Happy Monday!

It was a poignant service for Rich Cassidy.  On Eagle’s Wings and Danny Boy will do that, and Friday they did in a beautiful way. My friend, may the current always be with you.

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

Honor Roll

  • Karen Allen, Karen Allen Law
  • Matthew Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
  • Alberto Bernabe, Law Professor, University of Illinois – Chicago
  • Beth DeBernardi, Administrative Law Judge, Vermont Department of Labor
  • Benjamin Gould, Paul Frank + Collins
  • Bob Grundstein
  • Glenn Jarrett, Jarrett/Hoyt
  • Doug Keehn, Assistant Attorney General, Medicaid Fraud & Residential Abuse Unit
  • John T. Leddy, McNeil Leddy & Sheehan
  • Jordana Levine, Marsicovetere & Levine
  • Tom Little, Vermont Student Assistance Corporation
  • Kevin Lumpkin, Sheehey Furlong & Behm
  • Jack McCullough, Vermont Legal Aid, Project Director, Mental Health Law Project
  • Jeffrey Messina, Esq.
  • Hal Miller, First American Title, SoCal Office
  • Amelia Silver, Harding Mazzotti
  • Joe Strain, Marsicovetere & Levine
  • Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Staff Attorney, New Hampshire Legal Assistance
  • Jason Warfield, Family Law & Mediation

ANSWERS

Question 1

Fill in the blank.

A comment to the rule that sets out the duty of competence states that competence includes staying “abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant __________.”

TECHNOLOGY.  See, V.R.Pr.C. 1.1, Cmt. [8].  My most recent posts on generative AI are here and here.

Question 2

Lawyer contacted me with an inquiry.  I listened, then responded “the rule that applies kicks in when your client’s capacity to make informed decisions about the representation is diminished. The rule states that your first obligation is to ____________:”

  • A.          maintain as normal an attorney-client relationship as possible.  V.R.Pr.C. 1.14(a).
  • B.          move to withdraw.
  • C.          seek to involve a guardian or to have a guardian appointed.
  • D.          C, or, in a criminal case, ask the court to order a competency evaluation.

Question 3

Prospective Client meets with Lawyer to discuss a potential attorney-client relationship.  Prospective Client mentions that the opposing party is represented by Law Firm.  Lawyers asks Prospective Client if they know which attorney at Law Firm is representing the opposing party.  Prospective Client replies “yes,” and shares the name.  Unbeknownst to Prospective Client, the attorney who represents the opposing party is married to Lawyer.

Which is most accurate in Vermont?

  • A.   Lawyer is prohibited from representing Prospective Client.
  • B.   Lawyer is prohibited from representing Prospective Client unless Prospective Client provides informed consent that is confirmed in writing.
  • C.  Lawyer is prohibited from representing Prospective Client and the conflict is imputed throughout Lawyer’s firm.
  • D.  Both Prospective Client and Opposing Party are entitled to know that Lawyer & Attorney are married and, ordinarily, Attorney & Lawyer may not continue unless each client gives informed consent.  See, V.R.Pr.C. 1.7, Cmt. [11].

Question 4

This one seems to have come up a lot lately.  When a lawyer leaves a law firm to join another, the general expectation is that both the law firm and lawyer notify the lawyer’s clients that the clients have 3 options as far as continued representation. What are the options?

Stay with the firm.

Follow the lawyer.

Neither (either represent themselves or find a new lawyer).

My most recent blogpost on leaving a law firm is here. It links to all the others.

Question 5

I’ve used the quiz intros to discuss the ethics of putting ketchup on a hot dog and whether it’s reasonable to expect a hot fudge sundae to be served with a brownie. I’ve also called attention to court rulings on whether it’s reasonable to expect boneless wings to include small portions of bone, whether a hot dog is a sandwich, and whether a taco is a sandwich.

Thanks to a regular reader’s social media post, I was yesterday years old when I learned that, long ago, the United States Supreme Court weighed in on another important food debate.

Much like they are now, tariffs were in the news in the late 19th century. In a case decided in 1893, the United State Supreme Court decided how a particular food item would be classified for the purposes of Tariff Act of 1883.  The court noted that while botanically the food item is a _____, it would be classified as a _________ for the purposes of tariffs, imports, and customs.

At the trial level, lawyers argued over which of the two categories the food item should fall under.  They entered into evidence the dictionary definitions of each category and procured testimony from produce farmers & produce vendors. The testimony included discussion of the distinction between plants that have seeds and plants that don’t. In reaching its opinion, the US Supreme Court noted that the food item is “usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, generally, as dessert.”

To be clear, this is a 3-part fill in the blank question.  According to the US Supreme Court:

“Tomatoes are vegetables, and not fruits within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1883.”  Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893).