Case Rounds: Notes from 6/24/2025
Introduction
Weekly Legal & Advocacy Collaboration Session
These weekly meetings are designed to support cross-organizational collaboration, build shared legal knowledge, and strengthen collective advocacy efforts.
Format and Participation Guidelines:
Participation is open to legal and advocacy professionals.
Speaking order is based on arrival time unless you indicate a time constraint and need to speak early.
Everyone shares once before anyone shares twice. Please begin by offering a question, update, or insight, and engage with responses from others.
Before speaking, please introduce yourself and the organization or role you represent.
No client-specific discussion. We do not provide individual legal advice or discuss identifiable case details. All conversation is general and practice-based.
Not open to DHS or DOJ (including DVT) personnel or affiliates.
Meeting Structure:
Hour 1: Ethics training with Vermont Judiciary’s Bar Counsel, Michael Kennedy.
Hour 2: Traditional VAAP case rounds. All are welcome to stay.
This is a confidential, collaborative space for mutual learning, skill-building, and issue-spotting across Vermont’s immigration legal and advocacy ecosystem.
AI Note-Taking & Information Sharing
We use AI-assisted tools (Microsoft Copilot) to generate anonymized summaries of key insights and systemic trends.
No personal or client information is recorded.
Notes are securely stored and shared with participants upon request.
The goal is to reduce redundancy, track evolving best practices, and ensure access for colleagues who cannot attend in real time.
Please let us know if you prefer your contributions not be summarized in shared notes.
Highlights
Legal Ethics and Marijuana Law: Mike Kennedy explained that Vermont adopted a comment to Rule 1.2 D, allowing lawyers to advise clients on state cannabis law without violating ethics rules, even if federal law conflicts. He clarified that lawyers should focus on the intent of questions on forms and not advise clients to self-incriminate or self-prosecute regarding vague questions about past marijuana use.
Immigration Forms and Crime Questions: Kennedy discussed the ambiguity of questions like "Have you ever committed a crime?" on federal forms, emphasizing the importance of understanding the question's intent and not over-disclosing minor or unproven conduct. He advised that unless someone has been arrested or convicted, they may not need to disclose certain conduct, but the context and form language matter.
Ethical Duties in Client Communication: Kennedy highlighted the duty to communicate clearly with clients, especially when language barriers exist. He stated that using translators or interpretation services is necessary to fulfill the ethical obligation of ensuring clients understand their legal situation and decisions.
Confidentiality with Minor Clients: Kennedy stated that confidentiality applies equally to minors as to adults, even if parents are paying for representation. The duty of confidentiality is not lessened by the client's age or by third-party payment, unless an explicit exception applies.
Technology and Client Confidentiality: Kennedy advised using reasonably secure communication methods with clients, such as encrypted messaging when possible, but acknowledged that using standard text services is not automatically unethical if circumstances require it. He stressed the importance of acting reasonably to protect client information and being cautious when unsure of a client's identity via text.
Dealing with Opposing Counsel Ethics: Kennedy explained that if opposing counsel is suspected of dishonesty or lack of candor, the ethical duty is to make a record in court and, if warranted, report the conduct to disciplinary authorities. He cautioned against using the disciplinary process for tactical advantage and emphasized verifying actual dishonesty before reporting.
AI and Client Expectations: Kennedy asked if anyone had encountered clients bringing advice from AI tools like ChatGPT, noting that such tools are only accurate about half the time and should not replace professional legal advice.
