2 in 1 day! Another Trust Accounting CLE.

I hope to watch Season 3 of Ozark someday.   I’d planned to begin as soon as it dropped last Friday.  Alas, I couldn’t remember how Season 2 ended, so I went back to watch its final few episodes.  Still fuzzy, the problem compounded itself until I found myself starting my catch-up with episode 7 of Season 1!

Anyhow, this morning I released a CLE on the very basics of trust accounting.  The video is here.  Part of my project to provide content during the pandemic, I advertised it as the first in a series.

When’s the next segment come out?  Funny you should ask. 

Not wanting your experience to be like mine with Ozark – and don’t even get me started on how long it took to release the final season of GoT – how about now?

Here’s the next episode.  In it, I discuss:

1. Do I need a trust account?
2. If so, where can I open one?
3. What do I tell the bank when I open one?
4. Can I have more than one?
5. IOLTA or not?
6. The dangers of commingling.
7. Record Keeping Requirements.
8. Collected Funds: when can I disburse?

Enjoy.

 

Trust Accounting Tips

My drumbeat continues!  In my defense, it’s been 15 whole days.  Plus, back then, most of you probably still had too much summer on your mind to click on a trust accounting blog.  So, here we go again.

Over the years, more than one lawyer has told me the trust accounting rules are “too complicated.” Hence, my first post of 2018: Don’t Overcomplicate Trust Accounting.

A few moments ago, I came across a post on the Attorney at Work blog: Avoiding Common Trust Accounting Errors for Well-Intentioned Lawyers.  The post does a nice job uncomplicating trust accounting with five simple tips:

• reconcile monthly
• keep clients informed
• set up appropriate credit card processing system
• be the only signatory
• reduce personal funds in trust

Great tips.  With the respect to the final, remember, under Vermont’s rules, a lawyer may keep the lawyer’s own money in a client trust account, “for the sole purpose of paying service charges or fees on that account [and] only in an amount necessary for that purpose.”  V.R.Pr.C. 1.15(b).   As I blogged here:

• “Don’t guess.  Figure out what the normal charges and fees are or are likely to be and deposit that amount.  Randomly tossing in $500 or $1000 could lead to discipline.”

Anyhow, it’s never a bad idea for a quick refresher on the trust accounting rules.  The Attorney at Work post above is a good start.  Also, last spring, I embarked upon a Trust Account Tuesday quest in which I posted tips on trust accounting every – you guessed it – Tuesday.  I hoped the posts would serve as a companion to the Professional Responsibility Program’s Guide to Managing Client Trust Accounts.  The entries:

• Don’t Commingle
• Basic Requirements
• Don’t Disburse Absent Collected Funds
• Teddy KGB on Prompt Notification & Delivery
• Third-Party Interests in Funds Held on Behalf of a Client
• Nonrefundable Fees
• Misappropriation:  Don’t
• With Trust Accounts, Verify
• Third-Party Claims against Client Funds (an update)

And, some posts that weren’t part of last spring’s Trust Account Tuesday trope:

• T.I., Jack Torrance & Trust Accounting
• An Improper Contingent Fee
• The 6th “C”: Commingling
• Trust Accounts & ACH Transfers
• Matters of Trust: do you trust your trust accounting system

Finally, my posts on scams:

• Trust Account Scams Continue
• Learn to Identify Trust Account Scams
• Change in wire instructions? CAUTION
• The latest scam
• Scams continue: beware ANY change in wire instructions
• Protect client funds, and your law license, by learning to identify trust account scams
• Trust Account Scams: disciplinary prosecutions possible?

Maybe the rules are complicated.  But the general notion isn’t:

• know whose money you have;
• how much; and,
• keep it separate from yours.

 

Trust Account Tuesday: 3rd party “interests” in funds held on behalf of a client.

Second post in one day.   Both on trust accounting.  What is the world coming to?

This morning, Teddy KGB helped to remind us that lawyers have a duty to deliver funds to which clients and third persons are entitled.  Our discussion was predicated on the fact that there is no dispute that a client or third person is entitled to the funds that the lawyer intends to disburse. What about when more than one person asserts an interest in the funds?

