Did a Vermont plea hearing question or court form praising counsel create a client-confidence or malpractice-limitation ethics issue?

Short answer Opinion 91-09 found no Code issue in the stated plea question or court-issued form, because waived rights were not client secrets and the form was not a lawyer attempt to limit liability.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1991

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1991. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

At a change-of-plea hearing, a defendant was asked whether counsel had explained the rights waived by the plea. A Vermont District Court form also required the defendant to state a belief that counsel had provided all possible assistance. The committee examined confidentiality and former DR 6-102(A)'s bar on a lawyer trying to limit malpractice liability.

It found that the rights waived and whether they were discussed could be considered by the court when deciding whether the plea was voluntary; they were not the client's protected secrets in this setting. The printed form was the court's, not the attorney's effort to limit liability. The committee did not purport to decide legal malpractice consequences.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history states that the Rules of Professional Conduct applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999. Later amendments or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this opinion as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Did the plea question reveal a protected client confidence?

A: The committee said no: the rights waived and whether counsel discussed them were matters the court could consider in evaluating the plea.

Q: Was the court form a lawyer's attempt to limit malpractice liability?

A: No. The committee emphasized that the form's wording came from the court, not the lawyer.

Background and rules framework

The opinion considered confidentiality and former DR 6-102(A), while citing Vermont criminal plea procedure and In re Hall on voluntariness.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-102(A)

Cases:

  • In re Hall, 143 Vt. 590, 469 A.2d 756 (1983), plea voluntariness

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1991. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace