Welcome to Friday and the 252nd legal ethics quiz!
Later today, Andrew Manitsky and I are presenting a CLE at the YLD Thaw in Montreal. Our seminar will focus on the duty of candor. With that in mind, would you believe me if I told you that you could both win a prize and secure internet fame merely by writing a single “thank you” note next week?
Maybe you wouldn’t. And maybe my statement includes a scoop of puffery and a dash of paltering. But, the statement includes kernels of truth!
Next week is Well-Being Week in Law. This participation guide includes 187 suggestions, with the suggestions divided among the different themes assigned to each day. Don’t worry. I’m not asking people to do 187 things or even to do something every day. Indeed, as the guide indicates, Well-Being Week in Law
- “is designed so that people and organizations can participate in any way that fits their goals and capacities. If you want to participate in multiple things every day, that’s great. But also feel free to select only a few things over the entire week that match your priorities.”
So, I’m asking folks to consider finding ONE thing to do during the week. And that one thing doesn’t even have to be from the list of 187 suggestions – choose whatever works for you!
Now, back to the “thank you” note.
Many of the guide’s suggestions can be completed in 20 minutes or less. No amount of participation is too “small” or “inconsequential.” Indeed, as we know too well, when it comes to improving the profession’s well-being, there is no step too small to take. For example, sending a “thank you” note qualifies!
In fact, here’s how easy it is.
Yesterday, I sent notice of Well-Being Week in Law to many who are part of Vermont’s legal community. A friend texted. The friend had recently learned that “expressing gratitude” can improve wellness. So, the friend asked whether thanking me for looking out for their wellness qualifies as participation. I replied that it does. Then I thanked the friend for asking. Boom! We’d both done our one thing!
Oh, yeah. Prizes and internet fame.
The Institute for Well-Being in the Law is offering a chance to win prizes by completing the 2022 Well-Being Week in Law Participation Survey. Or, you can show your commitment to well-being by participating in the Social Media Challenge. Finally, I will use my blog and Twitter account to mention any member of Vermont’s legal community who lets me know that they, their co-workers, or their office/firm participated, even if just barely, in Well-Being Week.
With all this in mind, hardly seems that my opening statement was misleading or deceptive!
Finally, and to tie this message to the week’s quiz number, yes, my goal is for as many folks as possible to consider doing 1 thing during Well-Being Week in Law. However, here’s my dream. It’s rooted in the palindromic nature of “252.”
What if you chose 2 things over the week’s 5 days? Then, what if you turned around and did the same the following week?
Here’s to the Vermont legal community making well-being a habit!
For more on Well-Being Week in Law and how to participate, see this blog post.
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 consider sharing the quiz with friends & colleagues
- Share on social media. Hashtag it – #fiveforfriday
Lawyer works at Firm. If Lawyer has a conflict of interest that prohibits Lawyer from representing Client, which type of conflict is least likely to be imputed to the other attorneys in Lawyer’s firm? A conflict that arises from:
- A. Lawyer’s representation of a former client.
- B. Lawyer’s current representation of another client.
- C. a personal interest of Lawyer’s.
- D. trick question. In VT, all conflicts are imputed to others in the same firm.
Can a lawyer accept compensation from someone other than the client?
- A. Yes, but only if the payor is related to the client.
- B. Yes, but only if the payor is the client’s insurance company or employer.
- C. Yes, if the client gives informed consent, the payor doesn’t interfere with the lawyer-client relationship, and information relating to the representation of the client is not disclosed to the payor except as authorized by the rule on client confidences.
- D. A & B.
Under Vermont’s rules, if a lawyer reasonably believes that a client intends to commit an act that will result in the death of or substantial bodily harm to the client, the lawyer ____:
- A. must disclose the client’s intention.
- B. must not disclose the client’s intention.
- C. may disclose the client’s intention.
- D. It depends on how old the client is.
Lawyer called me with an inquiry related to a potential conflict between a prospective client and a former client. We discussed the distinction between the lawyer’s general knowledge of the former client’s policies and practices, versus the lawyer’s knowledge of specific facts gained during the prior representation that are relevant to the new matter.
As such, it’s most likely that Lawyer’s former client is _________:
- A. a minor.
- B. an organization.
- C. deceased.
- D. represented by a law firm that once employed Lawyer.
The Thaw is on my mind.
With “most” defined as “all,” most of my knowledge of the British Commonwealth’s legal system comes from tv and movies. Last week, I binged Anatomy of a Scandal. Set in England, here are the lawyers who appeared in a criminal trial:
A few years ago, I loved the Australian show Rake. Here’s the main character:
So, if I bump into a Canadian lawyer this weekend, I might ask the lawyer if they have a peruke. It’s altogether possible that the lawyer will have no idea what “peruke” means. If so, what’s the word I’ll use instead? The more common term for a “peruke?”
Negative infinity points for any smart aleck comments that I should get my own a peruke.