Welcome to Monday!
Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s honor roll.
- Matthew Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly & White
- Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
- Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
- Corinne Deering, PACE Registered Paralegal®. Paul Frank & Collins
- Cary Dube, Bergeron, Pardis, Fitzpatrick
- Laura Gorsky, Law Office of David Sunshine
- Bob Grundstein, Esq.
- Anthony Iarrapino, Wilschek & Iarrapino
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
- Joshua Martin, Green Mountain Legal
- Hal Miller, First American
- Lon McClintock, McClintock Law Offices
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Mental Health Law Project
- Jeff Messina, Bergeron Paradis Fitzpatrick
- Jesse Moorman, Assistant Attorney General
- Jay Spitzen, Esq.
- Robyn Sweet, CORE Registered Paralegal, Cleary Shahi & Aicher
- Emily Tredeau, Office of the Defender General, Prisoners’ Rights
- Brendan Walsh, Quantum Leap Capital
- Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen O’Connor
Lawyer used to represent Client. Per the Rules of Professional Conduct, which situation is different from the others?
- A. Client files disciplinary complaint against Lawyer.
- B. Client sues Lawyer for malpractice.
- C. Client posts negative online review about Lawyer.
- D. Client files petition for post-conviction relief alleging that Lawyer failed to provide effective assistance of counsel.
Rule 1.6(c)(3) permits but does not require lawyers to disclose otherwise confidential information “to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client . . . [or] to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client.” Per Comment , the rule can “arise in a civil, criminal, disciplinary, or other proceeding.”
A, B, and D are “controversies” or “proceedings” that trigger the rule. At the end of this post you’ll see a digest of cases & opinions that make clear that a negative online review is not a “controversy” or “proceeding” for the purposes of the rule.
Caveat: any disclosure made pursuant to the rule should be limited to respond only to the specific controversy or allegation, and, if made in court, should include reasonable efforts to limit access to the information to people who need to know. Comment .
Finally, as noted by ABA Formal Opinion 10-456, a criminal defense lawyer should raise, or give the former client an opportunity to raise, all non-frivolous arguments against waiving the attorney-client privilege.
Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then replied: “I disagree. I wouldn’t call without permission. The rule applies to ‘matters’ Litigation doesn’t have to be pending for there to be a ‘matter.’ ”
What rule? (the topic of the rule is fine)
Communicating with a represented person. See, Rule 4.2.
Per the rule, an attorney shall not “prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer any substantial gift unless __________”
- A. The attorney or recipient is related to the client. Rule 1.8(c). Comment  suggests that a non-relative cannot waive the protection of this rule.
- B. The client gives informed consent
- C. The client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing
- D. The client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek independent legal advice
If you go to one of my seminars and hear me babbling about stuff that’s “onsite, online, and air-gap,” it’s most likely that I’m talking about:
- A. Trust accounting software
- B. The duty to safeguard electronically stored client information. See: Ransomware & Cybersecurity Insurance
- C. Software that assists with conflict checks
- D. The duty of competence insofar as it relates to online legal research
Speaking of frivolous claims . . .
Lionel Hutz is a fictional lawyer. On behalf of a client, he sued The Frying Dutchman restaurant over its “All You Can Eat” offer. Hutz referred to the offer as “the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film The Never Ending Story.”
In another episode, the same client retains Hutz as a result of Hutz’s slogan “Cases won in 30 minutes or your pizza is free.” Thinking he lost the case, Hutz gave the client and the client’s family a box of pizza. The client’s wife pointed out that they won the case. Hutz responded that the pizza box was empty anyway.
How’d Hutz get a law license? I don’t know. But I do know that he claimed “I’ve attended Harvard, Yale, MIT, Oxford, the Sorbonne, and the Louvre.”
You might know the actor who voiced Hutz better for his roles on Saturday Night Liveand NewsRadio.
Name the client.