Thanks to all who wished the First Brother well! He made it from Dunmore to Gettysburg, where he’ll spend this week camping near the battleground before continuing the trek to Savannah on Friday.
Friday’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.
- Evan Barquist, Montroll Oettinger & Barquist
- Alberto Bernabe, Professor, UIC School of Law
- Amy Butler, Amy Butler Law
- Robert Grundstein
- Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper and Burchard
- Jeanne Kennedy, JB Kennedy Associates, Mother (of the) Blogger
- Patrick Kennedy, Amazon Web Services, First Brother
- John T. Leddy, McNeil, Leddy, Sheehan
- Pam Loginsky, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Pierce County, Tacoma, WA
- Jack McCullough, Project Director, Mental Health Law Project, Vermont Legal Aid
- Susan McManus, Office of the Public Defender, Bennington County
- Jeffrey Messina, Messina Law
- James Remsen, Master Planner, Parker Hannafin
- Keith Roberts, Darby Kolter & Roberts
- James Runcie, Ouimette & Runcie
- Nikki Stevens, Firm Administrator, Langrock Sperry & Wool
- Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
- Jason Warfield, J.D.
- Jack Welch, Esq.
- Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen O’Connor
Of the 7Cs of Legal Ethics, which specifically mentions “information related to the representation” in the rule that governs that C?
CONFIDENTIALITY. V.R.Pr.C. 1.6(a) states that “a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is required by paragraph (b) or permitted by paragraph (c).
The phrase “information related to the representation” is important. Remember, as Comment  makes clear, Rule 1.6 “applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client, but to all information relating to the representation, whatever the source.”
Yesterday I blogged about an order in which a New York trial judge sanctioned lawyers for uncivil and obstructive conduct during a deposition.
Let’s imagine a similar incident involving a deposition that’s taken in a Vermont matter. One of Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct makes it a violation for a lawyer to “engage in undignified or discourteous conduct which is degrading or disruptive to a tribunal.”
Does the rule apply at a deposition?
- A. No. A comment to the rule specifically leaves control of depositions to the trial courts.
- B. No, but a comment to the rule cautions lawyers against conduct that would be prohibited in court.
- C. Yes. This is Rule 3.5(d). As Comment  points out, the rule applies to “any proceeding of a tribunal.” Rule 1.0(m) includes defines “tribunal” to include a deposition.
Fill in the blank. The same word goes in each blank. What is it?
There’s a rule that sets out a lawyer’s duties when dealing with an __________ person. The duties include not stating or implying that the lawyer is “disinterested,” and correcting any misunderstanding that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the __________ person has about the lawyer’s role. A comment to the rule states that the “rule does not prohibit a lawyer from negotiating terms of a transaction or settling a dispute with the __________ person.”
Unrepresented. This is V.R.Pr.C. 4.3.
Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then responded that “a comment to the rule, states that ‘matters are substantially related if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute or if there otherwise is a substantial risk that confidential factual information as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the client’s position in the new matter.’”
Lawyer didn’t contact me to discuss confidentiality. Rather, given my response, Lawyer contacted me because Lawyer was concerned about, what?
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST between a client (or prospective client) and a former client. V.R.Pr.C. 1.9 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client whose interests are materially adverse to the interests of a former client in a matter that is the same as or substantially related to the matter in which the lawyer represented the former client.
When the First Brother arrives in Savannah, he’ll be just over 200 miles southeast of Monticello, GA. A movie that the American Bar Association has ranked as one of the Top 3 of all-time was filmed in Monticello.
While most fans associate the movie with a neighboring state and its mud, in fact, the convenience store and courthouse that feature so prominently in the film are in Georgia. In 2019, then federal judge Merrick Garland wrote an opinion in which he made numerous references to the movie, including a statement that the lead character “taught a master class in cross-examination.”
Name the movie.
MY COUSIN VINNY.
The Sac-O-Suds and Jasper County Historic Courthouse are in Monticello, Georgia.