Happy Monday! 

Last week’s questions are here. The answers follow today’s honor roll.

But first, great responses to the intro!  Thank you!  For one, believe it or not, I am not the only member of the Vermont bar whose bike was stolen during the first year of law school! Nor am I the only attorney admitted in Vermont who once lived between the 1900 & 2400 blocks of 19th Street, NW in D.C.! Finally, on the question “what is something that most people have but that as a kid made you think someone who had it was rich,” my favorite reader response was “HBO.”  Maybe it’s a Generation X thing, but for this X’er, I so agree!

Honor Roll

  • Matthew D. Anderson, Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White
  • Karen Allen, Karen Allen Law
  • Alberto Bernabe, Law Professor, University of Illinois – Chicago
  • Robin Crabb, General Attorney – Professional Responsibility, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
  • Andrew B. Delaney, Martin, Delaney, & Ricci
  • Bob Grundstein
  • Douglas Keehn, Assistant Attorney General, Medicaid Fraud & Residential Abuse Unit
  • John T. Leddy, McNeil Leddy & Sheahan
  • Thomas Little, Vermont Student Assistance Corporation
  • Pamela Loginsky, Pierce County (WA) Prosecutor’s Office
  • Jack McCullough, Vermont Legal Aid, Project Director, Mental Health Law Project
  • Jeffrey Messina, Messina Law
  • Hal Miller, First American Title, SoCal Office
  • J. William O’Brien, O’Connor First
  • Herb Ogden, Esq.
  • Patrick Olmstead, Patrick Olmstead Law
  • Justin St. James, Vermont State Treasurer’s Office, Office of General Counsel
  • Joseph Strain, Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer
  • Jonathan Teller-Elsberg, Staff Attorney, NH Legal Assistance
  • Honorable John Valente, Vermont Superior Judge
  • Brendan Walsh, Quantum Leap Capital
  • Jason Warfield, Warfield Family Law & Mediation
  • Thomas G. Wilkinson, Cozen O’Connor

ANSWERS

Question 1

Rule 2.1 is titled “Advisor.” One of its comments states that “a client is entitled to straightforward legal advice” and that “a lawyer should not be deterred . . . by the prospect that the advice will be unpalatable to the client.”

I’ve used the rule & comment to highlight 3 of the 7 Cs of Legal Ethics.  Which 3?

Competence, Communication, and Candor.  See this blog post.

Question 2

According to a comment to the applicable rule, “consent of an organization’s lawyer _______ required for communication with a former constituent.”

  • A.  is.
  • B.  is not.  See, V.R.Pr.C. 4.2, Cmt. [7]  Also, see this blog post and important note of caution.

Question 3

With inspiration & support from Mary Ashcroft, the VBA’s fantastic Legal Access Coordinator, I’ve long believed that unbundled legal services & limited representation agreements are important tools in the effort to increase access. Each can increase access for those unable to pay at all, as well as for those able to pay for discrete services but not a “full representation.”

What does the applicable rule require before entering into a limited representation agreement?

  • A.  The limitation must be reasonable in the circumstances.
  • B.   The client must give informed consent.
  • C.   A & B.  V.R.Pr.C. 1.2(c).
  • D.  Trick question. While important tools, unbundled legal services & limited representation agreements are not mentioned or referenced in the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct.

Question 4

Obviously, a lawyer or law firm must return unearned fees to a client upon the termination of the representation. Every now and then, a lawyer or law firm will call with this inquiry:

  • “Mike, we sent the check.  The former client never cashed it.  Now we can’t find the former client.”

Most often, my response is something like “you should make reasonable efforts to locate the client. If you send a second check, make damn sure you cancel the first. If you don’t find the client after making reasonable efforts to do so, eventually the funds ______________:”

  • A.  are considered yours.
  • B.  should be treated as “unclaimed funds” that escheat to the State via the State Treasurer’s Abandoned Property Division.
  • C.  must be moved to an account in the client’s name and held and tracked separately from both your own funds and the pooled funds that you hold in your IOLTA on behalf of other clients. IOLTA.
  • D.  must be paid over to the Professional Responsibility Program for deposit into the fund that is used to pay for the disciplinary program’s trust account audits.

This was a tough question.  There is VBA Advisory Ethics Opinion from the 90s that concludes that “B” is the proper course.  The State Treasurer’s Office takes the same position.  I think I’ll put this topic on the list of “future posts.” 

Question 5

The oh-so-rare Question 5 that is 50-50!

Is the following scenario:

  • A.           A true story.
  • B.           A side-plot in one of the summer’s most popular streaming shows.

A person who owns a 7-Eleven franchise needs legal advice. Intending to contact 7-Eleven’s internal legal department, the franchisee mistakenly contacts the “Seven Eleven Legal Group” instead.  Upon realizing the mistake, the franchisee eventually contacts the real 7-Eleven’s legal department.

The franchisee’s story prompts 7-Eleven to send & desist letter to the “Seven Eleven Legal Group.” The letter alleges that the firm is unlawfully using 7-Eleven’s name and green & white color scheme. The firm replies that it is not infringing or diluting 7-Eleven’s trademark. Thus, 7-Eleven sues the “Seven Eleven Legal Group”, claiming trademark infringement & dilution, deceptive trade practices, and unfair competition.

7-Eleven filed the complaint in 2023. I don’t how I missed it. According to this post, the case settled last year.