Let’s start with the rule.  As Maria might say, it’s a very good place to start.

Rule 1.15 applies.  Specifically, paragraphs (d) and (e).

The relevant section of paragraph (d):

• (d) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person.

The entirety of paragraph (e) is relevant:

• “(e) When in the course of representation a lawyer is in possession of property in which two or more persons (one of whom may be the lawyer) claim interests, the property shall be held separate by the lawyer until the dispute is resolved. The lawyer shall promptly distribute all portions of the property as to which the interests are not in dispute.

When does a third party have an interest in funds that a lawyer is holding in trust for a client or third person?  In other words, (1) when must a lawyer notify someone that the lawyer received funds; and, (2) when would a dispute over funds prohibit disbursement?

Often, the comments to the rules are helpful.  Comment [4] to Rule 1.15 says:

• “Paragraph (e) recognizes that third parties may have lawful claims against specific funds or other property in a lawyer’s custody, such as a client’s creditor who has a lien on funds collected.  A lawyer may have a duty under applicable law to protect such third-party claims against wrongful interference by the client. In such cases, when the third-party claim is not frivolous under applicable law, the lawyer must refuse to surrender the property to the client until the claims are resolved. A lawyer should not unilaterally assume to arbitrate a dispute between the client and the third party, but, when there are substantial grounds for dispute as to the person entitled to the funds, the lawyer may file an action to have a court resolve the dispute.”

Ummm, ok.  But, again: what are the “interests” and “claims” that trigger the rule?

A few months ago, I found this advisory opinion from the Virginia State Bar.  I find pages 1-4 particularly helpful.

Let me be clear: here in Vermont, I do not know how disciplinary counsel, a hearing panel, or the Supreme Court would approach the issue.  However, I think the opinion from the Virginia State Bar is useful in formulating the appropriate thought process.

Some key quotes from the opinion:

• “In the absence of a valid third-party interest in the funds, the lawyer owes no duty to a creditor of the client and must act in the best interests of the client.”

This is important. In other words, when it comes to funds, a lawyer’s primary loyalty remains to the client and the conflict rules continue apply.

• “The mere assertion of an unsecured claim by a creditor does not create an ‘interest’ in the funds held by the lawyer.  Therefore, claims unrelated to the subject matter of the representation, though just, are not sufficient to trigger duties to the creditor without a valid assignment or perfected lien.”

This is consistent with how I’ve approached the issue.  Standing alone, “Hey, your client owes me money” isn’t enough.  Even if it’s true.  For example:

• Lawyer’s Client was injured skiing.
• The ski area’s insurer settled for $100,000 that’s in Lawyer’s trust account.
• Client’s injuries resulted in treatment from, among others, Physical Therapist.
• Lawyer and Client know that Physical Therapist has a lien on any recovery.
• Meanwhile, shortly before Client was injured in the skiing accident, Painter painted Client’s house.  Client disputed the bill and has yet to pay it in full.  Painter has never sued Client or obtained a judgment against Client.  Somehow, Painter found out about the ski injury settlement.  Painter called Lawyer and directed Lawyer o hold in trust the amount that Painter contends is owed by Client.

To me, Physical Therapist has “an interest” that triggers the rule, Painter does not.

The Virginia opinion lists things that trigger a lawyer’s duties to a third-party creditor:

• statutory liens
• judgment liens
• court order or judgments that affect the funds.

Then, the opinion says:

• “Likewise, agreements, assignments, lien protection letters, or other similar documents in which the client has given a third party an interest in specific funds trigger a duty under [the rules] even though the lawyer is not a party to such agreement or has not signed any document, if the lawyer is aware that the client has signed a document.” (emphasis in the original).

And, to me, here’s the key statement:

• “In other words, a third party’s interests in specific funds held by the lawyer is created by some source of obligation other than Rule 1.15 itself.”

This makes perfect sense to me.  The mere fact that Lawyer is holding the money is not enough to give a third party “an interest” in or “claim” to the funds.  That’s the “Painter” example from above.

