Medal Monday #205

It’s Memorial Day.  If you have a moment and are so inclined, the National Moment of Remembrance is at 3:00 PM.

Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Medalists.

Medalists

  • Matthew AndersonPratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
  • Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
  • Erin GilmoreRyan Smith & Carbine
  • Benjamin GouldPaul Frank & Collins
  • Laura Gorsky, Esq.
  • Bob Grundstein, Esq.
  • Mark Heyman, Esq.
  • Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett & Luitjens
  • Keith KasperMcCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
  • Jeanne Kennedy, JB Kennedy Associates, Blogger’s Mom
  • Tom LittleLittle & Cicchetti
  • Pam Loginsky, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
  • Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project
  • Hal Miller, First American
  • Herb Ogden, Esq.
  • Jay Spitzen, Esq.
  • Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen O’Connor
  • Peter Young, General Counsel, Vermont Railway System

Answers

Question 1

Fill in the blank. (choices are below)

“In the course of representing a client a lawyer ___________ make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.”

  • A.   should not
  • B.   should take reasonable steps not to
  • C.   may
  • D.   shall not   V.R.Pr.C. 4.1

Question 2

I’ve often mentioned the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics.  This week, preparing a CLE for government attorneys, I realized that there might be an 8th.

While a government attorney likely won’t have to worry about “commingling,” a government attorney often must ask a question that lawyers in private practice do not:

  • Who is the _________?

The answer begins with the letter C.

CLIENT

Question 3

Speaking of the Cs, a rule involving one of them includes a comment that says:

  • “A lawyer should adopt reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, to determine in both litigation and non-litigation matters the persons and issues involved.  Ignorance caused by a failure to institute such procedures will not excuse a lawyer’s violation of this rule.”

What C?

Conflicts of Interest.  The language is from V.R.Pr.C. 1.7 Comment [3].  

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry.  My response included the words “scrubbing” and “spoliation,” as well references to several advisory ethics opinions that also speak of “scrubbing and spoliation.”

It’s most likely that Lawyer called because a client asked Lawyer:

  • A.   To withdraw.
  • B.   Whether the client could “take down” social media posts.
  • C.   Whether Lawyer would accept payment via PayPal or Venmo.
  • D.  To refund a retainer paid by a personal check that had been deposited to trust, but that did not yet constitute “collected funds.”

This post from September 2019 includes links to several social medial advisory ethics opinions, as well as to the Social Media Ethics Guidelines published by the New York State Bar Association’s Commercial & Federal Litigation Section.

Question 5

With Memorial Day in mind, believe it or not, there are lawyers who earned the distinction of being buried in at Arlington National Cemetery!  Yes Dad, posthumously!

Among them, William Howard Taft.  Having served as U.S. President and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Taft is the only person ever to lead two branches of government and was the first president buried at Arlington.

I don’t know whether Major League Baseball will return this summer.  If it does, I don’t know whether fans will be allowed to attend.  Someday, however, baseball stadiums will again include fans.

As he is with leading branches of government,  Taft is associated with not one, but two of baseball’s enduring game-day traditions.  The first is something that Taft did on the field, but that fans can only watch.  The second is something in which fans enthusiastically participate and one that, according to lore, became popular because of something Taft did in the stands.

Name either tradition.

Taft was the first president to throw out the “first pitch” on Opening Day and, according to lore, made the 7th inning stretch a thing.

Who was the first president to throw a first pitch on Opening Day ...

Five for Friday #205

Welcome to Friday!

I took up fishing this week. Last night, JD and the First Brother took me on my initial outing.  Each is an experienced angler.

All week, I imagined great success that would provide me with a fish story connected to “205” to share this morning.  Whether 2.05 pounds, 20.5 inches long, or the depth from which I landed the first of the countless glorious catches undoubtedly to follow this summer.

Alas, any fish story I might share this morning would be exactly that: a fish story.

On the way back to the access, JD said “boys, that’s why they call it fishin’ not catchin’.”

Fair enough.

Still, this was the view at the time:

IMG_0510

(photo credit to JD)

The moment reminded of last week’s post on the journey and the destination: fishin’ is to the journey, as catchin’ is to the destination.  Something that, as the sun set, it dawned on me that JD and my brother have long understood.

