Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll. The race went well, and I recommend a day or two in Portland.
- Karen Allen
- Matthew Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly & White
- Evan Barquist, Montroll, Backus & Oettinger
- Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
- Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
- Jennifer Duxbury, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Erin Gilmore, Ryan Smith & Carbine
- Bob Grundstein
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Thomas Kester, Assistant General Counsel. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Vermont
- Elizabeth Kruska, President-Elect (soon), Vermont Bar Association
- Tom Little, Little & Cicchetti
- Pam Marsh, Marsh & Wagner
- Hal Miller, First American
- Lon McClintock, McClintock Law Offices
- Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen O’Connor
- Zachary York, Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Civil
What is the quoted language more commonly known as?
- “a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibility to another client, a former client or a third person . . .”
A concurrenct conflict of interest . See, Rule 1.7(a)(2).
Someone Other Than Client (“SOTC”) is paying Lawyer to represent Client. Which is most accurate?
With respect to information related to the representation of Client, Lawyer
- A. may disclose to SOTC without Client’s consent;
- B. must disclose to SOTC even over Client’s objection;
- C. may not disclose to SOTC without Client’s consent or unless disclosure is otherwise authorized by the rules. Rule 1.8(f)
- D. None of the above.
Confidences. Competence. Conflicts. Candor. Communication. Civility.
There’s another word that begins with “C” that is a serious violation of the rules. However, the word doesn’t appear in any of the rules, notable in its absence from the trust accounting rules and the rule on safekeeping client property.
What’s the word?
I was looking for “Commingling.” Several readers ubmitted another answer that I accepted: “Conversion.”
Former Client sued Lawyer for malpractice. Lawyer had represented Former Client in a divorce. Attorney represented Former Client in the malpractice action.
Attorney proposed a settlement. Lawyer accepted. The settlement included a provision that Lawyer will not represent clients in divorces for 5 years.
Did either Attorney or Lawyer violate the rules?
- A. Yes, Lawyer’s malpractice in the divorce is a per se violation.
- B. Yes, Attorney violated the rules by making the offer.
- C. Yes, Attorney and Lawyer violated the rules by making and accepting the offer. Rule 5.6. This isn’t a common issue, but it came up in an inquiry I received last week.
- D. A and B.
Increase Mather was born on this day in 1639. Apropos of my intro, many of Mather’s beliefs wouldn’t be acceptable in today’s society.
Yet, one likely stands the test of time. In his work “Cases of Conscience,” Mather referred to the so-called “Blackstone Ratio,” the idea that it’s better that 10 guilty persons go free than 1 innocent person be punished.
What notorious legal event prompted Mather to write Cases of Conscience?
The Salem Witch Trials