Monday Answers: #244

Happy February Eve!

From the responses to Friday’s post, I’m comfortable concluding that not many  readers will miss January.  Shout out to the firm that celebrated with Tropical Friday!

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

Honor Roll

  • Karen Allen, Karen Allen Law
  • Evan Barquist, Montroll Oettinger & Barquist
  • Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
  • Amy Butler, Law Office of Amy Butler
  • Andrew Delaney, Martin Delaney & Ricci
  • Bob Grundstein
  • Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett & Luitjens
  • Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
  • John LeddyMcNeil, Leddy & Sheahan
  • Jack McCullough, Project Director, Mental Health Law Project, Vermont Legal Aid
  • Jeffrey Messina, Messina Law
  • Hal Miller, First American Title Insurance, Hawaii Agency State Counsel
  • Herb Ogden
  • Keith Roberts, Darby Kolter & Roberts
  • Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
  • The Honorable John Valente, Vermont Superior Judge
  • Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen & O’Connor
  • Jason Warfield, J.D.
  • Jack Welch, Esq.


Question 1

Michael contacts Attorney for representation.  Michael’s matter is substantially related to a matter in which Attorney formerly represented Patrick.

By rule, which is most relevant to Attorney’s consideration of whether to represent Michael?

  • A.  whether Michael’s interests are materially adverse to Patrick’s.  See, V.R.Pr.C. 1.9(a).
  • B..whether Attorney remembers anything about Patrick’s matter.
  • C..whether Patrick’s matter concluded more than 7 years ago.
  • D..the nature of Michael’s matter: litigation or transactional.

 Question 2

 Here’s the first clause of V.R.Pr.C. 4.4(a):

“In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person . . .”

I’ve long argued that as the presence of one of the 7C of Legal Ethics wanes, the well-being of the profession deteriorates.  Which one?  That is, which of the 7Cs, when taken to the opposite extreme, crosses a line and violates the first clause in Rule 4.4(a)?

CIVILITY   (If scores mattered, I’d accept compassion, caring, courtesy . . . etc.)

A reader asked for a reminder.  The 7 Cs are:

  • 5 that are rules:  Competence, Communication, Confidentiality, Conflicts, Candor.
  • 2 others:  Commingling, Civility

Question 3


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

Y = the number of years that a rule requires 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

Y = 6.  V.R.Pr.C. 1.15(a)(1).

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry.  My response included “It seems like there are grounds to do so.  But if you do, make sure to avoid noisy ______________.”

Given my answer, it’s most likely that Lawyer called to discuss:

  • A.  withdrawing from representing a client.  See; Stop Making Noise
  • B.  reporting opposing counsel to disciplinary counsel.
  • C.  a trust account scam
  • D.  throwing a Super Bowl party.

Question 5

Earlier this week I posted Espionage, Bribery, and Reinstatement to the Practice of Law. It refers to the story of a lawyer who, last month, sought reinstatement to the D.C. Bar.  The lawyer was disbarred in the 90s after being convicted of espionage.

In 1950, and in a criminal trial that captured the nation’s attention, a lawyer was charged with perjury. The charge was based on an allegation that the lawyer had lied to the House Committee on Un-American Activities by stating that he had not been a communist spy in the 1930s.  Because the statute of limitations had run, the lawyer was not charged with espionage

On one side of the trial, the government’s evidence included the so-called “Pumpkin Papers,” papers that an admitted former spy, who’d hidden them in a pumpkin for years, testified proved that he and the lawyer had committed espionage for the Soviets.

On the other, two sitting justices of the United States Supreme Court testified as character witnesses for the lawyer.

The lawyer was convicted.  As a result, the lawyer was disbarred in Massachusetts.  Then, in 1975, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reinstated the lawyer, making him the first Massachusetts lawyer ever to be reinstated after having been disbarred.

Name the lawyer.  ALGER HISS

Bonus: name the member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities who, years later, was disbarred himself.   RICHARD NIXON

 The Alger Hiss trial fascinates me.  History has a good primer here.


One thought on “Monday Answers: #244

Comments are closed.