I don’t have a fish story to share, but I’ll share this: a setting bettered only by the company allows me to assure you that last night’s journey was time well spent.

Wherever the weekend leads, may Monday evening’s destination find you assured that your journey was time well spent.

Onto the quiz!

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

Fill in the blank. (choices are below)

“In the course of representing a client a lawyer ___________ make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.”

  • A.   should not
  • B.   should take reasonable steps not to
  • C.   may
  • D.   shall not

Question 2

I’ve often mentioned the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics.  This week, preparing a CLE for government attorneys, I realized that there might be an 8th.

While a government attorney likely won’t have to worry about “commingling,” a government attorney often must ask a question that lawyers in private practice do not:

  • Who is the _________?

The answer begins with the letter C.

Question 3

Speaking of the Cs, a rule involving one of them includes a comment that says:

  • “A lawyer should adopt reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, to determine in both litigation and non-litigation matters the persons and issues involved.  Ignorance caused by a failure to institute such procedures will not excuse a lawyer’s violation of this rule.”

What C?

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry.  My response included the words “scrubbing” and “spoliation,” as well references to several advisory ethics opinions that also speak of “scrubbing and spoliation.”

It’s most likely that Lawyer called because a client asked Lawyer:

  • A.   To withdraw.
  • B.   Whether the client could “take down” social media posts.
  • C.   Whether Lawyer would accept payment via PayPal or Venmo.
  • D.  To refund a retainer paid by a personal check that had been deposited to trust, but that did not yet constitute “collected funds.”

Question 5

With Memorial Day in mind, believe it or not, there are lawyers who earned the distinction of being buried in at Arlington National Cemetery!  Yes Dad, posthumously!

Among them, William Howard Taft.  Having served as U.S. President and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Taft is the only person ever to lead two branches of government and was the first president buried at Arlington.

I don’t know whether Major League Baseball will return this summer.  If it does, I don’t know whether fans will be allowed to attend.  Someday, however, baseball stadiums will again include fans.

As he is with leading branches of government,  Taft is associated with not one, but two of baseball’s enduring game-day traditions.  The first is something that Taft did on the field, but that fans can only watch.  The second is something in which fans enthusiastically participate and one that, according to lore, became popular because of something Taft did in the stands.

Name either tradition.

 

 

The Duty to Cooperate.

Yesterday I posted The Boom Shakalaka Defense.  It’s the story of a lawyer who was charged with failing to respond to disciplinary authorities who were investigating the lawyer’s conduct. The lawyer argued that he’d responded in the “form of SILENCE. (BOOM SHAKALAKA).”  The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts concluded that silence is not a response.

The absurdity of “Boom Shakalaka” tends to detract from an important point: lawyers have an affirmative duty to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.  Violating the duty strikes at the heart of a profession that enjoys the privilege of self-regulation.

These days, it’s rare for a lawyer not to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.  It used to happen a lot more often.

On July 1, 2000, I was deputy disciplinary counsel.  At the time, we had 178 active disciplinary investigations.  A few months later, my boss left for another job.  I became disciplinary counsel but would not hire a deputy until mid-2001.  The docket was overwhelming.

I don’t know if it was in recognition of the caseload, but it wasn’t uncommon for lawyers under investigation not to cooperate. So, I started charging lawyers with failing to cooperate.  Often, informing the lawyer that a hearing panel had concluded that there was probable cause to file public charges alleging a failure to cooperate would spur cooperation.  On occasion, however, I’d have to file the charges.  Cooperation would follow, with the charges being dismissed or, at most, the lawyer receiving a private admonition.

Still, it persisted.  So, in 2006, I upped the ante.

That summer, we received a complaint.  The lawyer failed to respond to several requests to answer the complaint.  Thus, I charged the lawyer with failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.

I can hear you now.  What rule does it violate?

The rules that govern the operation of the Professional Responsibility Program state that discipline may be imposed for, among other things, “(f)ailure to furnish information to or respond to a request from disciplinary counsel, a hearing panel chair, or the Court without reasonable grounds for doing so.”  Supreme Court Administrative Order 9, Rule 7.D.

More importantly, Rule 8.4(d) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. It is well-settled that the failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation violates Rule 8.4(d).

Anyhow, back to my 2006 case.  I urged the hearing panel to issue a public reprimand.  The panel concluded that a public reprimand was not appropriate.

Instead, the panel suspended the lawyer for 30 days.

The panel’s decision is here.  Here’s a key statement from the decision:

  • “We do not disagree with much of Disciplinary Counsel’s reasoning. We believe, however, that the importance of the attorney’s obligation to the profession requires a serious response, particularly when an attorney, without offering any
    explanation, chooses to ignore a critical duty owed to the profession.”

From there, the panel stressed that a self-regulating profession “requires the cooperation of all members of the bar if it is going to work fairly and efficiently.”  The panel went on to state that the “(f)ailure to comport with the duty of cooperation seriously impedes the efficient administration of justice and erodes the public’s confidence in the profession.”

In conclusion, I often worry that the profession’s privilege to self-regulate, a privilege rooted in the notion of an independent Judiciary and the separation of powers, will come under attack.  A serious response to lawyers who fail to cooperate with the disciplinary process is one of our first lines of defense. So, while the Boom Shakalaka story might amuse, it shouldn’t distract from the importance of cooperating with a disciplinary investigation.

Cooperate Meaning - YouTube

The “Boom Shakalaka” Defense.

Don’t have time to read the entire post? Here are the key takeaways:

  1. The failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  2. If you don’t respond to disciplinary counsel, arguing that “my answer was provided in a form of SILENCE (BOOM SHAKALAKA)” might not work.

Now, the rest of the story.

As the blogger, I have access to the blog’s statistics.  Last week’s most-viewed post was one from December 4, 2018: That Time You Filed A Complaint In The Form of a Screenplay. Wait, What?  It recounts the story of Ilya Liviz, the lawyer who sued the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in federal court.  The fact that he sued the court isn’t what inspired my blog post. It’s that he drafted the complaint in the form of a screenplay.

Noting that “a complaint in the form of a movie script” violates the rules of procedure, a federal judge ordered Liviz to show cause as to why it should not be dismissed.  Liviz responded by moving to recuse the judge, citing the “Liviz recusal doctrine.”  Yes, a doctrine he named after himself.

While entertaining, the post’s newfound popularity struck me as odd.  No longer.

Attorney Liviz was trending again last week.  As reported by Bloomberg Law, Liviz’s law license was suspended.  The procedural history is a bit complicated, but here’s what happened.

In early 2019, Liviz did not respond to bar counsel’s requests for information during an investigation into his conduct.  As a result, his law license was suspended.  Later, Liviz was held in contempt for failing to comply with the suspension order.  He appealed the suspension order and the contempt finding.

With respect to the failure to cooperate, and per last week’s opinion from the Bay State’s highest court, Liviz argued that he “DID COMPLY, and DID PROVIDE AN ANSWER, and my answer was provided in a form of SILENCE. (BOOM SHAKALAKA).”

Wait What

The Court disagreed.  Concluding that silence is not a response, the Court affirmed the suspension.

I wonder if the summer’s blockbusters will include the release of a script to the sequel.

 

 

 

 

 

Medal Monday #204

Welcome to another week.

Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s medalists.

Medalists

Answers

Question 1

The following statement is from a comment to a rule.  Your task: fill in the blank.

“The lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable diligence _______________ the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect.”

  • A.  may require.
  • B.  does not require.  V.R.Pr.C. 1.3, Comment [1].
  • C.  usually does not require.
  • D.  is perfectly, but sadly, consistent with

Question 2

By rule, a lawyer shall not use information relating to the representation of a former client to the former client’s disadvantage.  One exception is when the information ______:

  • A.  has become generally known.  V.R.Pr.C. 1.9(c)(1)
  • B.  is public record.
  • C.  Trick question. There are no exceptions.
  • D.  A or B.

Question 3

Lawyer and Client agree that Lawyer will represent Client for $200 per hour.  The agreement is not reduced to writing.  Lawyer sends invoices at the end of every month, always billing at $200 per hour.  Client pays each bill.

Then, one month, Lawyer sends an invoice billing Lawyer’s time at $250 per hour.  Prior to doing the work, Lawyer did not inform Client of the change to the hourly fee.

Which is most accurate?

  • A.  There is a rule that requires any changes in the basis or rate of the fee to be communicated to the client.  Lawyer appears to have violated that rule.  
  • B.  Hourly fee agreements do not have to be in writing. Therefore, while not very professional, Lawyer appears not to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

This is Rule 1.5(a).  The final sentence says “Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated to the client.”

Question 4

Consider the following:

  1. Information received by Bar Counsel while responding to an ethics inquiry.
  2. Information received by a lawyer while serving in the Lawyer Assistance Program
  3. Information received by a lawyer while serving as a member of the VBA’s Professional Responsibility Committee.I
  4. Information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 (the rule on client confidences).

In each, the recipient of the information is exempt from a duty that otherwise applies to all lawyers.  What duty?

The duty to report another lawyer’s violation of the Rules.  V.R.Pr.C. 8.3(c).

Question 5

You should be able to narrow this down to a 50-50.

On May 15, 1869, two women founded the National Women’s Suffrage Association.  Three years later, one of them met & befriend California Republican Senator Aaron Sargent on a train ride.  Their friendship eventually resulted in Senator Sargent introducing the first proposal to amend the Constitution to provide women the right to vote.  Years later, and after many failures, the amendment became the 19th to be ratified.

Who did Senator Sargent meet on the train?

Susan B. Anthony

Susan B. Anthony - Quotes, Facts & Women's Rights - Biography

 

Five for Friday #204

Welcome to Friday!

The video version of this post is here.  In this time of social distancing, I find recording the videos to be somewhat soothing, or reassuring.  They make feel like I’m connected to others.

Anyhow, last week, I spoke of how #203 reminded me of ticket stubs.  Conversely, #204 reminds me of not having a ticket at all.

My brother and I have had our fair share of adventures.  One of our best took place in 2004.

It started many years before.

We grew up Red Sox fans in a time when that meant rooting for a loser.  Not just any loser, but one prone to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, often in heart-breaking fashion. 1978, 1986, 2003.

October 16 was a bleak Saturday.  The night before, the New York Yankees – evil personified to New England kids like us – had demolished our beloved Sox 19-8 to take a 3 games to 0 lead in the best-of-7 American League Championship Series.  No team in history had ever won a 7-game series in which it trailed 3-0.  Nothing in Boston’s history suggested they’d be the first.

A better fan than I, my brother planned to attend Saturday night’s Game 4.  I did not. I had no interest in bearing witness to New York eliminating Boston from the playoffs.  Not to mention, we didn’t have tickets and my brother’s plan was to sneak into Fenway Park.

Ummm, no thanks bro.  I couldn’t imagine anything less interesting that driving all that way without at ticket.  Not only would we not to get in, we’d have to spend the entire ride home listening to the Sox lose on the radio.

My brother wasn’t mad, but I’m sure he was baffled.  Unlike me, he’s always been more into the journey than the destination.  Who cares if he didn’t have a ticket?  Who cares if Boston loses? Worst case, he’d find a bar and watch the game on tv with a lot of other Red Sox fans. In other words, he’d have fun.

It rained in Boston that day.  So hard that the game was postponed.  To say it was the rain would be an excess in poetic license, but by Sunday morning, my spirits had been cleansed: I decided to go to Boston with my brother.  Indeed, claiming that my spirits had been cleansed is beyond the pale — basically, I didn’t want my brother to have to drive home alone in the middle of the night.

To say I was skeptical we’d set foot in Fenway would be an understatement.  My brother’s plan involved some girl he knew from Southie. She had a part-time job at The Crown Royal Club, a bar attached to Fenway.  She’d convinced my brother that if we met her in the bar, she’d get us into the game.

Somewhere in New Hampshire, my brother casually mentioned that The Crown Royal Club was for season ticket holders only. Southie Girl, however, had given him a password to use at the door.  All we had to do was tell the bouncer “Harvick 29.”

That’s right: our plan was to use a code word with the bouncer working the door at a bar attached to Fenway.

It worked.

