Yes!!!

I’m not a huge fan of the “Throwback Thursday” trope, but I am a huge fan of readers.  So, as it has, when blogger’s block strikes, I resort to the trope.

But not without reason.

I’m heading to Rutland tomorrow.  Two years ago, and a few days after heading to Rutland, I blogged on how I hoped never again to have to assuage lawyers that there’s nothing inherently unethical about storing client information in the cloud.

I’m happy to report that we seem to have accepted the premise.

Yes!!!

Thank you.

That being said, refreshers aren’t inherently bad either. Especially since the effective date of the recent amendment on tech competence is nigh.  So, here goes.

The original post ran on November 10, 2016.

*******************************************

Last Friday, I presented a CLE for the Rutland County Bar Association. My assigned topic: the ethics of storing client information in the cloud.  I started by saying that I hoped it was my final seminar on the topic.  I was serious.

Let’s walk through this.

In general, a lawyer has a duty not to disclose information relating to the representation of a client absent client consent.  See, Rule 1.6.  A lawyer also has a duty to keep client property safe.  See, Rule 1.15.

I view the cloud as the latest in a long line of different places to store information.  In that sense, the cloud is not different than manila folders, boxes, offices, attics, basements, barns, file cabinets, file cabinets with locks, storage facilities, hard drives, floppy disks, CDs, and thumb drives.

No matter where a lawyer stores client information, a lawyer must act competently to protect the information against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure. See, Rule 1.6, Comment [16].  When transmitting client information, a lawyer must take reasonable precautions to prevent the information from coming into the hands of unintended recipients.  Rule 1.6, Comment [17].

So, think about cloud storage like this:  client information is electronically transmitted to a place where it will be kept.  Thus, a lawyer must take reasonable precautions to protect client information both while it is in transit and while it is at rest.

In fact, that’s almost exactly what the VBA’s Professional Responsibility Committee said – SIX YEARS AGO when it issued Advisory Ethics Opinion 2010-06.  Here’s the digest of the opinion:

• “Vermont attorneys can utilize Software as a Service in connection with confidential client information, property, and communications, including for storage, processing, transmission, and calendaring of such materials, as long as they take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality of and to ensure access to these materials.”

(Aside: for anyone wondering why I included an advisory opinion about “Software as a Service” in a post on cloud computing, I remind you that Rule 1.0’s duty of competence includes tech competence.)

The question I hear most often is this:  “what are reasonable precautions?”  In Rutland, I suggested to the audience that they already know the answer, if only by treating the cloud as if it were a storage facility out on Old County Road. Some questions you might ask when considering that facility:

• who do you let into this facility?
• do you require a passcode or badge for the gate?
• are there locks on the individual units?
• who besides me has a key or knows the combination?
• can i get into my unit whenever i want to?
• what happens to my files if I don’t pay or if you go out of business?

Indeed, take a look at page 6 of the VBA Opinion.  The Committee suggested some of those exact questions when considering a cloud vendor.

Or, take a look at this post from Robert Ambrogi.  He writes that “[s]ome basic questions to ask of a cloud vendor, distilled from various ethics opinions, include:

• Is it a solid company with a good reputation and record?
• Can you get access to your data whenever you want, without restrictions?
• If your service is terminated – by you or by the company – can you retrieve your data?
• Does it allow use of advanced password protocols and two-step verification?
• What are its internal policies regarding employee and third-party access to your data?
• Is your data encrypted both while in transit and while at rest on the company’s servers?
• How is your data backed up?
• What security protections are in place at the data centers the company uses?”

Finally, remember that asking the questions isn’t enough.  You need to understand the answers or find someone who does.  For example, imagine this:

• You:   Will my data be encrypted in transmission and at rest?
• Vendor:  Yes.  In transmission, we use a BTTF Flux Capacitor.  At rest, we use the latest cloaking technology from Romii.
• You.  Sounds awesome. Sign me up.

Umm, no.  You just signed up to star in the next entry in Was That Wrong.

In conclusion, you may store client information in the cloud so long as you take reasonable precautions.  This entry includes links that will help you determine what “reasonable precautions” are.  Don’t fear the cloud, but know what you don’t know.

Speaking of which, info on the BTTF Flux Capacitor is HERE. And, for more on Romii cloaking technology, go HERE.

Advertisements

Court Adopts Comment on Tech Competence

The first rule in the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct requires lawyers to provide clients with competent representation.  I’ve long argued that Rule 1.1’s duty of competence includes tech competence.

