Welcome to Friday and the 286th legal ethics quiz!

This morning I’m coming to you live from Pooler, Georgia. Adjacent to Savannah, Pooler is probably best known as the home of The First Brother.  The weekend’s docket includes our first NFL game in which our rooting interests fully align.

My brother is a Patriots fan. As you might expect of bar counsel, I am not. I prefer my teams to be free of ethical scandals. As such, I’m a Steelers fan.

Over the years, the First Brother and I have been to 4 pro football games together:

  • Miami @ New England
  • Baltimore @ Pittsburgh
  • Cleveland @ New England
  • New England @ Carolina

When it comes sports fandom, I’m not as good a brother or person as my brother is.  In Pittsburgh, he cheered for the Steelers.  Meanwhile, the best he got from me at the other 3 games is that I didn’t openly root for the Patriots’ opponent. 

And he didn’t even really get that.

Confession: for reasons associated with self-preservation, appearing to remain neutral was easy for the games at Gillette Stadium. The game in Charlotte?  I tried. I really did. But there were a few times when my natural instincts kicked in and I rose in solidarity with Carolina fans. You know how it goes – the enemy of the enemy is my friend. 

Yes. I’m aware that one of us will never be up for “Brother of the Year.”

Anyway, shortly after moving here last September, the First Brother bought season tickets to the Jacksonville Jaguars. He told me to pick a game and come on down. Once the schedule came out, it took me less than 3 seconds to decide which game I’d attend.  Patrick Mahomes and the Kansas City Chiefs are at JAX this weekend.  The First Brother and I will be there.  And each of us will be 100% behind the Jaguars.

The beneficiary of all this? 

Our mother. 

She knows how I get with my sports rooting.  I think her rosary has a special l bead dedicated to “please help Michael not to ruin his brother’s game experience.”  If so, it’s well-worn. The other day, aware that Patrick has adopted Jacksonville as his alternate favorite team, she (not so) sneakily asked who I’d be cheering for. When I happily answered “Jacksonville,” the wave of relief that coursed through her body was palpable.

Mom, you may rest easy.  This weekend, I’m conflict free!

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.
  • Please do not post answers as a “comment” to this post.
  • E-mail answers to michael.kennedy@vermont.gov
  • Team entries welcome, creative team names even more welcome.
  • 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

Speaking of my mother, she’s a member of the Williston-Richmond Rotary Club.  Yesterday, I spoke to the club.  Over the past 12 years, I’ve done more than 300 presentations.  This was the first organized by my mother. The pressure was on!

Anyhow, after outlining the Professional Responsibility Program, I used the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics to explain what the club members should and should not expect from lawyers.  When I asked for guesses as to the 7 Cs, one person said “contact.”  I considered it correct.

Which of the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics did I give the person credit for identifying?

We were all smiles afterwards:

Question 2

Does the confidentiality rule include an exception that allows a lawyer, without the client’s consent, to disclose information necessary to detect conflicts of interests that might arise from a potential change of employment?

  • A.  Yes.  There’s a specific exception that allows such disclosures, but only if the disclosure will not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client.
  • B.  A, and only if the lawyer is moving to private practice from government practice.
  • C.  A, and only if the lawyer is moving to government practice from private practice.
  • D.  No.

Question 3

There’s a rule that prohibits a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client unless (1) the terms are fair and fully disclosed in a writing that can be reasonably understood by the client; (2) the client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking independent legal advice related to the transaction; and (3) the client gives informed consent, in writing, to the transaction’s terms and the lawyer’s role in the transaction.

A comment indicates that the rule does not apply to:

  • A.  Ordinary fee agreements.
  • B.  Standard commercial transactions between lawyer & client for goods, services, or products that the client markets to others.
  • C.  Agreements in which the lawyer accepts an ownership interest in the client’s business as a fee.
  • D.  A & B.

Question 4

Here’s the lone comment to a particular rule:

“Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Although there will be occasions when a lawyer may properly seek a postponement for personal reasons, it is not proper for a lawyer to routinely fail to expedite litigation solely for the convenience of the advocates. Nor will a failure to expedite be reasonable if done for the purpose of frustrating an opposing party’s attempt to obtain rightful redress or repose. It is not a justification that similar conduct is often tolerated by the bench and bar. The question is whether a competent lawyer acting in good faith would regard the course of action as having some substantial purpose other than delay. Realizing financial or other benefit from otherwise improper delay in litigation is not a legitimate interest of the client.”

The rule requires a lawyer to:

  • A.  act with reasonable diligence and promptness while representing a client.
  • B.  refrain from conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
  • C.  provide a client with competent representation.
  • D.  make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

Question 5

As a “thank you” to Vermont’s own Tom Valente and the Intellectual Property Owners Association inviting me to speak at their annual meeting earlier this week.

A petition to cancel a registered mark made national news this summer.  The registered mark is a phrase that refers to food and a day of the week.

According to the petition:

  • “Nobody should have exclusive rights in a common phrase.  Can you imagine if we weren’t allowed to say ‘what’s up?’ or ‘brunch’? Chaos.”

The petition went on to indicate the petitioner “seeks no damages; it simply seeks reason and common sense.”

What phrase did the petition seek to cancel as a registered mark?

Bonus: Who was the petition filed on behalf of?