Once inside the Crown Royal Club, I considered the trip a success: the food was free, the TVs flat, and, technically, we were in Fenway.  So, it didn’t bother me that the back door – the one that season ticket holders used to get to their seats – was staffed by two menacing dudes who conditioned exiting to the field on proof of possessing a game ticket.

Of course, Southie girl had a plan for that too.  Upon seeing my brother, she came over, said “hi,” and told us to be ready to go as soon as some guy from the kitchen gave us “the sign.”  I chuckled, happily resigned to the free buffet.

Then some guy popped out of the kitchen and gave us what we intuitively knew was “the sign.”  I was conflicted, never feeling more like Homer Simpson in my life: why would we leave all this free food? Especially to follow some guy through a kitchen to a door that was more likely to lead back to the street than into Fenway? Alas, when on adventures, rules are rules. Having seen the sign, I followed.

The trip through the kitchen was surreal.  I was equal parts excited and scared.  Thrilled about the chance to see the game, nervous that “disciplinary counsel arrested in Boston!” wouldn’t play well back home.

Long story short, within moments, we were inside Fenway Park and nobody was chasing us.   Eventually we staked out spots in the SRO section and held them throughout the game.

The rest is history.  I won’t bore you with the details.  Suffice to say, without tickets, we witnessed two of the defining moments in Red Sox lore. Boston won that night, and again the next three.  Four victories over St Louis followed and, for the first time since 1918, the Red Sox were World Series Champions.

And we were there when it started.

I can’t quite articulate it, but I’ve always taken a lesson from our 2004 adventure.  Essentially, if there’s something in your life that you’re not doing because of the equivalent of not having a ticket, have faith in the person who is telling you that the point isn’t the ticket.  That person is right.  The point is the adventure of trying to get in anyway.

Onto the quiz!

IMG_4799

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 following statement is from a comment to a rule.  Your task: fill in the blank.

“The lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable diligence _______________ the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect.”

  • A.  may require.
  • B.  does not require.
  • C.  usually does not require.
  • D.  is perfectly, but sadly, consistent with

Question 2

By rule, a lawyer shall not use information relating to the representation of a former client to the former client’s disadvantage.  One exception is when the information ______:

  • A.  has become generally known.
  • B.  is public record.
  • C.  Trick question. There are no exceptions.
  • D.  A or B.

Question 3

Lawyer and Client agree that Lawyer will represent Client for $200 per hour.  The agreement is not reduced to writing.  Lawyer sends invoices at the end of every month, always billing at $200 per hour.  Client pays each bill.

Then, one month, Lawyer sends an invoice billing Lawyer’s time at $250 per hour.  Prior to doing the work, Lawyer did not inform Client of the change to the hourly fee.

Which is most accurate?

  • A.  There is a rule that requires any changes in the basis or rate of the fee to be communicated to the client.  Lawyer appears to have violated that rule.
  • B.  Hourly fee agreements do not have to be in writing. Therefore, while not very professional, Lawyer appears not to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Question 4

Consider the following:

  1. Information received by Bar Counsel while responding to an ethics inquiry.
  2. Information received by a lawyer while serving in the Lawyer Assistance Program
  3. Information received by a lawyer while serving as a member of the VBA’s Professional Responsibility Committee.
  4. Information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 (the rule on client confidences).

In each, the recipient of the information is exempt from a duty that otherwise applies to all lawyers.  What duty?

Question 5

You should be able to narrow this down to a 50-50.

On May 15, 1869, two women founded the National Women’s Suffrage Association.  Three years later, one of them met & befriend California Republican Senator Aaron Sargent on a train ride.  Their friendship eventually resulted in Senator Sargent introducing the first proposal to amend the Constitution to provide women the right to vote.  Years later, and after many failures, the amendment became the 19th to be ratified.

Who did Senator Sargent meet on the train?

 

 

 

 

Negative Online Review? How not to respond.

Whether here or at CLEs, I’ve often mentioned the perils of responding to a former client’s negative online review. As reported by the ABA Journal and Legal Profession Blog, here’s another example of what not to do.

Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for 1-year for violating several rules, including the Garden State’s rule that prohibits a lawyer from using information relating to the representation to a former client’s disadvantage unless the information has become “generally known.”  The underlying decision of the Disciplinary Review Board is here.