Last week, the Vermont supreme Court promulgated amendments to Rule 1.1.  The amendments add three new comments, including one that makes it clear that, in fact, the duty of competence includes tech competence.  As amended, Comment [8] now reads:

Maintaining Competence

[8] To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technologygy, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which a lawyer is subject.

As reported by Robert Ambrogi’s LawSitesBlog, Vermont becomes the 32nd state to adopt the duty of tech competence.

Take a look at the picture that Bob uses on his blog:

No more.

Don’t confuse the meaning of the new comment. It does not require lawyers to know how to use every new gizmo, gadget, or app.  It’s far more practical than that.

For instance, do you understand the risks and benefits of using certain technologies to transmit confidential communications? Or the risks and benefits of mobile payment services? Have you thought about disabling autocomplete? Do you advise clients against being too social?

Also, don’t sleep on the other new comments. As legal outsourcing becomes more prevalent, the new comments provide helpful guidance.

The new comments take effect on December 10.

Related Posts

• Competence Includes Tech Competence
• Competence, ESI and E-Discovery
• CC, Bcc, and a lawyer’s duty of competence
• Encryption and the Evolving Duty to Safeguard Client Information
• Florida Mandates Tech CLE
• The Cloud: What are “Reasonable Precautions?”
• Secure Communications

 

 

Discovery: It’s not a Toy

Since 2000, I’ve reviewed approximately 4,000 disciplinary complaints.  Not many – I’d guess fewer than 20 – involved allegations of discovery violations.

Anecdotally, however, it’s common for lawyers to tell me that “so & so abuses discovery all the time.”  Or, “once I found out who was on the other side, I told my client that she wouldn’t be able to afford the discovery.”

A few thoughts: there’s a common misconception that discovery violations are the sole province of the courts, not the Professional Responsibility Program.  Trust me, I do not want to – and won’t – become the arbiter of legitimate discovery disputes.  Abusive or dilatory discovery tactics?  That’s another issue.

Take a look at Rule 3.4 of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct:

“A lawyer shall not . . .

• (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no such obligation exists;
• (d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.”

Of interest, the title of the rule: “Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel.”

And isn’t that important?  Although adversarial, the process is supposed to be fair.  Not only that, the rules of the game require lawyers to play fairly.

In my view, the rules of procedure – whether civil, criminal, probate, or family – are rules of a tribunal.  Thus, a knowing violation of the obligations imposed by the procedural rules violates Rule 3.4(c).  In addition, Rule 3.4(d) speaks for itself when it comes to abusive & dilatory discovery.

Earlier today, I came across a post in the ABA Journal: Let’s trash ‘data dump’ litigation.  The author makes compelling arguments against not just abusive & frivolous discovery, but what I call “mindless” discovery.   By “mindless,” I mean a discovery request or response made for no other reason than to say “we asked for everything!” or “we gave them everything!”

In one sense, mindless discovery is CYA discovery.  Or, lazy discovery.  CYA & lazy aren’t good.  Indeed, there’s nothing wrong with precise requests and responses.  Odds are that they do the job, and satisfy the duties of competence & diligence, without leaving a lawyer with the need to cover anything.

In another more cynical sense, mindless discovery is less a product of absent-mindedness than it is a product of a mindset to drive up costs or to foster delay.  You know, two of the very things that give lawyers a bad name.

Give the ABA Journal post a read. It makes interesting points on (1) a trend in the federal courts towards requiring “precision” in discovery; (2) the benefits that technology can bring to the discovery process; and (3) the benefits of – oh no! – actually having an honest discussion with opposing counsel about what each side really needs.

A quote from the post jumped out at me:

“Access to justice should not be a function of who can afford the best toys, so there has to be a solution.”

My two cents on a potential solution: don’t use discovery as a toy.

 

 

 

 

Secure Communications

Tech competence is an ever present theme on this blog.  Regular readers know the refrain:  “competence includes tech competence.”

The duty includes acting competently to protect the confidentiality of electronic communications.  I’ve blogged twice on e-mail encryption:

• To Encrypt or not to Encrypt
• Encryption and the Evolving Duty to Safeguard Client Information

At seminars, including this morning’s for the VBA’s Basic Skills Program, I’ve stated my opinion that lawyers should at least consider client portals.  Thus, it was with great joy that I stumbled upon this post in the ABA Journal:

• Alternatives to email give lawyers secure communications options

Give it a read. It’s a good intro to portals and other alternatives to e-mail.

