Good Monday morning!
Friday’s questions are here. I finished the 17.2 challenge. Originally, my plan was to take it easy in the 1 mile and 5K. Not just to save myself for the half marathon, but to do well enough in the half to have a shot at finishing with a combined time in the top 3 for my age group. I thought that approach would give me a chance.
However, when I woke up yesterday, I decided to apply the theme of Friday’s column, and not live life going through the motions. So, I went for it in both the 1 mile and the 5K. It worked, as I ran very good times (for me) and finished 2nd and 4th in my age group. Alas, I faded in the half marathon, painfully shuffling up and down Rockport’s hills to the worst time I’ve ever run for that distance.
But as I wrote Friday, it’s the process not the outcome. Would the half have gone better had I taken it easy in the 1 mile and the 5K? Undoubtedly. But what did I have to lose? I went for it. I tried to win the combined for my age group. I didn’t.* But that’s ok.
Because too often I settle for “middle of the pack,” writing it off as “the smart approach.” Not this weekend. Sure, I stumbled, and I could’ve done better. But, for the first time in a long time, I was in the arena, toiling in dust and sweat. And it felt good not to be timid.
Also, I wasn’t the only Vermont lawyer in the arena. I bumped into Bonnie Badgewick. Bonnie also completed all 3 races in the Triple Threat Challenge. Great job Bonnie!
*Updated at 4:12 PM – when I left the race, I didn’t think I’d finished in the top 3 in my age group in the “Combined” category. Due to a time-keeping snafu that the race director informed me he had corrected, it turns out that I actually won my age group. Still, my message stands.
- Room 1009 (pronounced Ten Oh 9)
- Karen Allen
- Matt Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
- Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
- Honorable John M. Conroy, United States Magistrate Judge, District of Vermont
- Erin Gilmore, Ryan Smith & Carbine
- Laura Gorsky, Esq.
- Bob Grundstein, Esq.
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Tom Little, Little & Cicchetti
- John Leddy, McNeil, Leddy, & Sheahan
- Pam Loginsky, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
- Lon McClintock, Esq.
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project
- Jeff Messina, Bergeron Paradis Fitzpatrick
- Hal Miller, First American
- Jim Runcie, Ouimette & Runcie
Fill in the blank. (It’s 1 word).
By rule, a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Attorney called me with an ethics inquiry. I listed, then said “a comment to the rule makes it clear that the rule doesn’t apply to an organization’s former constituents.”
Given my statement, it is most likely that Attorney called me to discuss the rule that deals with what topic?
Contacting the former employees of a represented organization. See, Rule 4.2, Comment 7.
An attorney called me with an inquiry. I listened. To clarify, I asked the following question:
- “Ok. I’m not clear. Will someone other than the person committing the act be harmed?”
Based upon my question, what general ethics topic did the attorney call me to discuss?
Disclosing confidential information relating to the representation of the client.
More specifically, when a lawyer reasonably believes that a client or another will commit a criminal act that is likely to result in the death of or substantial bodily harm to someone other than the person committing the act, the lawyer must disclose. Rule 1.6(b)(1).
If the act is likely to result in the death of or substantial bodily harm to the actor, the lawyer may disclose. Rule 1.6(c)(1).
What am I?
- I can be a tool to help provide access to legal services for those who might not be able to afford a lawyer.
- I am specifically authorized by Rules for Family Proceedings and the Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Per Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, I am permitted if I am reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
Again, what am I?
I am a limited-scope representation. See, Rule 1.2(c).
Question 5 (and bonus)
Having spent some time at the bar exam this week . . .
In 2002, one of Hollywood’s megastars was nominated for the Golden Globe for Best Actor for his work playing a character named Frank Abergnale, Jr. The movie also starred Tom Hanks as an FBI agent named Carl.
Here’s an exchange from the movie:
Carl: “How’d you do it Frank? How did you cheat on the bar exam in Louisiana?
Frank: “I didn’t cheat. I studied for two week and I passed.”
Name the movie and the actor who played Frank.
Catch Me If You Can & Leonardo DiCaprio