Welcome to Friday, April, and the 250th #fiveforfriday legal ethics quiz!
For those of you thinking that today’s introduction will mark the first mention of the quiz’s 250th anniversary, not so fast my friends! I’m exceedingly grateful to Chief Justice Reiber, Teri Corsones, and the esteemed Bob Fletcher for their thoughtful recognition of the milestone at last week’s VBA Mid-Year meeting. Here’s a picture of the Yeti that the Chief Justice and President Fletcher presented to me after a brief interlude scripted by Teri that included an actual on-the-spot #fiveforfriday quiz:
Their thoughtfulness stands in contrast to my own and is relevant to today’s introduction.
As most know, the quiz is usually preceded by a musing that I try to connect to the date or to the quiz number. Check out the picture. Long ago, the Chief Justice and the VBA leadership figured out that quiz 250 might fall on the 25th. How fortuitous!! What better way to tie the intro to the date AND the quiz number?!?!
If only the blogger was as thoughtful and aware as others.
Instead, and for reasons that I can no longer remember, but that I assume can be summed up as “too lazy,” I didn’t post a quiz on March 11. As such, 250 was pushed beyond the 25th.
Alas, all is not lost!
This is not a rhetorical question: who would miss such a golden opportunity to align a milestone quiz number with the date? I mean, it was there for the taking! It’s not like I would’ve had to sneakily skip/repeat a number or manipulate the calendar by taking multiple weeks off.
So, back to the question, who would be so oblivious???
A fool, that’s who. Which makes it altogether appropriate that instead of delivering the 250th on the 25th, I’m posting it on April 1.
Happy April Fool’s Day!
Seriously, blogs don’t work unless people read them. So, to anyone who has read even a single quiz, thank you!
Moreover, as I’ve noted before, the Friday posts have allowed me to forge connections with many who I wouldn’t have otherwise. I appreciate each of you and value our connections more than you know.
Thank you for your support as I’ve pursued what I initially worried was but foolish idea that a weekly legal ethics quiz might stand a chance.
Onto the quiz!
Rules
- 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 michael.kennedy@vermont.gov
- I’ll post the answers & Honor Roll on Monday
- Please consider sharing the quiz with friends & colleagues
- Share on social media. Hashtag it – #fiveforfriday
Question 1
Attorney called me with an inquiry. My response included this statement: “Unless the deposit was an instrument that is listed among the exceptions, the general rule is that you can’t unless you have collected funds.”
Can’t what?
Question 2
I often refer to the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics: competence, communication, confidentiality, conflicts, candor, commingling, and civility. I use them to urge lawyers to consider concepts instead of trying to memorize the rules.
Similarly, Professor Bernabe, a regular member of the #fiveforfriday Honor Roll, suggests to the students in his professional responsibility class that they associate the principles encapsulated by the Rules of Professional Conduct with the grades that they don’t want to receive for the class.
As we highlighted at last week’s VBA meeting, a comment to one of the rules states that “perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination.” The comment does not appear in one of the “C” rules. Rather, it’s in a rule that is one of Professor Bernabe’s “bad grades.”
Which rule/duty/principle is associated with procrastination and can be remembered by thinking of “bad grades?”
Question 3
I’m not a fan of threats to file disciplinary complaints against opposing counsel. In fact, several jurisdictions take the position that it’s a rules violation to threaten another lawyer with a disciplinary complaint.
In most of those jurisdictions, which rule does the conduct violate? The rule that:
- A. Requires fairness to opposing counsel and parties.
- B. Requires respect for the rights of third persons.
- C. Prohibits conflicts of interest.
- D. Prohibits presenting, participating in presenting, or threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil case.
Question 4
There’s a rule that prohibits a lawyer from counseling or assisting a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. Several years ago, Vermont added a comment to clarify that a lawyer may assist and advise clients on issues related to the validity, scope, and meaning of the statutes, rules, and regulations that apply to a specific product/industry. The comment was added for several reasons, including the fact that the ethics rule draws no distinction between state and federal law.
What product/industry?
Question 5
Consistent with a sentiment expressed in the introduction.
In My Cousin Vinny, Vinny’s opening statement was brief. In fact, at 10 words, it might be the shortest opening statement in the history of opening statements. Here’s what followed:
- Prosecution: Objection, your Honor. Counsel’s entire opening statement is argument.
- Judge Haller: Objection sustained. The entire opening statement, with the exception of “ ________ ________” will be stricken from the record. The jury will please disregard Counselor’s entire opening statement. And you, Mr. Gambini, you will not use that kind of language in my court. Do you understand me?
- Vinny: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Of the already brief opening statement, what are the only two words that were not stricken from the record?
Bonus: what had Vinny done during the prosecution’s opening statement that isn’t exactly consistent with the duties that lawyers owe to their clients?