Finally, don’t forget that it’s often the simple things that result in the accidental or inadvertent disclosure of client confidences.  For instance, not disabling auto-complete, or, exposing a client to the perils of an unintentional “reply-all.”

E-mail Ethics

This issue continues to arise.

• Lawyer represents Client.  Lawyer copies Client on an e-mail to Opposing Counsel.

As the South Carolina Bar concluded earlier this year, it is well-settled that “the mere fact that a lawyer copies his own client on an email does not, without more, constitute implied consent to a ‘reply to all’ responsive email.”   The opinion is here.  It’s the most recent (that I know of) to address the issue.  It came out shortly after I posted a blog entitled CC, BCC, and a lawyer’s duty of competence.

To those of you who copy your clients on emails to opposing counsel, be wary!  Yes, the opinion says that your “cc” isn’t necessarily permission for opposing counsel to reply to your client.  However, it also makes clear that, depending on the circumstances, the fact that you copy your client might imply that you consent to opposing counsel responding to your client.

But that’s not why I’m blogging.  I’m blogging because of a footnote in the South Carolina opinion.

You’d be surprised how many lawyers have informed me that it drives them batty to receive an e-mail from another attorney that the other attorney has copied to his or her client.  Per the reports i receive, when they ask the other attorney to stop, the attorney replies with something like “i’ll copy my client if I damn please.”

Of course you will.

And you’ll do so at your own risk. Because, what happens if your client accidentally uses “reply-all” to send what was intended to be a confidential and privileged communication for your eyes only?*

That’s where the footnote comes in.  Here’s what it says:

• “[1] Although not before the Committee, the practice of copying one’s client – by either ‘cc’ or ‘bcc’ – when emailing with opposing counsel poses some risks. With a ‘cc’, a lawyer is disclosing his client’s email address, and with both ‘cc’ and ‘bcc’, the lawyer risks having the client ‘reply to all’ and potentially disclose confidential or other information. See, e.g., N.Y. State Bar Ass’n Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Op. 1076 at ¶¶10 – 13. It is also not uncommon for a recipient of a group email to ‘reply to all’ unintentionally or without knowing the identity of each recipient, which in this context might expose the client to what were intended to be lawyer-to-lawyer communications. For these reasons, it is generally unwise to ‘cc’ a client on email communications to opposing counsel.”

As always, let’s be careful out there.

 

* I’d completely forgotten that Sheena Easton sang the theme song.  She remains the only musician ever to appear on-screen in the opening to a Bond movie.

 

Is your firm prepared for a disaster?

Earlier today, the American Bar Association announced that its Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility & Ethics had issued guidance on a lawyer’s ethical duties before, during, and after a natural disaster.  The guidance comes via Formal Opinion 482.

I’d say that the key takeaway from the opinion is this:

Or, as the Committee elaborated:

• “Lawyers must be prepared to deal with disasters. Foremost among a lawyer’s ethical obligations are those to existing clients, particularly in maintaining communication. Lawyers must also protect documents, funds, and other property the lawyer is holding for clients or third parties. By proper advance preparation and taking advantage of available technology during recovery efforts, lawyers will reduce the risk of violating professional obligations after a disaster.”

The opinion delvesin into the details of a lawyer’s duty to:

• communicate with clients following a disaster;
• continue to provide competent representation following a disaster;
• take steps, in advance, to ensure continued access to client information & funds following a disaster;
• take steps, in advance, to protect the confidentiality of client information should a disaster strike;
• withdraw if, for whatever reason, a disaster leaves a lawyer unable to provide competent representation;
• notify clients of property lost or destroyed in a disaster; and,
• be mindful of the solicitation rules if offering to provide legal services to prospective clients impacted by a disaster.

Don’t think it can’t happen here.  It has.  And, as a result, the Vermont Bar Association developed disaster planning resources for lawyers.  I urge you to review them.

Finally, for lawyers who practice alone or in very small firms, do you have a succession plan?  You should.  Not just in case of a natural disaster, but in case disaster, of any type, strikes you.

Rule 1.3 requires lawyers to act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client.  The rule does not specifically mandate a succession plan. However, Comment [5] says:

• “To prevent neglect of client matters in the event of a lawyer’s death or disability, the duty of diligence may require that each sole practitioner prepare a plan, in conformity with applicable rules, that designates another competent lawyer to review client files, notify each client of the lawyer’s death or disability, and determine whether there is a need for protective action.”

