Happy fiscal new year!
Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.
- Karen Allen, Karen Allen Law
- Matt Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
- Merrill Bent, Woolmington, Campbell, Bent & Stasny
- Honorable John M. Conroy, United States Magistrate Judge, District of Vermont
- Andrew Delaney, Martin & Delaney Law Group
- Bob Grundstein, Esq.
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Pam Loginsky, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
- Deb Kirchwey, Esq.
- Aileen Lachs, Mickenburg, Dunn, Lachs & Smith
- Thomas Kester, Assistant General Counsel. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Vermont
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project
- Jeff Messina, Bergeron Paradis Fitzpatrick
- Hal Miller, First American
- Caryn Waxman, Barber & Waxman
- Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen O’Connor
- Zachary York, Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Civil
The rule prohibits communicating with a represented __________:
- A. Party
- B. Person
This is Rule 4.2. It applies to “persons and matters,” which is broader than “parties and cases.”
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. Rule 1.5(d)
- 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.
This is Rule 3.3(a)(2). Failure to disclose violates the duty of candor to the tribunal.
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.
Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali). The case was Clay v. United States. The National Constiutiion Center has the story here.