Updates on Wellness, Lawyers & the “Stay Home/Stay Safe” Order, new rules on notarization & the execution of wills, and a potential Zoom scam.

Good morning all.  This post includes:

  1. Today’s Wellness Message.
  2. An update on the Governor’s “Stay Home/Stay Safe” Order.
  3. An update on Execution of Wills & Notarization.
  4. An alert to a potential Zoom scam.
  5. Wellness Resources

Wellness Message & Encouragement

I let things slide over the past several days.  Not today.

This morning, I made my bed.  I picked up the clothes that had been lying on my bedroom floor for days, folded them, and put them where they belong.  As my coffee brewed, I washed the mugs that had up in the kitchen sink.

I call this “rowing the boat.”  For me, routine helps keep my mind & spirit well.  Completing one simple task leads to another, and so on.  Next thing I know, I’ve changed my focus, been productive, and find myself one day closer to the good days that surely will return.

In rough seas, all I can do is keep rowing the boat.

I love and admire how so many of you are striving to take care of your clients and colleagues during this crisis.  Take care of your own wellness too.

Note: due to letting things slide, I haven’t shaved in 13 days.  “Rowing the boat” doesn’t include removing the pandemic beard . . . at least not yet.

The “Stay Home/Stay Safe” Order

Many lawyers have contacted me with questions about the Governor’s “Stay Home/Stay Safe” order. The questions relate to a perceived tension between a lawyer’s obligations under the order and the lawyer’s obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Trust me, I understand.

There’s no blanket response.  Contact me with specific questions and I will do my best to guide you. Later today, I will try to post tips on complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct during the pandemic.  For now, remember: the preamble makes clear that the rules are RULES OF REASON. In my view, there is nothing unreasonable about minimizing and mitigating the risk of acquiring or spreading a devastating virus.

I spoke this morning with Beth Novotny and Teri Corsones, the VBA’s President and Executive Director. Later today, they are conferencing with the county bar presidents and VBA section chairs.  The goal is to craft and submit a unified request offered on behalf of the Vermont legal community that addresses your collective concerns regarding the “Stay Home/Stay Safe” order.

The VBA is posting its efforts on the VBA website.  The VBA is encouraging you to work with your section chairs and county bar presidents to ensure an effective flow of information.

In addition, the Judiciary is aware of the order and monitoring the situation.  I will update you as a I learn more.  If you missed them, here are the Court’s March 16 Emergency Order, March 18 amendments, March 20 amendments, and March 24 amendments.  The March 24 amendments apply to me.  As I posted here, I will continue to perform my core functions.

Notarization & Execution of Wills

I understand that, soon, the Secretary of State will adopt emergency rules to allow remote notarization.

Also, yesterday, the Vermont Senate passed S.316.  Probate practitioners take note.  Here’s the key language in the bill:

Ҥ 5. EXECUTION OF WILL; REQUISITES

(a) A will shall be:

(1) in writing;

(2) signed in the presence of two or more credible witnesses by the testator or in the testator’s name by some other person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s express direction; and

(3) attested and subscribed by the witnesses in the presence of the testator and each other.

(b) During the period that the Emergency Administrative Rules for Remote Notarial Acts adopted by the Vermont Secretary of State (“the Emergency Rules”) are in effect, the witnesses to a will signed in conformity with the Emergency Rules and pursuant to the self-proving will provisions of section 108 of this title shall be considered to be in the presence of the testator and each other whether or not the witnesses are physically present with the testator or the notary.

Sec. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE

This act shall take effect on passage.

And that when so amended the bill ought to pass.”

Zoom Scam

Many of you are using technology to communicate with clients, colleagues, and courts.  Likely family and friends too.  Be wary.  Here’s an email that a lawyer sent to me this morning:

“Hi Michael:

 I wanted to give a heads-up.

 I received an email from Zoom today, purporting to be a reminder for my 7 AM zoom meeting and claiming a named participant (not a familiar name) was waiting for me.  Fortunately, I KNOW I would never schedule a meeting for 7 AM.

 There’s a link in the email which I did not click on, but I assume it would have been trouble.

 Folks should be aware of this.

 I agree. To the lawyer, thank you for making us aware!!

Coping with Coronavirus & Covid-19: Wellness Resources

Last Wednesday’s posts included links to various resources.  It’s here.