Now, the sanction resulted from multiple violations committed while representing multiple clients. In other words, the lawyer’s response to the negative online review wasn’t the sole basis for the 1-year suspension.  Still, the opinion serves as important reminder that, whether you agree with the rule or the interpretation thereof, it is well-established that information that is “public record” is not necessarily “generally known.”

Before I share the facts of the NJ case, let’s look at Vermont’s rule. It’s V.R.Pr.C. 1.9(c)(1):

“(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known.”  (emphasis added).

As reported by the ABA Journal, the New Jersey lawyer “had won unsupervised visitation for the client after she took her children to another state without authorization, ‘seemingly, a good result,’ according to the review board.”  Nevertheless, the client posted a negative online review regarding the lawyer’s services.

The client owns a massage therapy business.  Miffed at the review the client had left for him, the lawyer posted the following Yelp review of the client’s business:

  • “Well, [client] is a convicted felon for fleeing the state with children. A wonderful parent. Additionally, she has been convicted of shoplifting from a supermarket. Hide your wallets well during a massage. Oops, almost forgot about the DWI conviction. Well, maybe a couple of beers during the massage would be nice.”

In response to the subsequent ethics complaint, the lawyer wrote:

  • “As to the Yelp rating about [client’s] massage therapy business, I admit to same. I was very upset by [her] Yelp rating of my practice. This rating was made more
    than a year and a half after the conclusion of my representation. My disclosures, i.e. her arrests, were public information and I did not violate attorney client
    privilege. My position was that what was good for the goose was good for the gander. I do concede that I do not believe that the rating was my finest moment.
    However, it was not unethical. That posting has subsequently been taken down.”

Long story short, the Disciplinary Review Board disagreed that it wasn’t a violation.  Citing to ABA Formal Opinion 479 and a few court decisions, the Board concluded that the lawyer’s review of the former client’s business violated the rules because the information, “although publicly available, was not generally known.”

As I’ve said before, and as my dad told me as a kid, when it comes to client confidences, lawyers would be well-served to remember this quote:

“You will have many opportunities
to keep your mouth shut.
You should take advantage
of every one of them.”
Thomas Edison

Be Quiet

Related Posts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court Amends Judicial Emergency Order

On May 13, the Vermont Supreme Court amended Administrative Order 49, the order declaring a Judicial Emergency.  The amendments and Explanatory Note are here.  They include an amendment that applies to lawyers scheduled to renew their law licenses in 2020.

Reading this blog is not a substitute for reading the Court’s Order and amendments.

Sequelize's Update Method — example included - Sarah Herr - Medium

That being said, yes, the Judicial Emergency has been extended through September 1.  However, yesterday’s order anticipates the State’s transition to an expansion of operations. Indeed, the opening sentences of the Explanatory Note:

  • “The May 13 amendment extends the Judicial Emergency until September 1, 2020. This does not signal that the existing provisions in the emergency order will necessarily remain in place until that time.”

Rather, the amendment acknowledges that that the health crisis is unlikely

  • “to fully resolve before September 1, and that deviations from historical court practice, or modifications to at least some court rules, will be necessary through the upcoming summer.”

A summary of the May 13 amendments:

  • The blanket suspension of nonemergency hearings in the Superior Courts and Judicial Bureau has been lifted.
  • In criminal cases, jury trials are suspended until at least September 1, 2020.  Jury summons will not be sent before August 3.
  • In civil cases, jury trials are suspended until at least January 1, 2021.
  • For the attorney relicensing period that ends on June 30, 2020, attorneys facing financial hardship because of COVID-19 may defer payment of the relicensing fee until September 1, 2020.  NOTE: even if deferring the fee, an attorney must still complete the attorney licensing statement and CLE reporting by June 30, 2020.

The original Order and prior amendments:

Wellness Wednesday: Reruns

What’s Happening?!?!

Last week, I did a series of posts and videos for National Lawyer Well-Being Week.  I think it’s important to remember that wellness & well-being merit more than a week of attention.  In my view, we must remain committed and vigilant year-round. So, with that in mind:

This week, I’m busy with non-blog projects and, further, stumped as to blog topics. So, all you get today are links to other stuff!   That’s right: today you get Reruns:

What's Happening! | VPM

And since it’s Wednesday, each rerun is related to wellness.  Have a great day!