With all of this said, the Virginia opinion makes a critical point that cannot be ignored.  While the general rule is that a lawyer have “actual knowledge” of a third party’s interest or claim to trigger the duties under the rule:

• “In some situations, under federal and state law, the lawyer need only be aware that the client received medical treatment from a particular provider or pursuant to a health care plan. In those instances, notice of lien or lien letter may not be required in order for that third party to claim entitlement to funds held by [the] lawyer.”

In other words, the duty of competence includes knowing whether, by law, a treatment provider has a valid interest, claim, or entitlement that may not need to be formally asserted.

Finally, remember, a lawyer’s is to recognize the existence of valid claims and interests to funds you are holding for a client.  Rule 1.15(e) does not require a lawyer to resolve the claims and, in fact, prohibits a lawyer from doing so unilaterally.

Where’s that leave us?  I’m not sure.  It’s an issue rarely brought to my attention.  If you’re ever unclear, call me and we’ll talk through it.

Trust Accounting: Basic Requirements

This is part 2 in an ongoing series on trust accounting.

In part 1, we learned not to commingle.  That is, the first principal of trust accounting is that lawyers must keep client funds held in connection with a representation separate from their own.  So, then, where to hold them?

Rule 1.15(a)(1) requires such funds to be kept as required by Rule 1.15A and Rule 1.15B.  Let’s look at the requirements in each, at times hopping back & forth between the two.

First, funds that belong to clients or third persons and that are in lawyer’s possession as a result of a lawyer-client representation must be held in an account that is clearly labeled as a “trust” account and that is at a financial institution.  Rule 1.15A(a).

Second, not just any old financial institution.  Rule 1.15B(a)(1) requires lawyers to “create and maintain a pooled interest-bearing trust account” at a financial institution that has been approved by the Professional Responsibility Board.  The list of approved financial institutions is on this page under the heading “Attorney Trust Accounts.”

Third, lawyers must set up an accounting system that, at a bare minimum, includes the features listed in Rule 1.15A(a)(1)-(4).

• The accounting system is important.  As this decision shows, the failure to have an accounting system will earn you a public reprimand.  Also, per Rule 1.15A(b), lawyers must submit to trust account compliance reviews.  Disciplinary Counsel regularly conducts such reviews, sometimes at random.  I’ve seen the reports.  The CPAs look for compliance with the “bare minimum” requirements.   Several compliance reviews have resulted in the imposition of discipline for failure to maintain an accounting system that includes the required minimum features.
• Without getting too lost in the weeds, the bare minimum features are:
  • a system that shows all receipts, disbursements from the trust account, including the source of receipts and nature of disbursements;
  • records that identify each client or third person for whom funds are held, the amount held, all receipts & disbursements for that client, and a running balance;
  • records documenting timely notice to each client or third person of receipts and disbursements; and,
  • records documenting “timely reconciliation” of the account or accounts, and a “single source” that identifies all accounts maintained.
• “Timely reconciliation” is “no less than monthly.”

Fourth, interest on these pooled interest-bearing trust accounts must not be made available to the lawyer or the client.  The lawyer must inform the financial institution that the interest is to be paid to the Vermont Bar Foundation.  Rule 1.15B(a)(1).  

• The interest will go to the client or third person ONLY if the funds are reasonably expected to earn net interest or dividends that will exceed the transaction costs and administrative costs.  This is exceedingly RARE.  As made clear by Rule 1.15B(a)(1), the default position is that funds go into a pooled interest-bearing trust account from which the interest is paid to the VBF.  By rule, “no lawyer may be disciplined for placing client funds in the pooled interest-bearing account if the lawyer made a good faith determination that the funds” were not reasonably expected to earn net interest or dividends for the client or third person.

Finally, by rule, the financial institution MUST notify disciplinary counsel whenever an instrument drawn on an attorney trust account is presented against insufficient funds, regardless of whether the instrument is honored.  In other words, it’s not just overdrafts that will be reported.

So, that concludes lesson 2.   To recap:

1. If you’re holding funds of a client or third person in connection with a representation, keep them separate from your own.
2. Deposit the funds in a trust account at an approved institution.
3. Implement an accounting system that, basically, tracks how much you have in total, how much you have for each individual client, where money came from, where money went.
4. Make sure the interest goes to the Vermont Bar Foundation.

