Welcome to a new week! Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.
- Karen Allen, Esq.
- As You Like It
- Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
- Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
- Andrew Delaney, Martin & Delaney
- Cary Dube, Bergeron, Paradis, Fitzpatrick
- Erin Gilmore, Ryan Smith & Carbine
- Bob Grundstein, Esq.
- Rinku Kapoor Handa, Law Clerk, New Jersey State Courts
- Mark Heyman, General Counsel, Logic Supply
- Anthony Iarrapino, Wilschek & Iarrapino
- Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett & Luitjens
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Deb Kirchwey, Esq.
- Aileen Lachs, Mickenberg Dunn Lachs & Smith
- John Leddy, McNeil, Leddy, & Sheahan
- Pam Loginsky, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
- Kevin Lumpkin, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project
- Jeff Messina, Bergeron Paradis Fitzpatrick
- Hal Miller, First American
- Anna Saxman, Esq.
- Jay Spitzen, Esq.
- Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Vermont Law School, Class of 2020, Staff Editor, Law Review
- Allison Bates Wannop, Special Counsel, Department of Public Service
- Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen O’Connor
- Zachary York, Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Civil & Criminal
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.
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)
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).
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 1.6. If 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).
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.