Committee reviews two evidence-rule amendments: confidential referrals and the rule of completeness

The committee heard two separate amendments affecting the Rules of Evidence: a new confidentiality protection for calls to lawyer referral services (Rule 502) and an amendment to the rule of completeness (Rule 106) to mirror a recent Federal clarification. A presenter for the Evidence Rules Committee explained Rule 502 originated in a request from the Vermont Bar Association, which operates a lawyer‑referral line. The concern was that staff answering the referral line might be compelled to testify about what a caller said; the proposed amendment extends privilege protections to those communications so callers who ask for a referral do not risk having those statements used in court. The presenter said the rule was “requested by the Vermont Bar Association” and that the committee received supportive comment from the bar’s local affiliate; the committee unanimously recommended it and “that rule has been promulgated by the Vermont Supreme Court.” Committee members asked whether the rule responded to specific occurrences. The presenter said there were “no reported anecdotes of this ever happening” in Vermont and that the rule was intended to prevent such a development. On Rule 106, Judge Corbett explained the rule of completeness addresses the fairness problem that arises when a party introduces part of a statement in a misleading way; the amendment follows the Federal amendment clarifying that hearsay objections should not be used to prevent a party from introducing the remainder of a statement needed to avoid misleading the factfinder. Corbett said Vermont saw no administration problems with the rule but amended it to remain consistent with the Federal change and to avoid signaling disagreement with the federal approach. Senators and other committee members asked clarifying questions about whether Rule 106 would allow the full statement to be admitted as substantive evidence or only as context; Corbett explained the rule functions as a fairness device, permitting admission of remainder material so the factfinder is not left with a misleading impression. Both items drew limited public comment and were described as noncontroversial in Vermont; Rule 502 was noted as already promulgated by the Supreme Court at the time of the meeting.