What a beautiful Friday!
It’s days like this that I live for. And days like this that make me shudder to think of November, December, January, February, March and each of the past two Aprils. But thinking is overrated. So, instead, I’m going to enjoy today for what it is. And given a fantastic confluence of events, today is shaping up to be a good day indeed.
Last summer, my brother and I took full advantage of the fact that the Men’s World Cup was held in Russia. The time difference made for ideal start times in the eastern U.S.
This summer, the gift continues to give, with the Women’s World Cup taking place in France. An added bonus? Unlike the men, the US Women not only qualfied for the tournament, they have a chance to win! Today’s quarterfinal against France is on our agenda.
Also, our cousins Sean and Richie are in town. Their mom is my dad’s sister. Sean is a fighter pilot based in California. Richie lives in Plattsburgh. As is common in Irish families like ours, I’m not exactly sure what Richie does. Which makes us even, because I’m pretty sure he thinks I’m a teacher. Aunt Kate would be so proud of the interest her grandnephews take in each other’s lives!
Anyhow, another of our traits is a conviction in the superstitious powers of sayings. Thus, fully aware that familiarity breeds contempt, Sean, Richie and I limit our in-person interactions to the Friday afternoon in late June that falls during Sean’s annual trek home. Today, we’ll meet at the same bar we always do and pretend to catch up. Then, we’ll tell the same stories we always re-tell, only this year we’ll laugh even harder than in previous years, as if it’s the first time any of us has heard the story.
In a sense, each telling will be “new.” You see, it’s not uncommon for our old stories to acquire new details with each passing year. Details that the others know full well never happened, but that we leave unchallenged given how much better their inclusion makes the story. We’ve long lost track of the line that demarcates our actual childhood activities from the heroic & glamourous adventures our adult minds are certain we lived.
But you know what? That’s ok.
It’s only a few hours a year, but I love seeing my cousins. Not just Sean and Richie, but all my cousins on both sides of the family.
There’s an old Irish blessing:
To cousins. May even one of yours be as good as each of mine.
Onto the quiz!
- None. Open book, open search engine, text/phone/email-a-friend.
- Exception: Question 5. We try to play that one honest.
- Unless stated otherwise, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct apply
- Team entries welcome, creative team names even more welcome.
- E-mail answers to firstname.lastname@example.org
- 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
The rule prohibits communicating with a represented __________:
- A. Party
- B. Person
True or false?
A lawyer may not accept representation in a matter that involves an area of law in which the lawyer does not possess the requisite level of competence to provide competent representation to the client.
The rules rarely reference specific practice areas. However, there’s one rule that specifically references both criminal cases & divorces. It’s the rule on:
- A. Contingent fees
- B. Flat fees
- C. Conflicts with former clients
- D. Prospective clients
Lawyer represents Client in an appeal. Opposing Counsel filed a brief. The brief fails to cite to a case in the controlling jurisdiction that Lawyer knows to be directly adverse to Client’s position. By rule, Lawyer’s reply brief:
- A. must not disclose the case
- B. may disclose the case
- C. may disclose the case if Client consents
- D. must disclose the case
The Supreme Court released several newsorthy decisions this week.
48 years ago today, the Court issued an opinion that garnered headlines nationwide. The opinion overturned the conviction of a famous athlete. The athlete had refused to report for induction to the military after his application for conscientious objector status had been denied.
A unanimous Court (8-0, with Justice Marshall recusing himself) concluded that the athlete’s beliefs were “surely no less religiously based” than those that had been approved in granting other applications for conscientious objector status.
Name the athlete.