Welcome to Friday and the 264th legal ethics quiz.
Earlier this week I pondered whether today’s intro might reference the NCAA basketball tournament. As any fan of or participant in March Madness likely knows, there are always 64 teams in the “bracket.” Indeed, who can forget 2020, when 48 concepts involving legal ethics and professional responsibility joined 16 quotes from My Cousin Vinny in this blog’s “Professional Responsibility Madness” bracket. Vermont’s legal profession voted out a Final Four that looked like this:
Anyhow, in the tournament, 64 teams are divided into four “regions.” Each region has 16 teams, with the teams seeded 1 thru 16 according to perceived strength. Much of the discussion in the weeks leading up to the tournament focuses on predicting which teams will receive the coveted top seed in each bracket.
With that as a backdrop, as this week went on, I noticed an uptick in news of the bizarre coming from the world of legal ethics and professional responsibility. Here are four stories from the past week alone:
- The Ohio judge who was indefinitely suspended for, among (many) other things, conducting “business in a manner befitting of a game show host.” Above The Law has the story here. Having read the opinion, I wonder whether game show hosts will object to the comparison.
- The lawyer who, as reported by the Portland Press Herald, was sanctioned for having a sexual relationship with a client AND for certifying that that he had done CLE when, in fact, his employee had done it for him.
- As reported by The Volokh Conspiracy, the lawyer who was sanctioned for plagiarizing opposing counsel’s (!!) motion! Yes, you read that correctly. Here is the court’s opinion in response to a motion for sanctions. The first two lines cut straight to the chase.
- The Legal Profession Blog has the story of a Kansas lawyer who accepted title to a client’s motorcycle as security for payment of legal fees. The client, S.R., didn’t pay and didn’t deliver the motorcycle when asked to do so by the lawyer. As for what happened next, here’s an excerpt from the Kansas Supreme Court order suspending the lawyer’s license: “Respondent wrongfully reported to law enforcement that S.R. had stolen Respondent’s motorcycle. Respondent knew, or should have known, this misleading report could have provided the district court grounds to revoke S.R.’s probation (which Respondent previously negotiated on behalf of S.R.) and to sentence S.R. to a term of imprisonment.”
If we were having a Was That Wrong? tournament, each of these stories would be a contender for a regional top seed and the championship itself.
Sadly, if I had put some effort into this, I probably could’ve created a bracket that made it to sixty-four.
And since this is a quiz introduction, I prefer the phonetic version of the previous sentence:
“Sadly, if I had put some effort into this, I probably could’ve created a bracket that made it 2 64.”
As always, let’s be careful out there.
Onto the quiz!
Rules
- None. 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
Next week is National Celebrate Pro Bono Week. The Rules of Professional Conduct include a series of rules that address pro bono work. One of those rules makes clear that other rules are somewhat relaxed for lawyers who, with no expectation of continued representation, offer short-term legal services at programs sponsored by a court or non-profit.
What’s the topic of the rules that are somewhat relaxed?
PS: for information on how to participate in pro & low bono programs, go here or email Mary Ashcroft, the VBA’s wonderful Legal Access Coordinator. Mary has announced her retirement. Mary – thank you for you all that you’ve done for Vermonters and to increase access to both justice and legal services!
Question 2
Here’s language from the comment to a rule. Fill in the blank. Hint: it’s 4 words, one of which is one of the 7Cs of Legal Ethics.
“In such situations, the advocate’s proper course is to remonstrate with the client confidentially, advise the client of the lawyer’s duty of ____________ and seek the client’s cooperation with respect to the withdrawal or correction of the false statements or evidence.”
Question 3
By rule, what is required to be “communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation?”
- A. Whether the lawyer has malpractice insurance and, if so, the policy limits.
- B. Whether the lawyer has designated a successor to review and triage files if the lawyer becomes incapacitated during the representation.
- C. The basis or rate of the lawyer’s fee, and expenses for which the client will be responsible, except when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on the same basis or rate.
- D. All the above.
Question 4
A dispute involving New York’s version of a rule made national headlines this week, even bringing legal ethics to the sports pages. Here’s a comment to Vermont’s version of the rule. The SAME word correctly fills in each blank. What word?
“In the case of a represented__________, this rule prohibits communications with a constituent of the _________ who supervises, directs or regularly consults with the __________’s lawyer concerning the matter or has authority to obligate the __________ with respect to the matter or whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be imputed to the ________ for purposes of civil or criminal liability.”
Question 5
In 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for 60 days for misconduct that occurred while the lawyer was representing a client who hired the lawyer to assist in recovering money spent on John Lennon memorabilia that turned out to be fake.
Four years earlier, in an article about a different client, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel quoted the lawyer as referring to a deceased former client as “an aberration of a human being that comes around about once every 50 years and does a hell of a lot of damage.” According to the paper, the lawyer added that the deceased former client was “the wimpiest guy I ever met.”
In 1992, and before the client died in prison, a jury rejected the lawyer’s evidence and argument that the client was insane at the time of the client’s depraved and horrific crime spree that spanned more than a decade.
The deceased client is the subject of two relatively new Netflix productions. One, a documentary, is the 4th most watched show on Netflix this month. The other, a dramatized version of the client’s crimes and trial, is the 2nd most watched. Variety reported that in the week that followed the dramatized version’s September release, the show “was the 10th most-streamed program ever recorded in a single week in Nielsen history.”
Honestly, watching the dramatized version, the opening scene so disturbed/scared me, that I had trouble making it through.
Name the deceased former client.