 

 

 

Monday Morning Answers

Happy Memorial Day.

Friday’s questions are here.  The answers follow today’s Honor Roll.

Congrats to all who participated in the Vermont City Marathon.  I finished, but it wasn’t pretty. Things went well until about Mile 21.8.  From there, it was a struggle.  Still, I finished, reaching my goal of 20.

Given the way it ended, I spent yesterday afternoon and evening swearing off marathons forever.  I told myself “20 is a great accomplishment. It’s time to focus on halfs.”

This morning I’ve already started looking for a full marathon to run this fall.

Honor Roll

• Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
• Laura Gorsky, Law Office of David Sunshine
• Anthony Iarrapino, Wilschek & Iarrapino
• Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
• Kevin Lumpkin, Sheehey, Furlong & Behm
• Joshua Martin
• Lon McClintock, McClintock Law Offices
• Jeff Messina, Bergeron Paradis Fitzpatrick
• Hal Miller, First American
• Jay Spitzen

Answers

Question 1

With respect to legal ethics, which involves a different set of rules than the others?

• A.  Net dividends
• B.  Screening
• C.  Overdraft Notification
• D.  Three-Way Reconciliation

Screening is associated with the conflict rules.  The others are part of the trust accounting rules.

Question 2

Which doesn’t belong with the others?

• A. a system showing all receipts & disbursements from the account
• B. records showing all receipts & disbursements for each client
• C. records documenting timely notice to clients of all receipts & disbursements
• D. an approved credit card processing system

A-C are required by Rule 1.15A.   D is not.  

Question 3

Attorney represents Tatum in the civil matter Tatum v. James.*   Lawyer represents James and has retained Expert Witness.

Whether Attorney can contact Expert Witness without Lawyer’s permission is likely governed by:

• A.  Rule 4.2 (the no-contact rule)
• B.  Rule 1.6 (information relating to the representation)
• C.  The Rules of Civil Procedure
• D.  The Rules of Evidence

Anyhow, an expert witness is not represented by the lawyer who represents the party or person for whom the witness will be testifying. So, Rule 4.2 does not apply.

However, Rule 26 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure limits the ways in which discovery may be obtained from an expert witness.  Contacting that witness informally might not be one of them.  Thus, in the hypo, Rule 26 answers the question.  The Vermont rule is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.  

Rule 3.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits lawyers from disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.  In that V.R.C.P. 26(c) is a court rule, a violation of thereof might rise to the level of a violation of Rule 3.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

If interested, please contact me and I will provide you with a cite to a decision from the Vermont Superior Court that is on point.  I’m having trouble linking to it.

*Sadly, James prevailed over Tatum in last night’s Game 7.  Never in my life have I heard so much praise heaped upon a superstar who, when you get right down to it, beat a team that was without its 2 best players for the entire playoffs. Not exactly something upon which legacies used to be built.

Question 4.

Pops & Olive divorced many years ago.  Pops is over a year in arrears on court-ordered spousal maintenance payments.

Olive asks Lawyer to represent her in a post-judgment motion to enforce the order.   She cannot afford Lawyer’s fee and asks Lawyer to take the case on a contingent fee basis.  Lawyer agrees.  You may assume that Lawyer does not have any conflicts that prohibit Lawyer from representing Olive.

Which is most accurate?

• A.   If the contingent fee agreement is reasonable & reduced to writing, it does not violate the rules.
• B.   Lawyer has violated the rules.  Contingent fees are banned in domestic cases.
• C.   There will not be a violation unless or until Lawyer attempts to collect a contingent fee from Olive.
• D.   There is no violation because it was Olive, the client, who proposed the contingent fee.

Rule 1.5(d)(1) allows contingent fees in this type of situation.

Question 5

Talk about unethical!!

In 1980, the first woman to cross the finish line at the Boston Marathon did so in what would have been the fastest time in Boston history, and third-fastest marathon in recorded history.  Alas, she was disqualified after it was determined that she’d not run the full course.  By some reports, she jumped into the race in the final mile before the finish.

Name her.

Rosie Ruiz.

