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!
- Karen Allen, Esq.
- Matthew Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
- Cary Dube, Bergeron, Paradis, Fitzpatrick
- Erin Gilmore, Ryan Smith & Carbine
- Bob Grundstein, Esq.
- Gregg Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Building & Services
- Mark Heyman, General Counsel, Logic Supply
- Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett & Luitjens
- Patrick Kennedy, First Brother, My Web Grocer
- Shannon Lamb, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- John Leddy, McNeil, Leddy, & Sheahan
- Pam Loginsky, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
- Kevin Lumpkin, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
- Pam Marsh, Marsh & Wagner
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project
- Jeff Messina, Bergeron Paradis Fitzpatrick
- Herb Ogden, Esq.
- Eric Parker, Bauer Gravel & Farnham
- Jim Runcie, Ouimette & Runcie
- Anna Saxman & Rob Halpert
- Jay Spitzen, Esq.
- Robyn Sweet, CORE Registered Paralegal, Cleary Shahi & Aicher
- Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen O’Connor
- Jack Welch, Esq.
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.
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.
“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.
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
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: