Monday Morning Answers #155

I’m about to sanction myself for failing to detect a conflict.

Long ago, I agreed to speak at Thursday’s VBA Mid-Year Meeting.  The seminar falls on the same day that UVM plays an NCAA tournament game within driving distance.

Nice schedule-checking Mike.

Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Honor Roll


Question 1

True or False.

A lawyer cannot be disciplined for trying, but failing, to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.  That is, discipline can only be imposed for an actual violation.

Aside: imagine being too incompetent to be incompetent?

FALSE.  Rule 8.4(a).

Question 2

Which does not belong with the others?

  • A.  the time & labor required, as well as the skills requisite to perform the legal services properly
  • B.   continued representation will result in a violation of the rules.
  • C.   the lawyer is discharged.
  • D.   the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.

Answer “A” is one of the factors to be considered when analyzing the reasonableness of a fee.  See, Rule 1.5.  The other 3 require withdrawal pursuant to Rule 1.16(a).

Question 3

Lawyer called me with an inquiry.  I listened, then said: “it depends, did you receive information that could be significantly harmful to that person?”

My words “that person” refers to:

A.  a prospective client who met with, but did not retain, Lawyer.  See, Rule 1.18
B.  a prospective juror.  
C.  an opposing party who mistakenly emailed Lawyer
D.  a current client who intends to commit a crime

Question 4

Generally, a lawyer “shall not acquire a proprietary interest” in the client’s cause of action or in the subject matter of the litigation that the lawyer is conducting for the client.  There are two exceptions.

Name 1.

This is Rule 1.8(i)

  1. A lien authorized by law to secure expenses or a fee; or,
  2. A contingent fee in a civil case.

Question 5

Rule 1.1 requies an attorney to provide clients with competent representation.

Although he did not prevail on his argument, one of the more competent self-represented litigants in movie history was an Irish kid from South Boston.   He represented himself at an arraignment on a charge that he had assaulted a police officer, even arguing his own motion to dismiss:

  • Character:  There is lengthy legal precedent, your honor, going back to 1789, whereby a defendant can claim self-defense against an agent of the government, if that act is deemed a defense against tyranny, a defense of liberty.
  • Prosecutor:  Your honor. . .
  • Character:  Henry Lloyd Beecher in Proverbs from the Plymouth Pulpit, 1887 says, and I quote . . .
  • Prosecutor:  1887? This is the 20th century, your honor.
  • Character:  Excuse me, excuse me.
  • Prosecutor:  You’re making a mockery of the Court!
  • Character:  I’m afforded the right to speak in my own defense, sir, by the Constitution of the United States.  This is the same document that guarantees my liberty.
  • Prosecutor:  Hey, don’t tell me about the Constitution of the United States.
  • Character:  Now, liberty, in case you’ve forgotten, is the soul’s rights to breath.  And when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girded too tight.  Without liberty, man is a syncope.
  • Prosecutor:  Man is a what?
  • Character:  Ibid,  your honor.
  • Judge:  Son, my turn. I’ve been sitting here 10 minutes now looking over this rap sheet of yours.   I just can’t believe it.  June ’93, Assault.  September ’93, Assault. Grand Theft Auto in February ’94, where you apparently defended yourself by citing Free Property Rights of Horse and Carriage from 1798.  January ’95, Impersonating an Officer, Mayhem, Resisting. All overturned.  I’m also aware that you’ve been through several foster homes.  The State removed you from three due to physical abuse.  You know, another judge might care, but you hit a cop.  You’re going in. Motion to dismiss is denied.  $50,000 bail.
  • Character:  Thank you your honor.

Soon after the arraignment, Character was released to the supervision of a co-worker, an MIT professor.  Character’s conditions of release required him to attend therapy sessions with the professor’s college roommate, a psychology teacher at a local community college.

Name the movie.


See the source image



Monday Morning Answers #153

Welcome to Monday!

Friday’s questions are hereThe answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Honor Roll


Question 1

This morning, Client shared information with Lawyer that caused Lawyer reasonably to believe that Client intends to commit suicide tonight.  Lawyer wants to disclose Client’s intent to someone who can intervene.  Under Vermont’s rules, Lawyer

  • A.   must not disclose client’s intent
  • B.   must disclose client’s intent
  • C.   must disclose client’s intent, unless client affirmatively told Lawyer not to
  • D.   may disclose client’s intent

In Vermont, disclosure is permissive.  See, Rule 1.6(c)(1), Comment [10]

Question 2

If a lawyer is holding funds to which both a client and third person claim interests, the lawyer must:

  • A.  disburse the funds as directed by the client
  • B.   hold the funds until the dispute is resolved.  Rule 1.15(e)
  • C.   pay the funds into court
  • D.  withdraw from representing the client

For more on how to handle competing interests to funds held in trust, see my blog posClient Funds: when do third parties have valid interests?

Question 3

Which is correct? A or B?

In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer ____________ a duty to inform the tribunal of all material facts that will assist the tribunal to make an informed decision, even if the facts are adverse to the lawyer’s client.

  • A.   has.  
  • B.   does not have.

I blogged on this last week:  Candor in an ex part proceeding

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then said “it’s okay as long as

  • the client gives informed consent,
  • the person doesn’t interfere with your professional judgment or relationship with your client, and,
  • you do not share information with the person that is otherwise confidential and protected from disclosure by Rule 1.6.”

Given my response, what did Lawyer want to know if the person could do?

  • A.   retain Lawyer
  • B.   meet with Lawyer to share information helpful to the client’s matter
  • C.   pay Lawyer to represent the client.  See, Rule 1.8(f)
  • D.   None of the above

Question 5

Judge Merrick Garland made headlines this week, and it had nothing to do with his nomination to the United States Supreme Court.  Rather, it had to do with two topics near and dear to this blog, one of which is the duty of competence.

Judge Garland authored an appellate decision in which he noted that the trial lawyers for one of the parties had conducted an incredibly competent cross-examination.  Throughout the opinion, Judge Garland compared the trial lawyers’ cross-examination to one conducted by a fictional lawyer who is also near & dear to this blog.

Name that fictional lawyer.

Vincent Gambini.  My blog on Judge Garland’s opinion is here.

Image result for my cousin vinny

Monday Morning Answers #152

Welcome to a new week!  Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Honor Roll


Question 1

Each of the following words is in the name of its own rule. Three of the rules involve the same type of ethics issue.   Which is associated with a different ethics issue than the other three?

  • A.  Prospective
  • B.  Meritorious
  • C.  Current
  • D.  Former

A, C, and D are types of clients in the conflicts rules (Rules 1.18, 1.7, 1.9).  B is different.  Rule 3.1 is entitled “Meritorious Claims & Contentions” and is the ethics equivalent of civil rule 11.

Question 2

Attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened, then replied, “yes, but only in an amount reasonably necessary for the purpose.”

You may assume that my response accurately (and exactly) quoted the rule.  Thus, Attorney asked whether the rules permit a lawyer to:

  • A.   charge for copying
  • B.   bill for travel time
  • C.   take time off to relax
  • D.   deposit the lawyer’s own money in a trust account.   Rule 1.15(b)

Question 3

There are two rules that impose a duty to take “reasonable remedial” action or measures.  One is the rule that addresses a lawyer’s duties when a nonlawyer assistant does something that would violate the rules if the lawyer did it.  The other is the rule that addresses a lawyer’s duties when the lawyer learns that:

  • A.   the lawyer deposited the lawyer’s own funds into a trust account
  • B.   opposing counsel violated the Rules of Professional Conduct
  • C.   the lawyer inadvertently communicated with a represented party
  • D.   a client engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to a proceeding in which the lawyer represents the client.  Rule 3.3(b).

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then asked:

  • “I understand the first part: you have reason to believe that your client is going to commit a criminal act.  What I didn’t understand is this: is the criminal act going to result in substantial bodily harm to your client? Or to someone other than your client?”

Lawyer’s inquiry related to the rule on:

  • A.   Client confidences.  
  • B.   Withdrawal
  • C.   Concurrent conflicts of interests
  • D.   Duties of a Prosecutor

This is Rule 1.6If the harm will result to the client, disclosure is permissive under Rule 1.6(c)(1).  If it will result to someone other than the client, disclosure is mandated by Rule 1.6(b)(1).  

Question 5

Speaking of Shakespeare, what did Dick the Butcher suggest to Jack Cade that they do first?

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Henry VI, Part II, act IV.

As the Wall Street Journal points out here, many have argued that the line is “pro-lawyer.”  Cade aspired to power.  Dick the Butcher was one of his henchmen.  The path to power included sowing disorder and depriving citizens of their rights, a plan that, first, required ridding society of the stewards of order and protectors of those rights: lawyers.

See the source image

Monday Morning Answers #151

Welcome to another week!

Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.  Special thanks to all who sent birthday wishes for my bro!

Honor Roll


Question 1

Which doesn’t belong with the others?

  • A.   Keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter.
  • B.   Promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
  • C.   As far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-attorney relationship with the client.
  • D.   Explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

C is in Rule 1.14 and is the critical duty when representing a client who suffers from a diminished capacity.  A, B and D are part of Rule 1.4’s duty to communicate with a client.

Question 2

Yesterday at a CLE, my answer to a question included the following words & phrases:

  • same as or substantially related to;
  • materially adverse
  • informed consent, confirmed in writing

You should assume that I accurately quoted the applicable rule.  Given that assumption, the question related to the rule on:

  • A.   Concurrent conflicts of interest.
  • B.   Conflicts of interest & former clients.  Rule 1.9
  • C.    Commingling
  • D.   Prospective clients.

Question 3

“A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.”

  • A.   True.  That’s a rule.  Rule 3.2
  • B.   True.  That’s in one of the comments to the rule on diligence.
  • C.   True.   That’s in one of the comments to the rule on fees.
  • D.   It’d be nice, but it doesn’t say that anywhere in the rules or their comments.

Question 4

The phrase “without fee or expectation of fee” is in the rule on:

  • A.   Withdrawing from a representation.
  • B.    Reasonable fees.
  • C.    Referral fees.
  • D.   Pro Bono.  Rule 6.1

Question 5

Yesterday reminded me of this question.

Lawrence Mattingly practiced law in Illinois.  Once, he arranged a meeting between a client and federal agents/prosecutors who were trying to build a tax evasion case against the client.  During the meeting, the client claimed “I’ve never had much of an income.”

Later, Attorney Mattingly provided Treasury agents with a letter in which he conceded that his client had, in fact, earned a substantial income over the previous 4 years. The “Mattingly Letter” was admitted at trial and used as evidence against the client.  The client was convicted and sent to prison.

Who was the client?

AL CAPONE.  In 2018, I blogged on the Mattingly Letter:





Post navigation

One thought on “Five for Friday #151”

Leave a Reply

Monday Morning Answers #150

Happy Monday!  I hope your ♥ week is off to a good start.

Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow the Honor Roll.

Honor Roll


Question 1

There’s only one rule that specifically references both criminal cases & divorces.  It’s the rule on:

  • A.   Pro Bono.
  • B.   Conflicts with former clients.
  • C.   Conflicts with current clients.
  • D.   Contingent fees.  (Rule 1.15(d) prohibits contingent fees in most domestic relations matters and all criminal cases)

Question 2

There’s a rule that prohibits ex parte communications with two groups of people.    Each group begins with the same letter.

Name each group.

Judges & JurorsRule 3.5

Question 3

True or False.

Under our current rules, a nonlawyer paralegal can have an ownership stake in a law firm.

FalseRule 5.4

Question 4

Per one of the conflict rules, a lawyer shall not prepare for a client an instrument (ie: a Will) that gives the lawyer a substantial gift unless ____________:

  • A.  the lawyer is related to the client.  Rule 1.8(c)
  • B.  the client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
  • C.  the lawyer advises the client to seek independent counsel before executing the instrument.
  • D.  B & C.

Question 5

Last year, the ABA updated its list of the top 25 legal movies of all-time.  Two of the top three on the original list are set in the same state.

Name the movies and the state.

To Kill A Mockingbird & My Cousin Vinny are both set in Alabama

See the source image

Monday Morning Answers #149

Welcome to Monday.

Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Honor Roll


Question 1

Lawyer expects to be a necessary witness at a trial in which Lawyer represents Client. So, Lawyer withdraws.

True or False?

There is an absolute and blanket prohibition on any other lawyer in Lawyer’s firm from representing Client at trial.

FALSE.  See, Rule 3.7(b)

Question 2

Attorney represents Brady.   Lawyer represents Goff.

Attorney files a motion for summary judgment.   The memorandum of law in support of the motion is not good.  It fails to cite to a Vermont Supreme Court opinion that is exactly on point and would help Brady.  Lawyer knows that the opinion controls and is directly adverse to Goff.

Lawyer files a response on behalf of Goff.   Which is most accurate?

  • A.  Lawyer must not disclose the opinion that Attorney missed.
  • B.  Lawyer must disclose the opinion that Attorney missed.  Rule 3.3(a)(2)
  • C.  Lawyer may disclose the opinion that Attorney missed.
  • D.  Lawyer may disclose the opinion that Attorney missed, but only if Goff consents.

Question 3

Fill in the blank (the same two-word phrase goes into each set of blanks)

Lawyer called me with an inquiry.  I responded:

“when dealing with an ___________  ______________ on behalf of a client, you can’t state or imply that you’re disinterested. Also, if you know or reasonably should know that the __________  ____________ misunderstands your role, you must make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.”

(again – two words, with the same exact phrase appearing twice)


Question 4

Firm is approached by a prospective client who is getting divorced.  The prospective client’s spouse’s business deals will be a significant issue in the divorce.  Firm’s paralegal used to work for the lawyer who is representing the prospective client’s spouse.  While there, the paralegal worked on some business deals for prospective client’s spouse.

Can Firm represent the prospective client in the divorce?

  • A.  No. Paralegal has a conflict and it’s imputed to every lawyer in the caller’s firm
  • B.  Yes.
  • C.   Yes, but only if prospective client’s spouse gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
  • D.  Yes, because even if paralegal has a conflict, it is not imputed to the lawyers in Firm. Of course, paralegal must not have any involvement with the divorce or share information about spouse’s business deals.

Rule 1.10, Comment[4] and this blog post from last week

Question 5

Last week, a Manhattan judge approved a Hollywood mogul’s new team of a criminal defense lawyers.  The mogul stands accused of sexual assault.

The new lawyers were approved even though two of them used to represent an actress who has also accused the mogul of sexual misconduct.  They represented the actress in a criminal case in Virginia in which she was charged with drug possession.  She alleged that the mogul had planted the drugs in response to her accusations of sexual misconduct.

The mogul’s new lawyers contend there is no conflict because their representation of the actress is not related to the case in which they represent the mogul.   Upon learning that the court had approved the representation, the actress told The New York Times

  • “This is an egregious conflict of interest.  [One of the lawyers] is still listed as my attorney in the VA matter. [That lawyer] did nothing for my case and now I know why. A truly terrible human and a disgrace of a lawyer.”

Name the mogul and the actress.

Harvey Weinstein & Rose McGowan

Monday Morning Answers

Monday, Monday. Can’t trust that day.