Lawyers often advise clients to plan for disasters.  Lawyers should do the same.

Social Clients

Earlier this month, the ABA Journal posted a blog in its “ethics” section: Celebrity attorneys face challenges, ethical pitfalls.   I enjoyed it as much from the pop culture slant as I did from the “it’s my job” slant.

However, speaking of the “it’s my job” slant, I want to mention three things.

First, over the past year, the news has been filled with lawyers making public statements about their clients and former clients.  So much so that several times I’ve been asked what I think about it.

Regular readers know what I think it.  I’m a big believer in two concepts:

1. Hey Lawyers! STFU!!!
2. Can’t Keep Quiet? Try Harder.  

As Thomas Edison said:

“You will have many opportunities
to keep your mouth shut.
You should take advantage
of everyone of them.”

(aside: choosing not to blog is probably one of the opportunities of which I should take advantage.)

Second, despite my big belief that silence is a virtue, I was intrigued by two arguments in the ABA Journal’s post.  Specifically, the arguments that (1) at times, the duties of competence & diligence require a lawyer to speak out in a client’s defense;  and (2) the rules prohibiting such conduct run afoul of the First Amendment.  Alas, I can count on 2 fingers the number of Rule 3.6 complaints we’ve received in the past 15 years.  So, I am not so intrigued to do more than mention my intrigue.

Finally, there’s a little nugget in the article that, in my view, is great advice not just for lawyers who represent celebrities, but for lawyers who represent, well, clients.

Referring to lawyers who represent famous people, the article says:

• “Client and entourage use of social media can compromise a defense. Ethically, attorneys have to make sure their clients and their team understand ground rules and place limitations on social media use related to the case.”

Trust me, I understand that very few of my readers represent the Vinny Chases of the world.  Nonetheless, I think the second sentence is critically important even for lawyers whose clients don’t have their own versions of E, Turtle, and Johnny Drama.

Why?

Because these days, entourage or not, what client isn’t on social media???  And that’s where the very next paragraph in the ABA Journal post comes in.  Quoting Ann Murphy, a professor at Gonzaga University School of Law, the post notes:

• ” ‘Attorneys, as part of their ethical duties, must now counsel their clients on the use of social media,’ Murphy says. ‘Once it is out there, it is out there. Even if someone deletes a Facebook post—it likely has been saved as a screenshot and is of course subject to discovery,’ she adds. ‘Personally, I think the best advice is tell the client that any posts about his or her case must be viewed in advance by the attorney.’ “

That’s a fantastic tip.  Professor Murphy – if perchance you find this blog, In Few I Trust. Go Zags! 2019 national champs!

Now, I can hear some of you now – “mike, am I supposed to know what my client puts on social media?”

Well, opposing counsel will.  So unless you’re comfortable finding out about that damning tweet or post at deposition or in mediation, then my response is:

At the very least – and by “very least” I mean “barest of bare minimums” – I think lawyers have a duty to communicate to their clients the risks associated with posting info to a public forum.

Hmm…I guess this is where I can finally reference Hall & Oates.  When it comes to advising clients on the risks of posting too much to social media, it might be this:

• Private eyes, they’re watching you.  They see your every move.  And they definitely see what you put out there to be seen.

Anyhow, while the ABA Journal article focuses on the risks associated with representing famous clients, it includes a tidbit that applies to any lawyer who has a client on social media: what happens on social media rarely stays on social media.

Tech competence.  It’s a thing.

By the way, among my friends, I’m definitely E.  My brother is almost definitely Drama.  Alas, while we have several candidates for Turtle, not many for Vinny.   And at risk of offending my friends, the “many” in that previous sentence?  It’s pronounced with a silent “m.”

Hint: this post doesn’t mention Ari Gold.  Which means his name might be of utmost importance later in the week.

 

 

Cybersecurity for Lawyers: learn from other professions

I’ve blogged often on tech competence and the duty to safeguard client data.  In short, lawyers have a duty to take reasonable precautions against the inadvertent disclosure of or unauthorized access to confidential client information.

So, people often ask “what are reasonable precautions?”

It depends.

Nobody likes that answer.  But it’s correct.

For instance, do you mean “what are reasonable precautions when it comes to cloud storage?”  Or, are you asking whether a lawyer has a duty to encrypt e-mail? Wait, maybe you’re talking about your duties when crossing the border? No, no, I get it now:  you’re asking if a lawyer has a duty to disable auto-complete. Oh my gosh, no – you’re referring to the hallmarks of trust account scams.

