in accepting the opinion of a known adversary on the law and is expected to draw his own conclusions or to seek his own independent legal advice.”). Lay knew the facts on which Novotny based her opinion about his potential criminal liability. He and his attorney had full access to the preferred charges and to Troidl’s IAU report, and presumably both Lay and his attorney read these materials before engaging in settlement negotiations. ¶ 16. Troidl, of course, had a statutory duty to send the IAU report to the Windham County State’s Attorney unless he concluded that the allegations against Lay did “not include violation of a criminal statute.” 20 V.S.A. § 1923(b). Lay and his attorney could have inquired whether such referral had been made. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551 cmt. k (<HOLDING>); see also Solares v. Solares, 232 S.W.3d 873,
holding that a defendant compensated himself by spending investors funds for his own expenses recognizing that one cannot have an easement in his own land holding that outofstate plaintiff had procured his own absence at trial of his case where record contained no intimation that his absence resulted from any reason other than his own volition recognizing in context of fraudulent nondisclosure cases that a defendant may reasonably expect the plaintiff to make his own investigation draw his own conclusions and protect himself holding that an individual can reasonably expect that his right to privacy will not be violated in his home through the use of any electronic surveillance