Friday’s quiz is here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Honor Roll

  • Karen Allen, Esq.
  • Mr. & Mrs. Hadley V. Baxendale
  • Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
  • Erin GilmoreRyan Smith & Carbine
  • Bob Grundstein, Esq.
  • Mark HeymanGeneral Counsel, Logic Supply
  • Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett & Luitjens
  • Keith KasperMcCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
  • Jeanne Kennedy, Mom, JB Kennedy Associates
  • Patrick Kennedy, First Brother, My Web Grocer
  • John LeddyMcNeil, Leddy, & Sheahan
  • Jordana LevineMarsicovetere & Levine
  • Matthew Little, Esq.
  • Pam Loginsky, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
  • Lon McClintockMcClintock Law Offices
  • Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project
  • Hal Miller, First American
  • Jim Runcie, Ouimette & Runcie
  • Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Vermont Law School, Class of 2020, Staff Editor, Law Review
  • Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen O’Connor
  • Zachary York, Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Civil & Criminal


Question 1

I often refer to the duty of competence.

True or false:  a lawyer may accept representation where the requisite level of competence can be achieved by reasonable preparation.

TRUE.  Rule 1.1, Comment 4

Question 2

Lawyer and Client agree to form a lawyer-client relationship.  Lawyer and Client have never before entered into a lawyer-client relationship.  The agreement is for an hourly fee.  Which is most accurate?

  • A.   the agreement must be in writing
  • B.   the agreement must be in a writing that is signed by the client
  • C.   the scope of the representation & basis of the fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before the Lawyer commences the representation
  • D.  the scope of the representation & basis of the fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after Lawyer commences the representation.  Rule 1.5(b).

Question 3

Which does not belong with the others?

  • A.  each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing
  • B.  the lawyer reasonably believes the lawyer will be able to provide competent & diligent representation to each client
  • C.  the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another in the same litigation
  • D.  the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation.

A, B , C appear in Rule 1.7(b)’s standard on when a conflict can be waived.  D is in Rule 1.5(e),  the rule that applies when a lawyer shares a fee with a lawyer who works in a different firm.

Question 4

There’s only one rule that requires a lawyer to include a specific phrase on certain types of communications.  What’s the phrase?

  • A.   Advertising Material.  Rule 7.3(c)
  • B.   Of Counsel
  • C.   Pro Bono
  • D.   Pro Se

Question 5

As I mentioned, I often refer to the duty of competence.  For some, the ultimate in competence is the utter evisceration of a witness on cross-examination.

The O.J. Simpson criminal trial started 24 years ago today.  F. Lee Bailey, who has since been disbarred for reasons unrelated to OJ, was on Simpson’s so-called “Dream Team.”  Bailey’s cross-examination of one of the investigating officers is legendary.

Among other things, during the cross-examination, Bailey got the investigating officer to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when asked if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the case.

Who was the investigating officer?

Mark Fuhrman

Not all agree that the cross-examination was effective.  For instance, see this article in the New York Times.

See the source image

Monday Morning Answers #147

Welcome to Monday.  Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

And, on Martin Luther King Day, here’s a quote from Dr. King that relates to the point I tried to make in the intro to the quiz:

 “On that day the question will be, ‘What did you do for others?'” 

(“The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life” sermon)



Question 1

In Vermont, if a prospective client meets with but does not retain a lawyer, the lawyer’s duty of loyalty is relaxed vis-à-vis the client, but another duty is not.

Which duty?

The duty of confidentiality.  Rule 1.18(b)

Question 2

There’s a rule that prohibits “qualitative comparisons” that cannot be factually substantiated.  A disciplinary prosecution under the rule is most likely to involve:

  • A.  a frivolous pleading
  • B.  a statement made during closing argument in a jury trial
  • C.  extrajudicial statements made to the press that are likely to prejudice an adjudicative proceeding
  • D.  attorney advertising

Question 3

With respect to the Rules of Professional Conduct, the phrase “acting through its duly authorized constituents” is in the rule on:

  • A.  the duties when representing an organization.  Rule 1.13(a)
  • B.  lawyers holding public office
  • C.  firm names & letterhead
  • D.  the unauthorized practice of law

Question 4

Here are 2 things I mentioned at CLE:

  1. last-minute changes to wire instructions;
  2. a prospective out-of-state client who claims to be owed money by a Vermonter, and who only communicates with you by e-mail

What topic was I discussing?

