prosecutor of involuntary treatment cases, it is bound to encounter the same evidentiary issues encountered at S.N.’s probable-cause hearing. Despite the State’s inability to fully resolve the evidentiary issues attendant to preliminary hearings under 18 V.S.A. § 7510, our review of the court’s evidentiary rulings at S.N.’s hearing would result in the quintessential advisory opinion, as a decision in favor of the State would have no bearing on S.N. whatsoever. Here, the State is not the subject of an adverse order affecting its legal rights, and therefore it cannot in earnest argue that it has a legally cognizable interest in this litigation merely because it will litigate preliminary hearings in the future. Cf. In re PCB File No. 92.27, 167 Vt. 379, 380-81, 708 A.2d 568, 569-70 (1998) (<HOLDING>). If we were to accept the State’s argument, we
holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar holding that counsels motion was not sufficient where counsel alleged only that counsel and appellants positions had become adverse holding that the district court  did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar holding that exception applied where bar counsel was subject to adverse discovery order and another professional conduct board hearing panel had directed a similar order to bar counsel in another matter holding that an order denying a motion for reconsideration constituted a final order because at the time the order was entered all nonsuited claims had been adjudicated and were no longer a bar to finality