Remember, even if you only want to say hi, feel free to call or email.

Final Thought

Be good to yourself and others.

Image result for update

I’m Open! (and an important CLE update)

At seminars during which I outline the basics of the Professional Responsibility Program, I often start with this question:

  • In Vermont, the Professional Responsibility Program is part of the:
    • A.   Vermont Bar Association
    • B.   Office of the Attorney General
    • C.   Secretary of State’s Office of Professional Regulation
    • D.   Vermont Judiciary

To give you time to think, I’ll wait a bit before I type further.

I hope you got the joke.

Anyhow, if you chose “D.  Vermont Judiciary,” you win!*  In short, I’m an employee of the Judiciary.

*statement “you win” does not mean there is a prize. any prizes that may or may not exist are not available. expecting an actual prize is not valid in any jurisdiction.

On March 16, the Court issued Administrative Order 49.  It is an emergency order regarding judicial operations.  The order was amended on March 18 and March 20.

On March 24, the Court amended the order again. The March 24 amendments apply to the Professional Responsibility Program.  Per paragraph 14(b), the Board and staff “will continue to perform their core functions to the extent possible consistent with this section and their obligation to mitigate the risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Bar Counsel’s core functions are to:

  • Respond to ethics inquiries;
  • Screen disciplinary complaints;
  • Provide education & outreach on legal ethics and professional responsibility.

The first two pose no problem.  Each function can be peformed remotely, electronically or by telephone, without limitation.  For instance, if you have an ethics inquiry, I have access to my voice mail and email and regularly check each.

Continuing Legal Education seminars will require some adaptation.   For the forseeable future, they’ll be by video or webinar.  On that note, the important update:

  • the March 24 amendments suspend the 10-hour limit on self-study CLE credits for attorneys who must report & renew in 2020.

I’ve already uploaded four videos to my brand new YouTube Channel.  I will continue to post content.  I’ve also signed up for Zoom and intend to use it to stream & archive discussions of legal ethics and professional responsibility.

In addition, Jennifer Emens-Butler contacted me today.  Jennifer is the VBA’s Director of Communication & Education.  She’s got some great ideas for webinars.

Finally, the spring is my busiest time of year for “live” seminars.  Several groups to which I’ve agreed to speak have already contacted me to arrange video presentations.

In short, I’m open and will continue to perform my core functions.  The beat goes on!

Image result for trolls the beat goes on

Be good.  To yourself and others.

 

 

 

 

 

Instant Analysis: Legal Ethics in Brief

Good morning all. I hope everyone is healthy, positive and undeterred. Row the boat!

Sunday, I published the #prmadness bracket. It’s based on the NCAA tournament brackets that, in any other year, would’ve caused a decline in workplace productivity last week. The idea is simple: I’m tying legal ethics & professional responsibility to the March Madness brackets that aren’t happening this year.

Some might call it trivial. That’s fine, it probably is. But for me, it’s also a way to stay focused on work & divert my thoughts from the outside world. For others, I hope it’s both a diversion and a fun educational tool.

And education it is. More on that in a moment.
In real life, when the tournament bracket comes out, the talking heads on tv & radio scrutinize the pairing, providing instant analysis on which teams are overrated, underrated, likely to advance, likely to fall victim to an upset. In doing so, they share quick tidbits as to the strengths & weaknesses of each team. I decided to do the same with my professional responsibility bracket.
Last night, I recorded my “instant analysis” of 3 of the quadrants in the bracket. Each is between 15 and 19 minutes long, jam-packed with one or two tips, thoughts, and reminders on each of the 16 legal ethics concepts included in the bracket. 16 tips in less than 20 minutes!  It don’t get much better than that my friends!

Anyhow, if you don’t like the videos, that’s fine. All you must do is stop watching. What’s not necessary is to send me an email complaining that you don’t like the format or how I’m dressed.

Yes, that happened. I tweeted the videos last night and, lo’ & behold, woke up to a critical email.

Dude, seriously,

Image result for you need to calm down taylor swift

Anyhow, the bracket, instant analysis videos, and links to the voting forms are below.  Except, no video for the My Cousin Vinny quadrant.  Even to attempt it, I’d violate the duty of competence.

Enjoy! And please vote!  Unlike real life, voter fraud encouraged! Vote as often as you’d like!

