, confirmed in writing

You should assume that I accurately quoted the applicable rule.  Given that assumption, the question related to the rule on:

  • A.   Concurrent conflicts of interest.
  • B.   Conflicts of interest & former clients.  Rule 1.9
  • C.    Commingling
  • D.   Prospective clients.

Question 3

“A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.”

  • A.   True.  That’s a rule.  Rule 3.2
  • B.   True.  That’s in one of the comments to the rule on diligence.
  • C.   True.   That’s in one of the comments to the rule on fees.
  • D.   It’d be nice, but it doesn’t say that anywhere in the rules or their comments.

Question 4

The phrase “without fee or expectation of fee” is in the rule on:

  • A.   Withdrawing from a representation.
  • B.    Reasonable fees.
  • C.    Referral fees.
  • D.   Pro Bono.  Rule 6.1

Question 5

Yesterday reminded me of this question.

Lawrence Mattingly practiced law in Illinois.  Once, he arranged a meeting between a client and federal agents/prosecutors who were trying to build a tax evasion case against the client.  During the meeting, the client claimed “I’ve never had much of an income.”

Later, Attorney Mattingly provided Treasury agents with a letter in which he conceded that his client had, in fact, earned a substantial income over the previous 4 years. The “Mattingly Letter” was admitted at trial and used as evidence against the client.  The client was convicted and sent to prison.

Who was the client?

AL CAPONE.  In 2018, I blogged on the Mattingly Letter:

.

 

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

Post navigation

One thought on “Five for Friday #151”

Leave a Reply

Five for Friday #151

Welcome to #151!

Bacardi isn’t today’s topic.  I can’t stand rum.

Today’s topic is my brother.

My brother is Patrick Francis Kennedy.  Some of you may know him as “The First Brother.” That’s how I list him when he earns a spot on the #fiveforfriday Honor Roll.  No, he’s not a lawyer.  He’s simply incredibly smart and can do legal research.  When he feels like it, he submits a perfect 5 for 5.   Give him a few days and he’d argue your motion to dismiss.

Then he’d argue opposing counsel’s position and leave the judge with a difficult decision.

I’m not sure how best to describe Patrick.  He is a lot of things.

Patrick makes his living as some sort of coder.  Or maybe he’s a programmer or a network engineer.  Honestly, his professional world is so Greek to me that I’m not exactly sure what he does.  But he’s damn good at it.

Patrick used to be in the Army.  He drove tanks.  Then, he did something, I can’t remember where or what, that exposed his tech competence to a superior officer.  That was the end of driving tanks. They whisked him off to West Point to run systems and such.  Now, he works for MyWebGrocer.

Patrick is also a top-notch chef.  He’s won multiple chili contests, an accomplishment that actually works to mask how adept he is at cooking anything & everything.  Not only does he know the precise temperature at which the various meats are best served, he’s knows how to order the right wine for each.  And how to make the right cheese for each wine.  Don’t like wine?  He brews beer.

My brother can fish & hunt.  He can explain how a piano works, how to attack a zone defense, and how the Union Army prevailed at Gettysburg.  He is conversant in Spanish and Italian.  He’s traveled extensively in Europe, been stationed on the DMZ, and coached a middle school basketball team to a tournament championship.

While wearing a tuxedo.

He can capably discuss Cornwallis at Yorktown, the aerodynamics at Daytona, and the paradoxes of time travel.  He could do your kid’s calculus homework then show her little sister how to build a leprechaun trap.  Afterwards, he’d let you choose whether to have him teach you how to make candles, brisket, or reservations for a Papal mass.

Patrick has constructed compelling arguments that Ignatius J. Reilly is literature’s greatest character, Rock of Ages is Broadway’s greatest musical, and Rick Burleson is Boston’s greatest shortstop.  He was the only Vermonter among the 25 finalists for the President of Red Sox Nation.

He doesn’t cheat at board games or throw tantrums when he loses.  (Hello bar counsel!) He’d crush you in Trivial Pursuit or Jeopardy, but then lie to you that he was lucky to do so.

I could go on & on about my brother.  Nothing I’ve listed should be construed to indicate that something I omitted is not in his wheelhouse.  Further, if my description of him seems random, well, it is.  Because that’s him: the rare person who knows so much about so much that it makes those of us who aren’t so smart (or interesting) wonder “how does he know so much about so many random things?”

But the things that he knows and can do are not why he’s important to me.  Without diving into detail, I’ll leave you with this.

