rather than a. technical formula to be followed.” (quotation omitted)). Indeed, the Legislature considered an earlier draft of 13 V.S.A. § 6565 that would have compelled the court to use precise language to warn immigrant defendants of possible collateral consequences of a conviction by placing the language required within quotation marks. This version did not pass, however, and the enacted version of the bill includes no language in quotation marks. Compare 13 V.S.A. § 6565(c) endant on notice that federal authorities may impose speci fied immigration consequences; the rule does not, however, require the court to predict whether federal authorities will definitely impose those consequences, nor does the court have the ability to do so. See Pilette, 160 Vt. at 510-12, 630 A.2d at 1297 (<HOLDING>); see also In re Moulton, 158 Vt. at 583, 613
holding that written reprimands with only speculative consequences do not constitute adverse actions holding not only that court had no obligation to predict consequences but also that court could not have predicted consequences holding drivers license revocation was not moot because collateral consequences of revocation may be substantial including higher insurance rates and adverse employment consequences holding that an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea holding that where a defendant acknowledged awareness of the consequences of his plea agreement counsels erroneous explanation of the consequences was not prejudicial