The Bracket (Image Only)

Top Left Quadrant:  Duties to Non-Clients

Lower Left Quadrant: Conflicts & Client Confidences

Top Right Quadrant: Trust Accounts, Fees, Duties to Clients

Lower Right Quadrant: My Cousin Vinny

 

To learn more, here’s the initial bracket announcement.

New Amendments to Emergency Order

On March 20, the Vermont Supreme Court approved new amendments to Administrative Order 49, the Emergency Order issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The March 20 amendments are here.

The following was added to Section 6 – Email Filings:

  • “A signature block containing the filer’s typed-in name preceded by
    “/s/,” or an electronic facsimile of the filer’s signature, a scanned
    copy of it, or another form of electronic signature as defined in 9
    V.S.A. § 271(9), will serve as a party’s signature on pleadings,
    motions, and other documents that must be filed with a signature.
    This exception does not apply to affidavits, verified pleadings, or
    other signatures that must be notarized by statute.”

The most recent amendments also include an order

  • “That ¶¶ 13 and 14 of Administrative Order No. 49 be added to read as follows:
    13. Participation in Court-Ordered Mediation: Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 16.3(b)(3), for as
    long as the judicial emergency exists under this order, the judicial emergency
    constitutes “good cause” authorizing remote participation in mediation, by video or
    telephone, without a stipulation or further court order. Notwithstanding V.R.F.P.
    18(d)(4) and V.R.P.P. 16.1(d)(4), parties to matters in the family and probate
    divisions may attend court-ordered mediation remotely, by video or telephone.”

Related Information:

Image result for update

 

Monday Morning Honors: #196

Good morning.  Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Special honors to Deb Bucknam.  Deb follows the blog and, after reading Friday’s post, sent me an email encouraging to me stay positive. Deb is leading by example.  She’ll probably be upset that I’m blogging this, but, oh well.

My blog mentioned my aunt and grandmother and how, even when down, they stayed positive and put others first.  It also mentioned the stories I’d heard last week of so many others doing the same in a trying time: staying kind, supporting others.  Deb’s email added to the list of stories and reminded me of Nanny and Aunt Kate.

First, she gave me a chuckle by remarking that it’s not too difficult to social distance on her 100-acre farm, Then, she mentioned that she’s buying gift cards from local restaurants & donating them to staff at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital.

Great idea Deb! Kudos!

Honor Roll

  • Evan BarquistMontroll Backus & Oettinger
  • Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
  • Andrew DelaneyMartin Delaney & Ricci Law Group
  • Erin GilmoreRyan Smith & Carbine
  • Laura Gorsky, Esq.
  • Robert Grundstein, Esq.
  • Keith KasperMcCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
  • Deborah Kirchwey, Esq.
  • Elizabeth KruskaPresident-Elect, VBA Board of Managers
  • John LeddyMcNeil, Leddy, & Sheahan
  • Pam Loginsky, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
  • Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project
  • Jeffrey MessinaBergeron Paradis Fitzpatrick
  • Hal Miller, First American
  • Herb Ogden, Esq.
  • Dan RichardsonTarrant Gillies & Richardson
  • Kristen ShamisMonaghan, Safar, Ducham
  • Jay Spitzen, Esq.
  • Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Vermont Law School, JD Candidate

Answers

Question 1

The phrase “in the same or a substantially related matter” appears in the rule on:

  • A.  former client conflicts.  V.R.Pr.C. 1.9(a).
  • B.  disclosing client confidences.
  • C.  dealing with an unrepresented person.
  • D.  ex parte communication with a tribunal.

If the matter is the same as or substantially related to a matter in which a lawyer represented Former Client, a lawyer cannot represent a person whose interests are materially adverse to Former Client’s unless Former Client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Question 2

Which is associated with a different rule than the other 3?

  • A.  Records documenting receipts & disbursements.
  • B.  Records documenting timely reconciliation
  • C.  Lateral transfers.
  • D.  Wire transfers.

A, B, and D relate to trust accounting.  “Lateral transfers” are lawyers who move from one private firm to another.  Rule 1.10(a) applies.  For more, see this blog post.

Question 3

Attorney called me with an inquiry.  I listened, then replied “well, it’s been that way for about 20 years now.  It was that long ago that the rule was changed to make it clear that it not only applies to ‘parties,’ but to any person who is represented in the matter.”

Given my response, what rule did Attorney call to discuss?