Patrick is my younger brother.  By 18 months.  For his entire life, he’s had my back, unconditionally.  24/7/365. If you have a brother, you know what that means.

I wish I was more like him.  As a person, and as a brother.

My brother is a remarkable person with a fascinating variety of talents, interests, and areas of knowledge.  Everything I’ve shared about him is true.  Yet, there’s no more accurate way to describe him than as the best brother in the world.

Oh, one other thing, Patrick Francis Kennedy was born on February 15.

Happy birthday bro!

Bro

Onto the quiz!

Rules

  • None.  Open book, open search engine, text/phone/email-a-friend.
  • Exception – but one that is loosely enforced – #5 isn’t open book.  (“loosely enforced” = “aspirational”)
  • 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@vermont.gov
  • 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

Question 1

Which doesn’t belong with the others?

  • A.   Keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter.
  • B.   Promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
  • C.   As far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-attorney relationship with the client.
  • D.   Explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation,

Question 2

Yesterday at a CLE, my answer to a question included the following words & phrases:

  • same as or substantially related to;
  • materially adverse
  • informed consent, confirmed in writing

You should assume that I accurately quoted the applicable rule.  Given that assumption, the question related to the rule on:

  • A.   Concurrent conflicts of interest.
  • B.   Conflicts of interest & former clients.
  • C.    Commingling
  • D.   Prospective clients.

Question 3

“A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.”

  • A.   True.  That’s a rule.
  • B.   True.  That’s in one of the comments to the rule on diligence.
  • C.   True.   That’s in one of the comments to the rule on fees.
  • D.   It’d be nice, but it doesn’t say that anywhere in the rules or their comments.

Question 4

The phrase “without fee or expectation of fee” is in the rule on:

  • A.   Withdrawing from a representation.
  • B.    Reasonable fees.
  • C.    Referral fees.
  • D.   Pro Bono.

Question 5

Yesterday reminded me of this question.

Lawrence Mattingly practiced law in Illinois.  Once, he arranged a meeting between a client and federal agents/prosecutors who were trying to build a tax evasion case against the client.  During the meeting, the client claimed “I’ve never had much of an income.”

Later, Attorney Mattingly provided Treasury agents with a letter in which he conceded that his client had, in fact, earned a substantial income over the previous 4 years. The “Mattingly Letter” was admitted at trial and used as evidence against the client.  The client was convicted and sent to prison.

Who was the client?

.

 

Inadvertent Production

Edited at 9:05 PM to fix typos in a first edition that, sadly, I cannot honestly claim to have been inadvertently produced. 

In Vermont, what’s an attorney’s ethical duty when the attorney receives information that the attorney knows or should know was inadvertently sent?

The answer lies in Rule 4.4(b).

The lawyer’s ethical duty is to promptly notify the sender.

But Mike, what if the sender asks the attorney to destroy the information or return it unread?

Again, the ethical duty is to promptly notify the sender.

Indeed, per Comment [2], whether the lawyer has a duty to return the information “is a matter of law beyond the scope of these rules, as is the question of whether the privileged status of the document has been waived.”  Further, here’s Comment [3]:

  • “Some lawyers may choose to return a document unread, for example, when the lawyer learns before receiving the document that it was inadvertently sent to the wrong address.  Where the lawyer is not required by applicable law to do so, the decision to voluntarily return such a document is a matter of professional judgment ordinarily reserved to the lawyer.”

But does that end the discussion?

Yes.  This blog is over.

Just kidding!  Of course it doesn’t end the discussion!

Don’t forget about the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

In my view, the ethical duty to provide a client with competent representation includes understanding what to do upon (1) receiving information that was inadvertently produced; and, (2) learning that you inadvertently produced information.  In addition, Rule 3.4(c) imposes an ethical obligation to comply with court rules.

Also, here are 2 practical reasons not to forget about the interplay between inadvertent production, your ethical duty, the Rules of Evidence, and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

First, you do not want you firm to be named in a Bloomberg Law headline that announces that your firm conducted itself “poorly.”

Second, you do not want to be the attorney for either side in a matter in which a United States Magistrate’s ruling on a motion to disqualify begins like this:

“The facts underlying this disqualification motion establish that, unfortunately, lawyers on both sides of the litigation acted poorly.”