No matter the mode of communication, no matter the place that information is stored, a lawyer must safeguard client information. And, as I explained here, it makes perfect sense not to get into the habit of re-evaulating a lawyer’s duty with every new technology.  Whatever the next new thing is, a lawyer’s duty will remain the same: to take reasonable precautions against the inadvertent disclosure of or unauthorized access to client information.

But, as this post in the ABA Journal points out, lawyers and law firms aren’t sailing into uncharted waters.  There are lessons to be drawn from other professions.  Per the post, those lessons include:

• Encryption is important.  I’d even venture to opine that if it isn’t already, we aren’t long for the day when the failure to encrypt is tantamount to a failure to take reasonable precautions.
• Partners and more senior lawyers have to follow the same rules as everyone else. “I don’t do tech” isn’t reasonable. It’s no different from saying “I don’t do ‘protecting client information.’ “
• Employees and 3rd party vendors need to be trained on the importance of data security.

There’s a great quote in the article. It’s from Michael Mason, chief of security for Verizon Communications: law firms should foster, grow, and ” ‘develop a culture of security.’ ”

A culture premised on “we hope it doesn’t happen to us” is not a culture of security.

With “it” being a breach, the dreaded “it” has happened not just to lawyers and law firms, but to many other professions.  As the ABA Journal suggests, lawyers would be wise to take heed of the lessons learned by those other professions.

A Competent Cease & Desist Letter. (And Beer!)

Regular readers know that I preach the duty of competence.  They also know that I’m a big believer in lawyer wellness.  In my view, competence includes being well enough to practice, and wellness includes maintaining a sense of humor whenever possible.  It’s also my view that lawyers can use levity & humor without necessarily sacrificing competence.

Case in point: this story in the ABA Journal about the cease & desist letter that In-N-Out Burger sent to Seven Stills Brewery & Distillery.

The story speaks for itself.  But let me back up.

Local readers might not know it, but In-N-Out Burger is FANTASTIC!  I’d never been to one until 2016.  That February, I went to San Diego for the mid-year meeting of the National Organization of Bar Counsel.  One of my best friends, Pat Camp, lives in Temecula, a town about 50 miles from San Diego.  Once the conference ended, I spent a night with Pat and his wife.

The next day, Pat drove me from Temecula to Huntington Beach for a marathon I’d entered.  On the way, he took me to an In-N-Out Burger, telling me that I HAD to try it.  I kind of rolled my eyes. (sorry Patrick).  But, he was absolutely right.  IMHO, In-N-Out is the best fast food burger joint in the land.  #animalstyle

Anyhow, back to our story.

Seven Stills recently announced a new product: In-N-Out Stout.  Per the ABA Journal post, it’s a self-described “Neapolitan milkshake stout.”  The brewery promoted the stout on Instagram and tagged In-N-Out Burger. The promotion didn’t go unnoticed.  In-N-Out’s general counsel responded with this cease & desist letter.

I think the letter is funny.  The use of “ales” reminds me of my UVM days.  And, I think the letter is proof that humor isn’t inconsistent with an attorney’s duty of competence.

The only thing that would have made it better?  Well, given the brewery’s name, I think it’d have been awesome if the cease & desist letter had opened with “Seven Stills: For What It’s Worth, Stop!“

By the way, Neapolitan Milkshake Stout?  No thank you.  I’m not opposed to becoming more efficient.  In the abtract, then, I understand the merit of combining dessert and a post-dinner drink into a single step.  Sounds like something Kramer would’ve conceived.  But a dessert flavored beer?  I’ll pass.  However, as huge fan of session IPA’s, you can sign me up for Son of Hop 8 days a week!

The Vermont Bar Exam

As I’ve often blogged, the VERY FIRST RULE in the Rules of Professional Conduct requires lawyers to provide clients with competent representation. For good or bad, the profession’s initial measure of competence is the bar exam.

Today, just over 70 applicants for admission to the bar of the Vermont Supreme Court will gather in a conference room at the Burlington Hilton and sit for the Vermont administration of the Uniform Bar Exam.

Vermont adopted the Uniform Bar Exam (“UBE”) in 2016.  Many of you might not know what it entails.  So, to mark the day, here’s a revised version of a blog that I posted in February 2017.