Rule 4.2.  It’s the rule that prohibits communication with a represented person on the subject of the representation.  In January, I posted The No-Contact Rule.

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then said: “I suggest that, unless the client agrees, the lawyer decline and require a subpoena.  Then, generally, the duty is to raise all non-frivolous defenses in a motion to quash.”

It’s most likely that Lawyer called to discuss _________________:

  • A.  receiving a request to testify against a former client about the representation of the former client.
  • B.  receiving notice that Disciplinary Counsel intends to audit Lawyer’s trust account.
  • C.  A or B.
  • D.  Neither A nor B. Another issue altogether.

By rule, lawyers “shall submit” to Disciplinary Counsel’s confidential compliance exams. V.R.Pr.C. 1.15A(b). Thus, I have not advised lawyers to decline and require subpoenas.

Question 5

Earlier this week, I made this 35-minute video in which I discussed the 7 C’s of legal ethics.  The Cs include “candor” and “communicating reasonable expectations to clients.”  It’s a concept that reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from a fictional lawyer.

While operating “I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm!” in a shopping mall, the fictional lawyer often skirted, if not flagrantly violated, the ethics rules.  As far as heeding my advice to set reasonable expectations, the lawyer once said to a client:

  • “Mr. Simpson, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement.  But just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement.”

Looping in candor, and as Kruska, President-Elect of the Vermont Bar Association, reminds me, the lawyer’s business card was an exercise in vocab gymnastics:

Image result for lionel hutz

Seems pretty clear to me.

Name the fictional lawyer.

Lionel Hutz.

Image result for lionel hutz

A Professional Responsibility & Legal Ethics Bracket!

As a basketball fan, this weekend – the first of the NCAA college basketball tournament -would normally be one of my favorites of the year.  I find the first weekend’s games to be the most exciting.   And, of course, there’s the brackets.

Well, with some time on my hands, I created the first, and hopefully not annual, Professional Responsibility & Legal Ethics Bracket.  I’m hash tagging it #prmadness.

Participation is purely voluntary and, even better, free.  Here’s how it works.

As with the NCAA tournament, I’ve created 4 quadrants. To participate, all you need to do is vote bracket-style.  Yes, “vote.”  That’s the only difference between this and a “regular” bracket where you pick the entire tournament at once.  The voting for the first-round will remain open until 9:00 PM on March 24. For each match-up, the concept/phrase with the most votes will advance to the next round.  Then, voting will begin anew.

For example: in the Conflict/Confidences quadrant, the first match up is:

  • #1 – Candor to the Tribunal
  • #16 – Meritorious/Frivolous Claims

Voters choose between the two.  Whichever ends up with the most votes, advances to the next round.

What are the voting criteria?  That’s completely up to you.

  • One concept is more confusing to you than the other? Pick it!
  • One is a rule that you feel you’ve mastered?  Great, that’s your winner!
  • One makes you laugh, the other makes you tremble with fear?  That’s a good enough reason as any.

I mean, in the real tournament, I’ve heard of folks who pick teams based on uniform color, or, which mascot would win a fight between the two.

Or, vote like a pro.  Professor Alberto Bernabe – host of the Professional Responsibility Blog – is a frequent member of my blog’s#fiveforfriday Honor Roll in Legal Ethics.  Here’s how he’s going to make his picks:

  • “I am voting based on this question: which of the two is more necessary, or more important.”

I based the choices on the questions I receive at CLEs and via inquiries of bar counsel. I also threw in a few of the concepts that are beginning to gain traction in the world of professional responsibility and legal ethics.  Later tonight and tomorrow, I’ll do 4 separate blogs, one on each quadrant.  I hope to use them as both a teaching tool and a distraction.

Do you have to vote in all 4 brackets? No.  You can vote in as few or as many as you choose. So, have at it!

Again, the master bracket is here.  To vote in a particular quadrant, click on a link below:

Yes, there are some rules and concepts that did not make the tournament field. Just like in regular March Madness, some of the omissions will be controversial.  For instance, I didn’t list “Conflicts” or “Confidences.”  Each is so broad.  So, I merged them into a single quadrant of aspects of each.  It’s the quadrant at the bottom left of the bracket.  Also, “Competence” is subsumed into the entire bracket.  Other notable omissions:

  • Pro Bono – I didn’t want anyone to have to vote against it!
  • Advertising & Letterhead: big issue, but one that almost never comes up in the calls and questions I receive or in the formal complaints that are filed either.
  • Direct Contact with Prospective Clients:  don’t get quite enough questions on this issue.
  • Advising Cannabis Clients – again, close, but no cigar.