Especially when the Magistrate continues:

“At the heart of this dispute is a disappointing but obvious inability of opposing counsel in this case to talk and correspond with each other in good faith, to rely on each other’s representations, and to deal honestly and squarely with one another. From its inception, this case has been replete with numerous and extensive discovery disputes, myriad motions, lengthy hearings, and finger-pointing by opposing counsel against each other for various alleged bad acts. The Court does not know if this conduct and mistrust is based upon past dealings between counsel or due to other factors, but the attorneys should be aware that their conduct is not helping their respective clients’ positions in this litigation. In fact, it is downright unproductive and silly.”

The Bloomberg Law article is here.  The magistrate’s opinion is here.

I recommend reading the opinion, particularly if you litigate.  A quick summary:

  • Just before Christmas, defense counsel produced over 14,000 documents in response to plaintiff’s discovery request;
  • Shortly after Christmas, plaintiff’s counsel informed defense counsel that it appeared as if 100 of the documents were privileged, but that plaintiff’s counsel would assume that they were correctly produced and not privileged;
  • The lawyers did not immediately reach an agreement as to whether plaintiff’s counsel would provide defense counsel with the Bates numbers of the documents that appeared to privileged, or, whether defense counsel should provide plaintiff’s counsel with the Bates numbers of all privileged documents that were inadvertently produced.

Long story short, three points:

  1. The defense firm knew what to do – under both the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Civil Procedure – to preserve the privilege of material that it had inadvertently produced.  Do you?
  2. There is no such thing as “It appears as if you inadvertently produced documents. But I’m going to assume you meant to produce them. Therefore, they aren’t privileged.”
  3. I am not convinced that a lawyer who receives information that the lawyer knows was inadvertently produced complies with Rule 4.4(b) by saying something to the effec that “100 of the 14,500 documents you produced look they might have been inadvertently produced, but I’m not going to tell you which ones.”

 

See the source image

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faking Cancer & Kids. Wait….what?

In Vermont, at least three rules go to honesty.

  • Rule 3.3 requires imposes a duty of candor to courts.
  • Rule 4.1 prohibits misrepresentations of fact or law.
  • Rule 8.4(c) prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation or fraud.

Astute readers might ask why we need Rule 8.4(c) when we already have Rule 4.1. Aren’t they redundant? Good question!   But the answer is “no, they aren’t.”

By its language, Rule 4.1 applies “in the course of a representing a client.”  By contrast, Rule 8.4(c) applies to conduct outside the attorney-client relationship.  For example, imagine I do my usual amount of not planning and wait so long to purchase airline tickets to visit my father that they’re prohibitively expensive.  So, what do I do? Like Costanza, I claim to be traveling to my friend’s aunt’s funeral in order to get a reduced fare.

Rule 4.1 wouldn’t apply because my lie didn’t occur in the course of representing a client.  However, Rule 8.4(c) would get me because my conduct involves dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation and fraud.

The Vermont Supreme Court has made it clear that Rule 8.4(c) does not apply to every “white lie,” but only to conduct that, in addition to involving dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation or fraud, also adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice.

For example, many years ago, my friend JJ called.  His spidey-sense was going off.  He asked what I was up to that night, (correctly) sensing I was on my way to a date with a woman of whom he did not approve. I told him I was on my way to dinner with my grandmother.  Not an 8.4(c) violation. The opinion is here.

Alas, that’s the end of the CLE portion of today’s post. I think the conduct I’m about to relate is conduct that lawyers instinctively know to avoid without me suggesting that they do.

So, without further adieu, and speaking of Costanza and lying to attend a funeral . . .

There’s a story making the rounds in bar counsel circles.  It involves disciplinary charges filed by the Illinois Attorney Regulation and Disciplinary Commission (“IARDC”).  The story has been covered by The American Lawyer, the Legal Profession Blog, and The ABA Journal.  The IARDC alleges that the lawyer:

  • took the LSAT twice, scoring 158 & 173;
  • explained the lower score in a law school application by stating that the LSAT was shortly after multiple surgeries (and rigorous post-surgery treatment) to remove a cancerous tumor from his stomach;
  • years later, again used the cancer surgery excuse to request discovery extensions in at least two cases he was handling as a lawyer;
  • requested a discovery extension in a third case, claiming that his son was scheduled for the exact same type of stomach/cancer surgery; and,
  • asked a court to extend a deadline because he had to fly to Montreal for a relative’s funeral.

As you might guess, the IARDC alleges that the lawyer:

  • never had cancer;
  • does not have a son;
  • does not have a son who has cancer; and,
  • did not have relative who died and, thus, required a funeral.

Allegedly, the lawyer faked cancer, a child, a child with cancer, and a relative’s death.

Sometimes the only response is:

Wait…what?

Wait What