TRUST ACCOUNT SCAMS.   Here are some of my posts on scams:

Question 5 (Fill in the blank)

I often blog about Rule 1.1’s duty of competence.

Some might argue that when the answer is relevant to a witness’s credibility, competence includes knowing how long it takes to cook grits .

Proponents of that theory would assert that Vincent Gambini complied with Rule 1.1 by asking that “so, Mr. Tipton, how could it take you 5 minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit eating world __________ minutes?”

20.  Vinny’s cross-examination of Mr. Tipton is here.

See the source image




Monday Morning Answers #146

Welcome to the week.  Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Special kudos to (1) Under Pressure for a team name cleverly linked to Question 5; and (2) Kevin Lumpkin for using “Fauxstralian” to describe Friday’s example of paltering.

Honor Roll


Question 1

Last week, the quiz’s first question asked readers to name 1 of the 5 C’s of ethics.  They are Competence, Communication, Confidences, Conflicts and Candor.  This week, I blogged about the importance of a professional duty that begins with a letter that abuts C.  It’s a duty that applies no matter how “big” or “small” a lawyer views a client’s matter.

It’s the duty in the rule entitled:

  • A.   Bookkeeping
  • B.   Barratry
  • C.   Diligence;  See this blog post.
  • D.  Dual Representation

Question 2

One of the conflicts rules states that “a concurrent conflict of interest exists if the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another.”

True or False:

The rule speaks to matters that are the same or substantially related to each other. For example, a lawyer who represents Kennedy in Kennedy v James, can also represent Brady in Kennedy v. Brady, as long as the two matters are wholly unrelated.

FALSE.  See, Rule 1.7, Comment [6]: “absent consent, a lawyer may not act as an advocate in one matter against a person a lawyer represents in some other matter, even when the matters are wholly unrelated.”

Question 3

Lawyer is holding funds in connection with the representation of Client.  Both Client and Third Party Service Provider have claimed an interest in the funds.  Client and Third Party Service Provider dispute the amount to which each is entitled.  In fact, Lawyer is aware that Third Party Service Provider’s claim is valid.  By rule, Lawyer must:

  • A.   Pay the funds into court and ask a court to resolve the dispute
  • B.   Hold the funds in a trust account until the dispute is resolved.  Rule 1.15(e)
  • C.   Disburse the funds as directed by Client
  • D.   Disburse in accordance with Lawyer’s good-faith determination of the amount due to each

Question 4

Somewhat unbelievably, this one just happened again last week. So, I’m going to keep asking.

Attorney called me with an inquiry.  Attorney said “Mike, I represent a witness.  The defendant’s attorney keeps contacting my client directly. I asked him to stop.  He said he doesn’t need my permission because my client is only a witness, not a party.  Is he right?”

What was my response?

  • A.   Yes, he’s right.
  • B.   The rule is unclear.
  • C.   The rule is unclear, but, by case law, no, he’s wrong.
  • D.  He’s wrong. The rule applies to any person who is represented in a matter.  See, Rule 4.2

Question 5

I don’t watch reality tv, but I like regular tv. In addition, I often blog about competence. I also like to blog about lawyers who are quite competent at non-lawyerly pursuits.

A few years ago, I got into a show called Mr. Robot.  One of the reasons I liked it was the fantastically competent work by lead actor Rami Malek.

Earlier this week, Malek won the Golden Globe for outstanding lead actor in a movie. In the movie, he played Freddy Mercury.  This is a hint, as is the fact that I purposefully did not name the movie.