And, knowing me, it’s entirely possible that I simply overlooked a rather important topic.

Enjoy!

Image result for 64 team tournament brackets

Five for Friday #196

In a time of uncertainty, it’s not clear to me that the musings I post here every Friday are appropriate.  If not, I apologize.  Really, I blog today for personal reasons, mainly to spend time doing something other than thinking.

But think I do!

The past few days I’ve found myself thinking of my grandmother and Aunt Kate.

I’ve never blogged about my grandmother, but I have blogged about Papa, her husband. Anyhow, Nanny, my mom’s mom, died in 2010, two months short of her 90th birthday.  Her obituary is here.  As it indicates, faced with a less-than-rosy outlook, she remained upbeat, hopeful and a spitfire to the very end.

Just about two years ago, I blogged about Aunt Kate.  Aunt Kate lived even longer than Nanny, approaching, I think, 143.  Kidding – she was 96.  A stubborn ol’ Irish gal until her final breath, Aunt Kate, like Nanny, never gave in and never gave up.

Initially, I thought of them for one reason: I was happy that neither had to live through this.  I found relief in the knowledge that they didn’t have to experience the worry, stress and anxiety that has gripped so many.

I don’t think my thoughts went over too well with Nanny or Aunt Kate.  I’m pretty sure that each started stomping their feet from heaven, directly on my head. They pounded into my brain (a brain that each would blame on the other side’s DNA) the fact that they would’ve spent about 2 seconds worrying and the rest of their time doing whatever the fight required.

Thinking back, they’re right.  They’d have accepted the challenge.

Not only the fight to take care of themselves, but the fight to make sure that the rest of their family members – all far younger & at far less risk – were okay, taking care of themselves, and not spending even a moment worrying about Nanny & Aunt Kate.  Then, they’d have found even others to help. Selfishly, it made me wish they WERE here, to support me, as they always did.  In the end, it inspired me to be more like them: refusing to spend any time in the negative, choosing instead to help, with hope, courage, and positive support for all.

I started by calling both my mom and my dad.  For obvious reasons, I’ve worried about them.

Whoops.

Worry about them?!?!  The apples didn’t fall far from the trees I mentioned above!  Indeed, my newfound resolve paled in comparison to my parents’.  For one, my parents quickly deflected questions about their well-being to check in on my brother and me. Again, as with Aunt Kate and Nanny, roles reversed.

Moreover, neither is letting the stress, anxiety, or negativity win.  My mom’s attitude is basically “bring it on!,” while my dad and Jane (his wife) have “never been more okay!” Are my parents concerned and taking precautions?  Of course.  However, while each is responding with the seriousness that is due, each remains positive, upbeat, and on the lookout to support others.

They aren’t alone.

The less time I spend online or digesting the news, and the more time I spend interacting with others, the more I realize that there are countless others doing the same. I’ve heard beautiful stories and anecdotes of people putting others first, lending support, focusing on finding the happy, however brief, in an otherwise horribly sad time.

Having thought about it, I think we all should (continue to) do the same.  We didn’t choose this, but we can choose how we respond to it.  And, we can remember that, infused with hope and support, even the smallest of acts can make the biggest of differences.

Image result for small acts of kindness

Mom & Dad – I love you both and wish I could give you each a giant hug.  For now, this will have to do.

PS:  I think Aunt Kate would’ve loved virtual happy hours.

PPS: Papa definitely had times when he longed for social distancing.

Rules

  • None.  Open book, open search engine, text-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 michael.kennedy@vermont.gov
  • 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
  • Share on social media.  Hashtag it – #fiveforfriday

Question 1

The phrase “in the same or a substantially related matter” appears in the rule on:

  • A.  former client conflicts.
  • B.  disclosing client confidences.
  • C.  dealing with an unrepresented person.
  • D.  ex parte communication with a tribunal.

Question 2

Which is associated with a different rule than the other 3?

  • A.  Records documenting receipts & disbursements.
  • B.  Records documenting timely reconciliation
  • C.  Lateral transfers.
  • D.  Wire transfers.