For more, here’s a story that ran in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune a few years ago.  Until I read the story, I’d never known that it’s suspected that Rosie qualified for Boston by cheating at the 1979 New York City marathon.

Like any other human activity, the running world is replete with cheaters.  The New Yorker ran this story on Kip Litton, a runner who, among other race irregularities, is suspected of having gone to so far to concoct a fake marathon & list himself as the winner.  Letsrun wrote about Mike Rossi, the runner who probably never expected a note to his kid’s teacher would have such damning consequences.

I view Derek Murphy as the sports disciplinary prosecutor.  Derek runs Marathon Investigation.  It’s a site dedicated to exposing marathon cheats, in particular those who cheat to get into Boston.

 

Reminder: Don’t fear trust accounting

Lately, I’ve warned often of trust account scams.  Today, I thought I’d re-post a blog that originally ran in January:  Don’t Overcomplicate Trust Accounting.

Yes – scams are scary.  But, don’t let that fear – or a generalized aversion to accounting – keep you from attending to your trust account.  Here’s what I wrote earlier this year:

*****

Last November, I posted The 50 Original Rules.  It’s a post that briefly recaps the history of the conduct rules that apply to lawyers.  Best I can tell, the earliest record of guidelines for attorney conduct in the United States is David Hoffman’s 1836 publication of his Fifty Resolutions in Regard to Professional Deportment.  My post includes each of Hoffman’s 50 resolutions.

181 years later, it’s somewhat fascinating to me how many of Hoffman’s resolutions continue to resonate.  Many are embedded in the current rules and our collective professional conscience.  Given my fascination, I’ve resolved to blog about the continued relevance of Hoffman’s resolutions, taking them one at a time.  To date, I’ve posted:

• Don’t Be a Jerk
• Don’t Switch Sides

Today’s thought:  Don’t overcomplicate trust accounting.

There are three rules that apply to client property & trust accounting:  Rule 1.15, Rule 1.15A, and Rule 1.15B.   They’re not exactly models of clarity, especially for folks with no business or accounting background.

But here’s what Hoffman resolved in 1836:

25.    I will retain no client’s funds beyond the period in which I can, with safety and ease, put him in possession of them.

26.    I will on no occasion blend with my own my client’s money. If kept distinctly as his it will be less liable to be considered as my own.

I understand that it is a GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION for me to say that Hoffman’s 2 lines capture all that is required by the trust accounting rules.  However, his two lines are a damned good start.

In my experience, lawyers who overcomplicate trust accounting come to fear it.  The fear, in turn, leads to avoidance.

It’s a bad idea to avoid trust accounting.

Here are some simple thoughts:

• If it’s not yours, it goes in trust.
• If it is yours, get it out of trust.
• Know how much you have and whose it is.
• Promptly pay yourself,  promptly pay your clients.

Adhering to these basic principles will go a long way towards keeping you in compliance with the trust accounting rules.  And aren’t these principles exactly what Hoffman expressed in 2 short resolutions?

Don’t overcomplicate trust accounting.

For a more complicated detailed review of the trust accounting rules, take a look at the Professional Responsibility Program’s manual on managing client trust accounts. I am working on updates that I hope to have finalized within a few months.

 

 

Bitcoin as Payment for Legal Fees

Here’s a question I’m surprised hasn’t been posed more often in the inquiries that I receive: can a lawyer accept Bitcoin as payment for legal fees?

Last September, the Nebraska’s Lawyers Advisory Committee issued Ethics Advisory Opinion 17-03.  As far as I know, it’s the only formal opinion on the topic to date.  The opinion addresses three questions related to cryptocurrency, legal fees, and the disciplinary rules:

1. May an attorney receive digital currencies such as bitcoin as payment for legal
   services?
2. May an attorney receive digital currencies from third parties as payment for the
   benefit of a client’s account?
3. May an attorney hold digital currencies in trust or escrow for clients?

