Happy Memorial Day!
Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.
- Matthew Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Evan Barquist, Montroll Oettinger & Barquist
- Alberto Bernabe, Professor, UIC School of Law
- Benjamin Gould, Paul Frank + Collins
- Robert Grundstein
- Anthony Iarrapino, Wilschek & Iarrapino Law Office
- Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett & Luitjens
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Deb Kirchwey, Law Office of Deborah Kirchwey
- Elizabeth Kruska, Immediate Past-President, Vermont Bar Association
- John Leddy, McNeil Leddy & Sheahan
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Mental Health Law Project, Vermont Legal Aid
- Jeffrey Messina, Esq.
- Hal Miller, Hawaii Agency Underwriting Counsel, First American Title
- Herb Ogden
- Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
- The Honorable John Valente, Vermont Superior Judge
- Lucia White, Mediator & Paralegal, Nanci Smith Law
A comment to a rule states that “information acquired in a prior representation may have been rendered obsolete by the passage of time, a circumstance that may be relevant in determining whether two matters are substantially related.”
Which two of the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics does the rule address?
This Rule 1.9 – Duties to Former Clients. It addresses both Conflicts and Confidences.
There is a rule that prohibits lawyers from charging or collecting an unreasonable fee. Which is most accurate? The rule ___________________:
- A. also prohibits a lawyer from agreeing to an unreasonable fee. Rule 1.5 – Fees
- B. includes an exception that allows a lawyer to charge a fee that is otherwise unreasonable if the client agrees.
- C. includes an exception that allows a lawyer to charge a fee that is otherwise unreasonable if the client agrees, if the client was afforded a reasonable amount of time to seek independent legal advice about the fee before agreeing to it.
- D. includes an exception that allows a lawyer to charge a fee that is otherwise unreasonable if the client agrees, if the fee agreement is confirmed in a writing that is signed by the client.
By rule, a “prospective client” is one who, in good faith, discussed with a lawyer the possibility of retaining the lawyer but, for whatever reason, did not retain the lawyer. Which is most accurate?
Per the rule, the lawyer shall not represent a client:
- A. with interests materially adverse to the prospective client.
- B. with interests materially adverse to the prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter.
- C. with interests materially adverse to the prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to the prospective client. Rule 1.18 – Duties to Prospective Client
- D None of the above. This is a trick question. Vermont has not adopted the ABA Model Rule that applies to “prospective clients.”
Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then replied “one of the exceptions to the general prohibition against disclosure applies. However, you should limit your response to disclosing only the information that is reasonably necessary to establish a defense or to respond to the allegations.”
Given my response, it’s most likely that the allegations have been made against __________:
- A. A current client of Lawyer.
- B. A former client of Lawyer.
- C. A or B.
- D. Lawyer. Here, I was referring to Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information. Paragraph(c)(3) includes the so-called “self-defense” exception. Last week, I referenced the rule & exception in this post about the Illinois judge who ordered Drew Peterson’s former lawyer not to disclose information relating to the disappearance of Peterson’s missing wife.
Yesterday, testimony finally ended in a defamation trial that has lasted 6 weeks and garnered significant media attention. The trial included disturbing and troubling evidence of physical and emotional abuse. It also included something that is quite rare in trials: while examining a witness, a lawyer objected to his own question.
Name either of the parties to the defamation case.
The parties are Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Here’s the moment when the lawyer objected to his own question. To be fair, media ran with this. As LegalEagle explains here, the lawyer was more trying to strike the answer more than to object to his own question.