Question 3

Attorney called me with an inquiry.  I listened, then replied “well, it’s been that way for about 20 years now.  It was that long ago that the rule was changed to make it clear that it not only applies to ‘parties,’ but to any person who is represented in the matter.”

Given my response, what rule did Attorney call to discuss?

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then said:  “I suggest that, unless the client agrees, the lawyer decline and require a subpoena.  Then, generally, the duty is to raise all non-frivolous defenses in a motion to quash.”

It’s most likely that Lawyer called to discuss _________________:

  • A.  receiving a request to testify against a former client about the representation of the former client.
  • B.  receiving notice that Disciplinary Counsel intends to audit Lawyer’s trust account.
  • C.  A or B.
  • D.  Neither A nor B. Another issue altogether.

Question 5

Earlier this week, I made this 35-minute video in which I discussed the 7 C’s of legal ethics.  The Cs include “candor” and “communicating reasonable expectations to clients.”  It’s a concept that reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from a fictional lawyer.

While operating “I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm!” in a shopping mall, the fictional lawyer often skirted, if not flagrantly violated, the ethics rules.  As far as  heeding my advice to set reasonable expectations, the lawyer once said to a client:

  • “Mr. Simpson, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement.  But just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement.”

Looping in candor, and as Elizabeth Kruska,President-Elect of the Vermont Bar Association, reminds me, the lawyer edited a business card that said

“Works on contingency. No money down.”

to:

“Works on contingency? No, money down!”

Seems pretty clear to me.

Name the fictional lawyer.

The “You’ve Been Unsubcribed” EMail

Today, an email went out informing lawyers that they’d been unsubscribed from the JUD.AttyLicensing email list.

After hearing from several of you and receiving the email myself, I contacted Andy Strauss.  Andy is the Judiciary’s Licensing Counsel.  Andy confirmed that the email went out in error.  You do not have to do anything in response.  Everyone will be returned to the list.

Please consider sharing this post with other lawyers.

Note: if you did not receive the “unsubscribed” email, it might mean that you do not have an up-to-date email address on file with Andy’s office.   To contact that office, click here.

Thank you.  Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Image result for unsubscribe image

Coping with Coronavirus-Related Stress

On this Wednesday of all Wellness Wednesdays, I hope you’re taking care of yourselves and others.

I’m posting to pass along a few resources.

The first is from the ABA Journal: Lawyers Are Supposed to Plan For The Worst, So How Can You Ease COVID-19 Anxiety?  It’s got some great tips.

Next, Josh Simonds runs Vermont’s Lawyer Assistance Program.  Josh tipped me off to the list of  COVID-19 Mental Health Resources recently published by the American Bar Association’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs.  It’s broken down by topic area, including resources for those looking for help with:

  • Anxiety
  • Office Management/Leadership
  • Panic
  • Social Distancing
  • Staying Mentally Healthy
  • Stress
  • Substance Abuse Resources

Thank you Josh!

In addition, don’t forget about the Lawyer Depression Project.  As I blogged last week, it’s a terrific resource for any lawyer who wants to provide or receive support from others in the legal profession.  Per the website, the folks at LDP

  • “are a group of legal professionals (attorneys, paralegals, law students, and admin) who have suffered from depression, anxiety, bipolar, OCD, eating disorders, trauma, sexual abuse, addiction and other mental health conditions, or who just don’t feel quite right.”

It’s okay not to feel quite right.  It’s okay to ask for support and assistance.

Finally, I just got off the phone with Beth Novotny.  Beth is a friend, lawyer, and current president of the Vermont Bar Association.  She had a great idea: we should do something for lawyers and other legal professionals who are isolated and simply want to check in with another human being.  I agree and we’re trying to figure out how to set something up.  In the meantime, if you want to call or email, I’m here.

Be well.

wellness

Related Posts:

Sailing the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be complicated.

A trick to uncomplicating them? Remember the 7 Cs.

  • Competence
  • Communication
  • Confidentiality
  • Conflict
  • Candor
  • Commingling
  • Civility

Yesterday, I made this video on the 7 Cs.   I’m pretty sure that the vice-chair of the MCLE Board follows this blog.  Maybe, then, I’ll soon hear whether the video counts as .5 hours of ethics credit in a time when CLEs are going to be few and far between.

In the meantime, shout out to two of the video’s inspirations:

Be safe, healthy & kind!

Be safe, healthy and kind!

Legal Ethics