To cut to the chase, the answer to each question is “yes, but . . .”  For instance, a few takeaways:

1. Yes, but as with any form of payment, the fee must be reasonable.  Example: as I write this blog, 1 bitcoin is worth $9,612.53.
2. Yes, but as with any situation in which the lawyer is paid by someone other than the client, the lawyer must comply with Rule 1.8(f).
3. Yes, but remember: bitcoins are property, not actual currency.  Rule 1.15 requires lawyers to safeguard client property.  To comply with the duty to safeguard cryptocurrency, a lawyer would need a secure digital wallet.  Of course, if the lawyer accepts cryptocurrency and converts it to U.S. dollars, the funds, if not yet earned, must go into trust.

To learn more on this topic, take a look at the full opinion.  In addition, you can find helpful summaries of the advisory opinion at A Lawyer’s Handbook, Coin Desk, and the ABA Journal.

Two other resources:

• What Lawyers Need to Know About Blockchain, a post at Slaw; and,
• Blockchain and Cryptocurrency: What Lawyers Need to Know, a podcast on the Legal Talk Network.

Finally, don’t forget about the VBA’s inaugural Tech Show on May 16.

Monday Morning Answers #107

Friday’s questions are here.  I received several great responses to the Olympic post:

• one reader was at the US-USSR game;
• another was in Lake Placid for the ’80 Winter Games; and,
• a third watched with family on tape-delay, and, despite knowing the result, managed to maintain the “confidentiality” of the USA’s historic upset.

And speaking of hockey, congratulations to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School hockey team!  Yesterday, the squad won the Tier 1 state championship in Florida’s Lightning League.  ESPN has the story.

The answers follow the Honor Roll.

Honor Roll

• Karen Allen, Esq.
• Matthew Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly & White
• Penny Benelli, Dakin & Benelli
• Alberto Bernabe, Professor, John Marshall Law School
• Rich Cassidy, Rich Cassidy Law
• Corinne Deering, PACE Registered Paralegal®.  Paul Frank & Collins
• Andrew Delaney, Martin & Associates
• Bob Grundstein, Esq.
• Keith Kasper, McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard
• Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett & Luitjens
• Deb Kirchwey, Law Offices of Deborah Kirchwey
• Kevin Lumpkin, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
• Shannon Lamb, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
• Tom Little, Little & Cicchetti
• Hal Miller, First American
• Lon McClintock, McClintock Law Offices
• Jack McCullough, Project Director, Vermont Mental Health Law Project
• Nancy Rogers, Chamberlin Elementary School
• Jay Spitzen, Esq.
• Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Cozen O’Connor

Answers

Question 1

A financial institution must notify the PRB whenever an instrument drawn on an attorney’s pooled interest-bearing trust account is presented against insufficient funds,

• A.  but only if the instrument is honored;
• B.  irrespective of whether the instrument is honored.  V.R.Pr.C. 1.15B(d)(1)

Question 2

Here are 3 aspects to a specific rule.

1. the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
2. the representation is not prohibited by law;
3. the representation does not  involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.

What’s the 4th?

• A.  each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing;  V.R.Pr.C. 1.7(b)
• B.  the deposit constitutes collected funds;
• C.  the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances;
• D.   other good cause for withdrawal exists.

Question 3

Attorney called me with an inquiry.  I listened and then said: “here is what the rule says – you ‘shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with the client.’ ”

What specific topic did Attorney call to discuss?

• A.   a trust account scam;
• B.  a client who had filed a disciplinary complaint against Attorney;
• C  a client who has filed a motion for a new lawyer;
• D.  a client whose capacity to make adequately considered decisions in connection with the representation is diminished, whether because of minority, mental impairment, or some other reason.  Rule 1.14.

Question 4

Lawyer’s practice focuses mainly on family law & criminal defense.  A few years ago, Lawyer took a personal injury case on behalf of an injured plaintiff.  Lawyer botched it and was sued for malpractice.

Plaintiff offers to settle the malpractice claim for $100,000 and Lawyer’s agreement to never again represent a personal injury plaintiff.

True or false:  the rules prohibit Lawyer from accepting the offer.

True.  Rule 5.6 prohibits a lawyer from making or accepting an offer in which restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of a settlement of a client controversy.

Question 5

I preach competence.  Well, the person who is the answer to this question was more than competent as an Olympian.

This year, there’s a third-year student at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who won Olympic gold as a U.S. figure skater in 2002.  Name her.

Sarah Hughes.