*****

In February 2016, the Vermont Supreme Court adopted new Rules of Admission.  The rules went into effect on April 18, 2016.  Among the most significant changes:

• adopting the Uniform Bar Exam
• eliminating the so-called “clerkship”
• requiring successful examinees to complete Vermont-specific CLE and a “mentorship”

The Uniform Bar Exam

Vermont administers the Uniform Bar Exam (“UBE”).  What’s that mean? Most notably, it means that there are no Vermont-specific essays.

For many of you, the bar exam included 6 essay questions drafted by the Board of Bar Examiners that tested Vermont law.  No more. Now, the Vermont exam is, well, uniform. That is, an examinee who sits in Vermont takes the exact same exam as an examinee who sits in one of the 25 other UBE jurisdictions.

Essays have not disappeared altogether.  It’s just that the essay questions are the same in each UBE jurisdiction.

On the morning of Day 1, examinees take the Multistate Performance Test.  The MPT is best described HERE.

On the afternoon of Day 1, examinees take the Multistate Essay Examination.  The MEE is best described HERE.

MPT and MEE questions are drafted by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. (“NCBE”).  Answers, however, are graded by members of Vermont’s Board of Bar Examiners.

In another twist for those of you who, umm, are the opposite of “new” timers, over 90% of the examinees who sit today will take the MPT and MEE via laptop.  Each examinee brings his or her own laptop.  Each examinee will have downloaded softwared that (1) stores and uploads their essay answers directly to the NCBE; and, (2) blocks access to all other software & application on the laptop. The NCBE prints the answers and sends them Andy Strauss, Vermont’s licensing attorney, for distrubution to the graders.  As a former grader, I assure you that this is a good development.

Day 2 of the exam should be familiar to all: the Multistate Bar Examination.  You probably know it better as “the multiple choice.”

Scoring has changed a bit as well.  Over the past several years, examinees received an MBE score and an essay score.  To pass, an examinee had to score at least 135 on both the MBE and the essay.  The overall total did not matter.  Thus, an examinee who scored 135 on the MBE and a 135 on the essay passed, but an examinee who scored 170 on the MBE and 134 on the essay did not.

Now, examinees receive a UBE score that is a single number.  Members of the Board of Bar Examiners grade the written portions (MPT & MEE) and report the “raw scores”to the NCBE.  The NCBE scales an applicant’ raw scores on the written portions to the applicant’s score on the multiple choice (MBE).  Then, the NCBE calculates an applicant’s UBE score that is:

• 50% MBE
• 30% MEE
• 20% MPT

The NCBE reports scores back to each jurisdiction.

Each jurisdiction is allowed to set its own passing score. In the parlance, a passing score is referred to as a jurisdiction’s “cut score.”  Vermont’s cut score is 270.  If an applicant to the Vermont bar scores 270 or higher, the applicant’s application is forwarded to the Character & Fitness Committee for review.

UBE scores are portable.  In other words, a score is good in every UBE jurisdiction.  Like all UBE jurisdictions, Vermont allows examinees to apply for “admission by transferred  UBE score.”  For example, New Hampshire is a UBE jurisdiction. Odds are that someone who is taking today’s exam in New Hampshire will apply for admission in Vermont.  As long as the person scores at least a 270, the person is eligible for admission in Vermont, even having taken the exam in New Hampshire.

Important!  Achieving a 270 in another jurisdiction is NOT an automatic ticket into the Vermont bar. Applicants who score at least 270 in another UBE jurisdiction must still go through Vermont’s Character & Fitness review.

Elimination of the Clerkship

Many of you remember the “3-month clerkship.”  Some of you might remember the clerkship.  For some, it was 3 months.  For others, 6. Each was a pre-admission requirement.  Each has been eliminated.

CLE & Mentorship

The clerkship has been replaced by post-admission CLE and mentorship requirements.

An applicant is admitted to the Vermont bar upon passing the Uniform Bar Examination, passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, and being approved by the Character & Fitness Committee.  Then, the applicant has 1 year to:

• complete 15 hours (at least 6 of which must be “live”) of continuing legal education in Vermont practice & procedure that has been approved by the Continuing Legal Education Board and certified by the Board of Bar Examiners; and,
• complete a mentorship.

Failure to complete the CLE or mentorship results in an administrative suspension that can only be cured by completion.

The current list of approved CLE courses is HERE.  An outline of the mentorship program is HERE.

So, that’s how the bar exam works.