The Windham County Bar Association held its annual dinner on Wednesday night.  Thanks to former secretary Ray Massucco, the WCBA has a wonderful tradition of presenting the minutes of the previous year’s meeting in a very entertaining way.

This year was James Valente’s first meeting as Secretary of the WCBA. He marked the occasion by channeling his inner Freddy Mercury and singing the minutes of the 2017 meeting to the tune of a famous Queen song.  By all accounts, he was fantastically competent.

Name the song.

Bohemian Rhapsody.  The official version is here.  True story: footage of Valente’s version exists.  I’ve watched it, and it’s even more fantastically competent than you can imagine.

Image result for bohemian rhapsody images

Monday Morning Answers #145

Good Monday morning!

2019 is off to a great start! A record number of folks made the Honor Roll!

Friday’s questions are here.  Thank you for the many kind words about my mom.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

p.s.: based on the responses I received, it’d be fascinating to host a debate where my readers make their various cases as to whether Pete Rose should or should not be in the Hall of Fame!

Honor Roll

  • Matthew AndersonPratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
  • Evan BarquistMontroll Backus & Oettinger
  • Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
  • Honorable John M. Conroy, United States Magistrate Judge, District of Vermont
  • Andrew Delaney, Martin & Delaney Law Group
  • Jake Durell, Esq.
  • Jennifer DuxburyPratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
  • Jennifer Emens-Butler, Vermont Bar Association, Communiation & Education
  • Erin GilmoreRyan Smith & Carbine
  • Bob Grundstein, Esq.
  • Mark HeymanGeneral Counsel, Logic Supply
  • Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett & Luitjens
  • Keith KasperMcCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
  • Jeanne Kennedy, My mom
  • John LeddyMcNeil, Leddy, & Sheahan
  • Pam Loginsky, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
  • Kevin LumpkinSheehey Furlong & Behm
  • Lon McClintockMcClintock Law Offices
  • Jeff MessinaBergeron Paradis Fitzpatrick
  • Hal Miller, First American
  • Josh O’Hara, Appellate Public Defender
  • Nancy Rogers, South Burlington School District
  • Jim Runcie, Ouimette & Runcie
  • Chris Souliere, Burlington School District
  • Jay Spitzen, Esq.
  • Caryn WaxmanBarber & Waxman
  • Zachary York, Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Civil & Criminal


Question 1

Earlier this week, I blogged that lawyers likely won’t go wrong if they remember the “5 Cs” of ethics.  Name at least one of the 5 Cs.

Competence, Confidentiality, Communication, Candor, Conflicts

For more, see C in Ethics? You’re on the right track

Question 2

Fill in the blank.

Generally, incivility isn’t a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, there’s a rule that makes it professional misconduct to “engage in undignified or discourteous conduct which is degrading or disrupting to ____________”

Question 3

The term “IOLTA” does not appear in the rules.  What’s the term that the rules use when referring to what we all more commonly refer to as an “IOLTA?”

Question 4

True or false.

The rule on trial publicity only applies to criminal cases.

FALSE.  Rule 3.6

Question 5

Speaking of baseball, autographs and my mom . . .

. . . in the 1970’s, she was a huge fan of the Cincinnati Reds, the so-called “Big Red Machine.”  Such a fan that not only would we go see them play in Montreal, but my mom would figure out what hotel they were in and try to get autographs from them.

True story: once in Montreal, I think it was at the Bonaventure, she spotted Joe Morgan and another player in a booth eating dinner.  She sat down with them and asked for their autographs.  The other player replied: “I don’t give autographs to people who are sitting on my sport coat.”

Joe Morgan is in the Hall of Fame.  The player in the booth with him is not.  In fact, besides suffering the indignity of having my mom sit on his sport coat, the player who was with Morgan has been banned from baseball. Disbarred, if you will.

Name him.

Pete Rose.

See the source image