Five for Friday #302

Welcome to the 302^nd legal ethics quiz!

As a kid, I spent many a weekend and holiday on Route 302. It’s how we got from South Burlington to my mom’s parents’ house in Bradford.  To honor the quiz number, you’d think I’d be able to craft a story related to the treks to visit Nanny and Papa.

Alas, I cannot.

But I can share this: today is National Smile Day! Per the link, two ways to celebrate are to smile and to make someone else smile. I can’t think of a better way to honor the spirit of the Friday posts than to celebrate as suggested.

And with that, I’ll do my part to bring smiles to all. I’ll end this intro.

Onto the quiz!

Rules

• None.  Open book, open search engine, text-a-friend.
• Exception:  Question 5.  We try to play that one honestly.
• Unless stated otherwise, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct apply.
• Please do not post answers as a “comment” to this post.
• E-mail answers to michael.kennedy@vtcourts.gov
• Team entries welcome, creative team names even more welcome.
• I’ll post the answers & Honor Roll on Monday,
• Please consider sharing the quiz with friends & colleagues.
• Share on social media.  Hashtag it – #fiveforfriday.

Question 1

While I frequently refer to the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics, I’m also a fan of Professor Bernabe’s lesson in which he urges students to remember the core principles of legal ethics & professional responsibility by associating those principles with the grades that students DON’T want to receive:  Cs, Ds, and Fs.

With Professor Bernabe’s “bad grades” in mind . . .

. . . the rule that sets out this duty includes a comment that states that “perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination.”  Another comment stresses that the duty “may require that each sole practitioner prepare a plan . . . that designates another competent lawyer to review client files, notify each of client of the lawyer’s death or disability, and determine whether is a need for immediate protective action.”

What duty?

Questions 2

Fill in the blank.

There’s a rule that states that “a lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be _________________ witness.”

• A.   a necessary.
• B    a fact.
• C    an expert.
• D.   an adverse.

Question 3

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then replied “according to the rule, it’s permitted if it, and I quote, ‘can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client.’”

What did Lawyer call to discuss?

• A.   Disclosing a client’s confidential information.
• B.   Withdrawing from representing a client.
• C.   The scope of the duty to correct a client’s false testimony.
• D.   Agreeing to an adversary’s request for an extension of time.

Question 4

Another “fill in the blank,” but this time without options.

A comment to rule states that:

• “In the case of a _______________ organization, this rule prohibits communications with a constituent of the organization who supervises, directs, or regularly consults with the organization’s lawyer concerning the matter, or who has authority to obligate the organization with respect to the matter, or whose act or omission may be imputed to the organization for the purposes of civil or criminal liability.  Consent of the organization’s lawyer is not required for communication with a former constituent.”

Question 5

A story from a criminal case in Michigan went viral this week.  It involved a person charged with driving with a suspended license. 

The defendant participated in a pre-trial hearing via Zoom.  To me, the judge appeared stunned.  The New York Times described the judge as “perplexed.” Thinking back to the intro, it might be fair to say that the judge displayed an incredulous smile.

No matter the descriptor, what was the defendant doing that left the judge in seeming disbelief?

PS: It’s not clear to me whether the person had a lawyer. If so, I’m sure the lawyer was as perplexed as the judge. Going forward, and given the charge, the duty of competence likely includes advising a client to not to appear remotely while doing what the defendant was doing. The story makes me think that a potential future blog post might be one in which I share anonymized versions of readers’ most memorable “I cannot believe that my client just did that!!!” moments. Feel free to share!