The votes are in and we’re down to 32 rules, concepts, and precepts associated with legal ethics and professional responsibility. The #prmadness bracket is off to a rollicking start!
Here are the results from the first round, along with links to vote in the 2nd round.
Didn’t vote in the first round? No problem! It’s like real-life: just because you skipped the primary doesn’t mean you can’t vote in the general. Even better, unlike real life, you can vote as many times as you want . . . and brag about it!
Here’s the full bracket. Now, I’ll break down the first round results quadrant by quadrant.
Conflicts & Client Confidences
This quadrant was chalk.
“Chalk” dates to the days when gambling parlors posted horse-racing odds on chalkboards. As more and more people bet on a favorite, the odds would change. Someone would erase the old odds, post the new odds, causing clouds of chalk dust as the money came in. The term has survived and refers to favorites winning.
Anyhow, chalk walked here. Only the 7 v. 10 matchup was close, with Mandatory Disclosure slipping past Permissive Disclosure with 53% of the vote.
Same or Substantially Related Matters and Prospective Clients topped the quadrant, with each receiving 77% of the vote. Their reward? Going against each other in Round 2!
To vote in Round 2 go to: Conflicts & Confidences – 2nd Round.
Here’s the full round:
Trust Accounts, Fees & Duties to Clients
It’s tough to call 9 over 8 an upset, but Who Decides, Client or Lawyer? slipped past higher seeded Disputed Funds. The vote was the closest of the quadrant: 56% to 44%.
A more surprising result was in the 6 v. 11 match-up where Commingling/Own Funds in Trust topped Collected Funds with relative ease.
Top-seeded Client Communication cruised to victory, amassing a quadrant best 82% of the vote.
Sadly, none of the 2nd round contests thrill me. Which means TV will give these games the worst timeslots.
Wait, what? You think I don’t have a broadcast deal?
To vote in Round 2 go to Trust Accounts, Fees & Duties to Clients: 2nd Round.
Here’s the first round:
Duties to Non-Clients
Conventional wisdom holds that if you’re going to bet an underdog in the first-round of the NCAA tournament you should pick at #12 to beat #5. The match-up has produced some of the most exciting games and upsets of the past 20 years.
Well folks, our tournament is no different!
12th seeded Dealing with the Unrepresented Person posted a convincing win over Inadvertent Receipt. And by “convincing win” I mean, it was a rout! 73-27%.
Tenth-seeded Social Media/Can I look?/Can I friend? Can I scrub upset #7 Civility by a similar margin. Hopefully this signfies that I need to do more presentations on social media, and not that people are telling me to cut back to 6 from my 7 C’s of Legal Ethics.
To vote in Round 2 go to Duties to Non-Clients: 2nd Round
Here’s the first round:
My Cousin Vinny
Thes quadrant is proving to be a blogger’s dream!
68 people voted in this quadrant. The other 3 combined for 65!
Oh, by the way, so far, not a single competitor has received 100% of the vote in any match. My use of “so far” should be a hint. That’s right Were those MAGIC grits? did what not even Candor to a Tribunal could do! It got every vote!
It gets better: a SHOCKING upset! 2-seeds almost NEVER lose in the first round of the NCAA tourney. Dont tell that to You Knew You Could Ask Questions, Right Vin?
There was another mini-upset in what turned out to be the closest match-up of the ENTIRE first round. Positration/Spinning Tires/Alabmama Mud (51%) nipped And Since They Were Both Made By GM, Were Both Available in Metallic Mint Green Paint? (49%).
Finally, in Round 2, we’ve got both B.S. v. B.S. and Mona Lisa Vito taking on herself!
To vote in Round 2, go to My Cousin Vinny: 2nd round
The full round:
#Prmadness. You can’t beat it. Join it!
Ethical Grounds 