Today always makes me think of Bove’s.
For those of you who don’t know, Bove’s was a Burlington institution; an Italian restaurant in the Old North End that opened on December 7, 1941, and closed in 2015. While the restaurant is no longer, Mark’s sauces, meatballs, and recipes remain among my favorites. Although the kid in me (and I’m guessing in my brother) longs for that bread that came with every meal at the restaurant itself. Oh, that bread.
Alas, I digress.
The fact that I think of the restaurant on November 22 has nothing to do with this week’s number, 183, or legal ethics. Today is the anniversary of the JFK assassination. I have no idea why I remember this, but Bove’s is where my mom and some of her friends went to watch news coverage of the event.
Generally, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I have 2 exceptions:
- The NFL’s obvious conspiracy to prop up the Patriots over the past 18 years; and,
When it comes to the JFK assassination, I cannot get enough conspiracy theory. At times, I think I’ve believed in every single one of them. I’m obsessed with the smallest of details.
I’m also struck by the lack of emotion I attach to such a tragic event. Time is funny. Almost frivolous.
Back then, my mom was still a few years away from even meeting my dad. For her and her friends, as college-aged kids, the event must have been one of the most significant of their lives, at least up until that point. In the moment, I’m guessing they never could’ve conceived that it ever would be perceived as anything but crushing.
Then there’s me.
Yes, I know all about the day. Nevertheless, it takes about two seconds for my thoughts to progress from wondering how terrified Jackie must have been & what really happened in Mexico City, to the magic loogie of Seinfeld fame & a mental note that I really should watch 11.22.63. It’s why I subscribed to Hulu in the first place.
Isn’t that bizarre? An event that left my mom at an abject loss in Bove’s, she and her friends questioning their faith in the world that any children they might have would grow up in, leads one of those children to thinking of streaming options.
I’ve no idea what to make of that. Perhaps it’s a reminder that no matter what it is that gets you in a crazy world — JFK dying too young, Bove’s closing, the Patriots winning — this too shall pass.
Onto the quiz!
- None. 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
- I’ll post the answers & Honor Roll on Monday
- Please don’t use the “comment” feature to post your answers
- Please consider sharing the quiz with friends & colleagues
- Share on social media. Hashtag it – #fiveforfriday
Consider the following: (1) the time & labor required; (2) the results obtained; (3) the lawyer’s experience, reputation and ability.
Each is mentioned in the rule that governs:
- A. Competence
- B. Diligence
- C. Conflicts
- D. Fees
At a CLE, I give the following short answer to a question: “(1) the client gives informed consent; or (2) it’s impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.” Most likely, it was a question on the rule that governs:
- A. Conflicts of Interest – Concurrent Clients
- B. Conflicts of Interest – Former Clients
- C. Confidentiality of Information
- D. Disbursed funds from trust in reliance upon a deposit that does not yet constitute “collected funds.”
Attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened, then said “the rule says that you can’t approach her in person, by phone, or by real-time electronic communication unless she’s (1) a lawyer; or (2) someone with whom you have family, close personal, or prior professional relationship.”
Who is the “she” I referred to in my response?
- A. a prospective client from whom Attorney wants to solicit employment.
- B. a juror.
- C. a represented witness in a matter in which Attorney represents a party.
- D. an employee of an organization that is represented in a matter in which Attorney’s client is adverse to the organization.
Last month, Lawyer served as a mediator in Oswald v. Ruby. The matter did not resolve at mediation. Now, Ruby wants to retain Lawyer in the same matter.
Which is most accurately states the rule? Lawyer:
- A. may not represent Ruby.
- B. may represent Ruby if both Oswald & Ruby give informed consent, confirmed in writing.
- C. may represent Ruby if Oswald did not disclose in the mediation any information that could be “significantly harmful” if used against Oswald.
- D. B & C.
Yesterday, I blogged about lawyers convicted of crimes. Today, speaking of lawyers convicted of crimes, conspiracy theories and JFK . . .
. . . Jim Garrison gained fame as the District Attorney for New Orleans. In 1962, he accused several judges of racketeering and conspiring against him. The judges charged him with criminal defamation. He was convicted. However, on appeal, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction, concluding that the statute Garrison was charged with violating was unconstitutional.
Years later, Garrison began his own investigation into the JFK assassination. The investigation culminated with the arrest and trial of Clay Shaw for his alleged participation in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. After a trial that took over a month, a jury needed less than an hour to acquit Shaw.
Garrison and the trial were featured in the Oliver Stone movie JFK. Kevin Costner starred as Garrison. Garrison himself appeared in the movie, playing a famous judge. The judge was involved in both the criminal defamation case against Garrison and an investigation of the JFK assassination.
Name the judge.