Fun Wellness Posts

I’ve profiles many legal professionals who engage in non-law related activities that, whether they know it or not, serve to assist their well-being.  The profiles are here:

Also, before I ever imagined a “Wellness Wednesday” column, Elizabeth Kruska & Wesley Lawrence were kind enough to take the time to discuss their interest in horse racing, Scott Mapes talked soccer with me, and many lawyers & judges shared their marathon stories.

National Lawyer Well-Being Week Videos

National Lawyer Well-Being Week Blog Posts

Finally, the Vermont Bar Asssoation and the ABA have published lists of COVID-19 practice management & mental health resources:

 

Medal Monday #203

Good morning!

I’ve renamed the Monday column in honor of a running tradition: “Medal Monday.”  The list formerly known as the “Honor Roll” will now fall under the caption “Medalists.”

Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow the Medalists. For video answers with bonus commentary not available on the blog, go here.  It’s only 3:43.  By the way, my mom’s presence on the Honor Roll is not a courtesy mention for Mother’s Day.  She made it on her own doing!  Happy Mother’s Day mom!

And, yes! Actual medals are in the works! Might take a while, but I’ve got a plan.

IMG_4775

Medalists

  • Matthew AndersonPratt Vreeland Kennelly & White
  • Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
  • Alberto Bernabe, Professor, UIC John Marshall Law School
  • Andrew DelaneyMartin Delaney & Ricci Law Group
  • Erin GilmoreRyan Smith & Carbine
  • Robert Grundstein, Esq.
  • Keith KasperMcCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
  • Jeanne Kennedy, JB Kennedy Associates, Blogger’s Mom
  • Deborah Kirchwey, Esq.
  • Elizabeth KruskaPresident-Elect, VBA Board of Managers
  • John LamsonHave Justice Will Travel
  • John LeddyMcNeil Leddy & Sheahan
  • Mick LeddyMcNeil Leddy & Sheahan
  • Tom LittleLittle & Cicchetti
  • Pam MarshMarsh & Wagner
  • Jack McCullough, Project Director, Mental Health Law Project
  • Herb Ogden, Esq.
  • Jim Runcie, Ouimette & Runcie
  • Kristen ShamisMonaghan, Safar, Ducham
  • Jay Spitzen, Esq.
  • Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Vermont Law School, JD Candidate
  • Jack Welch, Esq.

Question 1

X = the number of annual pro bono hours suggested by the rules.

Y = the number of years the rules require lawyers to maintain trust account records following the termination of the representation.

What is X * Y?

  • A.  420
  • B.  360
  • C.  350
  • D.  300

X = 50. V.R.Pr.C. 6.1(a)  

Y = 6. V.R.Pr.C. 1.6(a)

Question 2

What is the subject of the rule described here?

  • must be in a writing, signed by the client.
  • must be reasonable.
  • prohibited in criminal cases.
  • prohibited for securing a divorce.

A Contingent Fee.  V.R.Pr.C. 1.5(c)

Question 3

Below is my response to an inquiry.  It refers to one of the 7 C’s of legal ethics.  Which one?

  • Your duty is to remonstrate with the client, take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

CANDOR.  V.R.Pr.C. 3.3

Question 4

When used properly, the phrases “lateral transfers” and “ACH transfers” are used when discussing the rules on:

  • A.  conflicts of interest
  • B.  trust accounting
  • C.  respectively: conflicts of interest & trust accounting
  • D.  normal people don’t use phrases like these

Question 5

On May 8, 1978, David Berkowitz, against the advice of counsel, pled guilty to a series of charges relating to 8 separate shootings that left 6 dead and 7 wounded.

In 1999, Spike Lee made a movie that focused on an Italian-American neighborhood in the Bronx.  The movie was set in 1977 and against the backdrop of Berkowitz’s crime spree, a sweltering heat wave, and the Yankees’ championship season.

What was the nickname that the press used to refer to Berkowitz?

Bonus: what was the name of the movie?

Nickname: SON OF SAM

Movie: SUMMER OF SAM (A SPIKE LEE Joint)

Summer of Sam (1999) - IMDb