Welcome to the 230th #fiveforfriday legal ethics quiz!
Today I’m going to relate both the date and the quiz number to a video of a friend’s performance at a dance recital last weekend.
Oh, wait. That’s not what I’m going to do. To my friend the dancer: you can now relax. Unless you need defibrillation.
No, today I’m going to share a story of my foggy brain, bad math, and dashed hopes.
As most know, I spend much of the winter using this to bemoan the temperature. I like it hot. Which is exactly why I’ve loved most the past 10 days or so.
I’ve gotta confess: yesterday morning felt cold. I fully understand that it was 61. Still, debating whether to wear a long sleeve shirt on my run, I texted Jenn, a friend who shares my thoughts on winter: “is it bad that I think it feels too chilly today?” Jenn, who is not the dancer mentioned above, replied that it was not, that she felt the same way.
Flash forward to this morning.
Again, it was 61 as I prepared to run. As breezy as yesterday, but much cloudier and bit damp, today’s debate wasn’t over sleeve length. It was whether I should wear my gloves! Don’t worry, I didn’t, and within a mile I had a nice sweat going and started to do what I do on most Friday morning runs: contemplate this column, and how to tie it to the date or quiz number.
Soon, it hit me: 84 is my perfect and preferred temperature. And what’s 84? It 23 + 61. On this blog, that’s close enough to 230 and 6/11.
Then something else hit me: wouldn’t it be awesome if 61 Fahrenheit were 23 Celsius?!?!
Apparently, my brain was broken.
In fact, my brain can get foggy during long runs. I used to think it took until approximately the 23-mile mark of a marathon. It’s at that point where, if I haven’t fueled correctly, my brain starts playing tricks on me.
Sometimes the tricks are minor: I struggle with basic math, having to work too hard to figure out if my current pace over the remaining miles will allow me to finish at or near my goad.
Other times, the tricks are a bit more serious. True story: around mile 23 of the 2011 Philadelphia Marathon, I wondered if I was lost. Yes, despite running with hundreds of others who were also wearing race bibs, on a road lined with spectators, mile markers, and water stations, I thought I might be off the course.
Anyhow, given that today’s run was only 5.07 miles, the part of my brain that does math apparently fogs up much sooner than I thought.
Why do I say that?
Because the thought that 61 Fahrenheit might equal 23 Celsius struck me about 3 miles into a 5-mile run. Yet it wasn’t until I got home, changed, made coffee, and used an online converter that I learned that, in fact, 61 F converts to 16 C. Not even close!
I can hear you now: don’t be so hard on yourself Mike! How were you supposed to know?
Because I grew up in Vermont!! And, when I grew up, they had these things called “basic competencies” that they started teaching us early and tracked throughout our academic careers. Things like “giving directions” and “making change.” Now that I think about it, pretty much all the things that we don’t need to do on our own these days. Anyhow, “temperature conversion” might not have been one of the basic competencies. Still, for a long, long time, I’ve known that when it comes to the temperature:
F ~ (9/5C + 32)
Being lazy, I’ve modified it to:
F ~ (2C + 32)
Still, this morning, I could not figure out on my own that (2*23 + 32) is nowhere close to 61.
Foggy brain. Bad math. Hopes dashed.
Onto the quiz!
- 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 email@example.com
- 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
Questions 1 & 2
Everyone knows I often mention the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics. Earlier this week, I spoke with student-clinicians at Vermont Law School’s South Royalton Legal Clinic. Their quiz on the 7 Cs included this question:
- “Let’s imagine that upon passing the bar you accept a job with a state agency. Your first assignment is familiar: it involves a matter you worked on while in the clinic. Which 2 Cs of legal ethics jump to mind?”
The scenario is a variation of a scenario that can, and often does, confront any lawyer. So, Friday readers have the same task: identify the 2 Cs of Legal Ethics implicated by the scenario.
Your office employs Non-Lawyer. In a new matter, Non-Lawyer has a conflict that, if Non-Lawyer were a lawyer, would prohibit Non-Lawyer from accepting the representation. Which is most accurate?
- A. Non-Lawyer’s conflict is imputed to all lawyers in the office and the office must decline the representation.
- B. Non-Lawyer’s conflict is imputed, but only to any lawyer in the office who regularly supervises Non-Lawyer.
- C. A comment to one of the rules indicates that while Non-Lawyer’s conflict is not imputed to any lawyer in the office, Non-Lawyer should be screened from involvement in the new matter.
- D. Imputation depends on whether the matter is transactional or involves potential litigation.
Last week, I presented to members of the Vermont Association for Justice. My topic was professional responsibility and “The Golden Rule.” What was the focus of the discussion?
- A. The rule that prohibits unreasonable fees.
- B. Trust Account Management/Bookkeeping
- C. The advertising rules.
- D. Closing arguments and the general prohibition on asking jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim or a witness.
I often urge lawyers not to share any details of client matters, even if doing so doesn’t violate the prohibition on disclosing information relating to the representation of a client.
Reginald Haupt is a lawyer in Georgia. In 1982, he was suspended from practice for 6 months for commingling. In 2006, he was convicted of securities fraud and sentenced to 4 years in prison.
In the 1970’s, Haupt represented a client who owned a golf course that was frequented by members of the Chicago mafia. Last month, Haupt made headlines by divulging to the media that, long ago, his former client told him that members of the Chicago mafia “delivered a package” to the golf course. According to Haupt, the “package” was the dead body of a famous missing person who, to this day, remains buried on the course. By the way, the golf course is in Georgia, not New Jersey.