Welcome to Monday!
Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.
Thanks for all the stories about school closings! From a few of Burlington’s oldest AM stations, to the scroll on the tv screen. Loved them all!
- Evan Barquist, Montroll Backus & Oettinger
- Geoffrey Bok, Esq.
- Benjamin Gould, Paul Frank & Collins
- Laura Gorsky, Esq.
- Bob Grundstein, Esq.
- Mark Heyman, General Counsel, Logic Supply
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Thomas Kester, Assistant General Counsel, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Vermont
- Jeanne Kennedy, JB Kennedy Associates, Mother of the Blogger
- John Leddy, McNeil Leddy & Sheahan
- Tom Little, Little & Cicchetti
- Pam Loginsky, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
- Lon McClintock, McClintock Law Offices
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project
- Hal Miller, First American Title
- Jim Runcie, Ouimette & Runcie
- Jay Spitzen, Esq.
- Robyn Sweet, CORE Registered Paralegal, Cleary Shahi & Aicher
- Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Vermont Law School, JD Candidate
- Zachary York, Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Civil
In legal ethics, the word “imputed” is most often associated with:
- A. The advertising rules
- B. Interest earned on lawyer trust accounts
- C. Conflicts of Interest. See, V.R.Pr.C. 1.10
- D. Technology & The Duty of Competence
At a CLE, I answered a question by saying “the rule is this: if it’s yours, get it out.”
What general topic was the question about?
Trust Account Management/Commingling funds. See, V.R.Pr.C. 1.15(a), and my blog post Don’t Commingle
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, which is treated differently than the others?
- A. whether to settle. See, Rule 1.2(a). This is one of the decisions left to the client. B & C are left to the lawyer’s discretion in consultation with the client.
- B. whether to depose a particular witness.
- C. whether to file a motion to dismiss.
- D. Trick question. The rules treat each the same.
In a dispute between Plaintiff and Organization, Plaintiff’s counsel has actual knowledge that Attorney represents Organization. Without providing notice to Attorney or asking permission, Plaintiff’s counsel interviews a former employee of Organziation about the matter that is the subject of the dispute.
Which is most accurate under Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct:
- A. Plaintiff’s counsel did not violate the rules. V.R.Pr.C. 4.2, Comment  (“Consent of the organization’s lawyer is not required for communication with a former constituent.”)
- B. Plaintiff’s counsel violated the rules.
- C. Whether it’s a violation depends on whether former employee was in “the control group.”
- D. Whether it’s a violation depends on whether the interview was before or after a complaint had been filed and served.
Real life professional responsibility & ethics!
Later today in San Francisco, opening statements will begin in a $1 billion trade secrets case. Last Friday, the judge denied the plaintiff’s attorneys’ motion to withdraw, a motion in which they argued that they were “unable to further represent plaintiff and cannot try the case.” The attorneys added that their obligations to maintain client confidences prevented them from providing the court with additional details.
Once the trial begins, it’s expected that a lawyer who used to represent the plaintiff will testify. Plaintiff alleges that the lawyer lost or destroyed e-mails that are critical to the case.
The case revolves around the plaintiff’s claim that the defendants stole his idea for a “limo timeshare service” and developed it into their incredibly successful business.
What business did the defendants develop?
UBER TECHNOLOGIES (The “Uber App”). Note: per The Verge, the case settled this weekend.