Happy Friday!

Welcome to the 278th legal ethics quiz. The questions are below the video.

In this week’s intro, I share my concern about the increasing amount of misconduct in the self-check out express line at the grocery store.  The misconduct implicates the duties of competence and fairness to opposing shoppers, as well as the duty to avoid conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of shopping.  My thoughts are here:

Onto the quiz!

Rules

  • None.  Open book, open search engine, text-a-friend.
  • Exception:  Question 5.  We try to play that one honestly.
  • 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

Last week’s picture round was a bit too difficult.  I think this week’s is easier. I use this picture to address which of the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics?

Question 2

The rule that prohibits unreasonable fees includes an exception for “any fee agreed to by the client.”

  • A.  True.
  • B.   False.
  • C.   The exception exists, but only applies to contingent fee agreements.
  • D.   True, but the exception only applies if the lawyer gives the client a reasonable amount of time to seek independent legal advice before agreeing to the fee.

Question 3

There’s a rule that prohibits lawyers from advising or assisting clients to violate the law.  A comment to Vermont’s rule provides an exception for lawyers who advise clients about Vermont’s regulatory scheme related to particular product/industry.

What product/industry?

Question 4

Lawyer called me with an inquiry. I listened, then replied:

“Actually, there’s an exception to the rule that allows you to do so in a post-judgment action to collect spousal maintenance. The exception is a great tool to increase access to legal services for those who can’t otherwise afford a lawyer.”

What does the exception allow Lawyer to do in a post-judgment action to collect spousal maintenance?

Question 5

A South Carolina lawyer was disbarred in July 2022.  Earlier this year, the same lawyer was sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole.  The former lawyer’s legal troubles continue.

Recently, lawyers representing the disbarred lawyer asked a federal court to vacate a “confession of judgment” in which the disbarred lawyer admitted to stealing $4.3 million in insurance proceeds that should have gone to the estate of the disbarred lawyer’s deceased housekeeper. The housekeeper died at the disbarred lawyer’s house, allegedly after falling down the stairs.

The attorney for the housekeeper’s estate filed a motion in opposition to the request to vacate the confession of judgment.  According to news reports, the attorney argued that the request to vacate was the legal equivalent of “may I have a mulligan?” and added that the disbarred lawyer and his legal team had:

  • “stumbled late on the judicial first tee with a small bucket of balls and with the apparent attempt to fire shots until they finally hit the fairway. Obviously, [disbarred lawyer] is not a golfer. Neither are his lawyers. There are no mulligans.”

The motion in opposition characterized the disbarred lawyer’s request to vacate as “like a spoiled child … overindulged and undisciplined.”

Name the disbarred lawyer.