Khodaverdian Sierra_GRADED_ Ethics Assignment #1

proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law. It is likely that Lisa would not have been was not obligated to provide the officer with any information regarding the ring under 1.2 (d) because she is merely investigating what Dolly told her . Dolly told Lisa that when she entered the jail, she threw the ring into a trash can by the jail’s front door. Lisa did not counsel or assist Dolly in committing a crime . R but r ather , she cho o se to verify whether what she was told the information was actually true. One may argue that Lisa was obligated to tell the officer any information she knew about the ring because otherwise she would be assisting Dolly with her crime. However, this argument fails as would fail because Lisa did not counsel Dolly to hide or get rid of the ring nor did she assist in the concealment of the ring. Accordingly, it is likely that Lisa did not violate 1.2(d) when she did not disclose anything to the officer. II. Confidentiality of information under Model Rule 1.6 regarding the shirt. See Above for Rule Confidential communication under Model Rule 1.6 and Lisa has counseled Dolly not to destroy evidence. It is likely that Lisa should could have disclosed information to the law enforcement official about the sweatshirt , which Dolly tore into strips , because of under one of the exception s to 1.6. Dolly communicated confidential information to L when she told Lisa that she had hidden the stolen sweatshirt in her cell which was only occupied by her . Lisa acted in compliance with her ethical obli gations because she did not counsel her to conceal or destroy evidence, instead she advised her to do nothing else to hide or destroy evidence to which Dolly agreed. Although this was a confidential communication between the two , an exception 1.6(b)(1) applies and exists for Lisa to disclose and thus 1.6 would not be in violat violation of MR 1.6 if she disclosed the information. ed. Exception to Rule 1.6 allowing Lisa to disclose? If you had not provided the rule abov e, this is where you would include the 1.6(b)(1) exception. It is likely that Lisa should have disclosed information regarding the sweater because doing so would potentially prevent serious bodily harm or certain death (1.6 (b)(1)). Lisa is was aware that Dolly is unstable because , this is supported by the fact that Dolly admit ted that she s used to using a weapon ( Swiss army knife ) during the attack but yet she does did not remember harming the victim due to (she states she has amnesia ) . In addition, Dolly discloses disclosed that she tore the sweatshirt into strips which she planned to burn. These facts support the belief that Dolly would harm the cellmate. The harm to the cellmate would be imminent because Accordingly, there is uncertainty surrounding whether Dolly poses a threat to others and Lisa had overheard from the guard sitting at the front desk stating that a cellmate would be coming in the morning. On balance, Thus, her Lisa’s knowledge of Dolly’s mental state, as well as this new variable, and along with Dolly’s statement about burning the sweatshirt is a cause for concern would give Lisa grounds to reveal the information . Accordingly, Lisa would not violate 1.6 and should have told the appropriate law enforcement officer about the Sweatshirt as a precautionary measure to

(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. It is likely that Lisa is responsible under violated 5.3 because she should have warned Ian to keep information confidential . As noted above, it appears that the responsibility for supervising Ian falls to Lisa alone and I i t is unclear whether she has implemented any measures to keep employees in compliance. While Lisa felt comfortable enough to disclose her concerns regarding Dolly and what Dolly had done with the ring and sweatshirt to Ian, her longtime investigator , she should have reinforced that such information should not be repeated. Further, Lisa did not ask Ian to investigate anything related to Dolly . but R r ather , she instructed him to check on her. Lisa may argue that she is did not responsible under violate 5.3 and did not provide a warning because while she did not say anything about Ian keeping the information to himself, they have had a long-standing relationship and that she fully trusted that he would keep the information confidential. However, Lisa’s argument is weak because she must give assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their employment, particularly regarding the obligation not to disclose information relating to representation of the client and should be responsible for their work product . The facts do not say much as to what compliance protocols Lisa implemented within the office. Further after her disclosure she did not say anything about Ian keeping the information to himself which is concerning because Lisa should have considered the fact that Ian does not have legal training and is not subject to professional discipline. Accordingly, Lisa has violated 5.3. Good – did she order or ratify the conduct? Did she know about the conduct? Sierra - Nice effort on this answer. You have discussed many of the key issues, followed the IRAC format, and referenced precise facts in the analysis sections. I noted above where you could have addressed a counter. I noted above a few places where you could have expanded the analysis. Also, when possible, use “because” to connect the element to the fact (e.g., The information is confidential because…..insert fact…. OR Lisa believed the harm was imminent because….insert fact….). Keep up the good effort. SCORE: 8/10