Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.
- Karen Allen, Karen Allen Law
- Alberto Bernabe, Professor, UIC School of Law
- Geoffrey Bok, Esq.
- Andy Delaney, Martin Delaney & Ricci
- Michael Donofrio, Stris & Maher
- Rick Fadden, Barry Callebaut, Blogger’s Stoolmate
- Benjamin Gould, Paul Frank + Collins
- Harrison Gregoire, JD Candidate, Syracuse Law; Summer Intern, Gale & McCallister
- Robert Grundstein
- Tammy Heffernan, Esq.
- Anthony Iarrapino, Wilschek & Iarrapino Law Office
- Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett & Luitjens
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Jeanne Kennedy, Mother of the Blogger
- Nicole Killoran, Professor, Vermont Law School
- Deb Kirchwey, Law Office of Deborah Kirchwey
- Elizabeth Kruska, Immediate Past-President, Vermont Bar Association
- John Leddy, McNeil Leddy & Sheahan
- Kevin Lumpkin, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Mental Health Law Project, Vermont Legal Aid
- Hal Miller, Hawaii Agency Underwriting Counsel, First American Title
- Herb Ogden
- Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
- The Honorable John Valente, Vermont Superior Judge
- Jason Warfield, J.D.
- Lucia White, Mediator & Paralegal, Nanci Smith Law
One of my 7 Cs of Legal Ethics, identify the duty that is defined as requiring “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
Fill in the blanks. The same word goes in each. The answer is not “legal.”
There’s a rule that requires a lawyer to “render _________ advice.” A comment to the rule states that “a client is entitled to straightforward advice expressing the lawyer’s honest assessment” and that “a lawyer should not be deterred from giving ______ advice by the prospect that the advice will be unpalatable to the client.”
CANDID – Rule 2.1 – Advisor and my post A Lawyer’s Professional Obligation to Provide Candid Legal Advice.
There’s a rule that prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person while representing a client. Does a lawyer violate the rule by knowingly misstating a client’s “bottom line” in settlement negotiations with opposing counsel?
- A. Yes.
- B. Yes, but there’s an exception for lawyers who represent criminal defendants in plea negotiations.
- C. No, because a comment to the rule states that, under conventional negotiation standards, certain statements are not to be taken as statements of material fact. Statements as to a client’s willingness to settle fall in this category. Rule 4.2 – Communication with Person Represented by Counsel, Cmt. 
- D. I sure as hell hope not.
Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened*, then replied “the critical question seems to be whether it’s reasonable for you to believe that you will be able to provide competent representation to each affected client.” At that exact moment, what were Lawyer and I discussing?
- A. Whether Lawyer has a conflict.
- B. Whether the conflict is waivable under Vermont’s rules.
Rule 1.7 – Conflict of Interest – Current Clients applies. My comment reflects the language in Rule 1.7(b)(1), which is part of the analysis whether a conflict can be waived. Rule 1.7(a) addresses whether a conflict exists and does not mention a lawyer’s reasonable belief that the lawyer can provide competent representation to each affected client.
*The First Brother eagerly awaits the quiz in which “Lawyer called me with an inquiry and I didn’t listen.” Sorry Bro. Not this week.
6 years ago today, a person widely regarded as one of the greatest athletes and most influential people of the 20th century died of complications from Parkinson’s disease.
Arguably the most competent ever to compete in his sport, the athlete missed a chunk of the prime of his career due to a legal battle. After claiming conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War due to his religious beliefs, the athlete was charged and convicted of refusing to submit to induction to the Armed Forces. The athlete appealed the conviction all the way to the United Supreme Court, a fight in which he eventually won one of his greatest’s victories when the Court overturned the conviction.
Years later, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong published The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. The book provides a behind-the-scenes look at the Court between 1969 and 1975. It includes a claim that the Court originally voted to uphold the athlete’s conviction, only to have the vote shift once the justice assigned to write the opinion changed his mind after further research into the tenets of the athlete’s religion.
If a lawyer were to use the athlete’s nickname to describe themselves in an ad, they’d probably violate the lawyer advertising rules. That would sting.
Who is the athlete? Muhammad Ali
Bonus: by what name does the caption of the Supreme Court opinion refer to the athlete. Cassius Clay.
The opinion is here. Opinions sure used to be a lot shorter back in the day.