Graded Project_ Thinking Critically about Ethics
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Penn Foster College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
123
Subject
Law
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by HighnessRiver13551
Graded Project: Thinking Critically about
Ethics
Name: Leticia Escobar-Rexroade
Student ID: 231230FUH6
Exam Number: Email: letyescobar1024@icloud.com
MONDAY
Possible Ethical Violations made by Attorney Howe:
ABA MR 1.6(c) - Attorney Howe did not take precautions to prevent unauthorized access to representation of a client when he left multiple case files open and available to anyone who came into his office or went to his desk. ABA MR 5.3(a)(b)(c), 5.5(b) - Attorney Howe did not go over the responsibilities regarding professional conduct expected from Carl as a nonlawyer assistant and he is not giving appropriate supervision concerning ethical aspects of their employment working with the firm. Possible Ethical Violations made by Carl: NFPA EC 1.8(a) - By taking on a case without a supervising attorney being aware of this action, as well as giving legal advice about pursuing alimony, Carl may have been engaging in unauthorized practice of law. NFPA EC 1.7(a) - Carl never clarified what his title was and what his role and responsibilities entailed even though the potential clients clearly stated that they wanted to speak with a licensed attorney.
ABA MR 1.5(a); NFPA EC 1.5(a) - Carl did not abide by all legal authority governing confidential information when he did not take action to protect the confidentiality of Howe’s clients and allowed Zeke to sit at Attorney Howe’s desk, where case files of other clients were exposed and visible to Zeke.
NFPA EC 1.2(d) - Carl taking it upon himself to lower the fixed rate service outlined by Attorney Howe, (which is something only an attorney has the authority to do) without a supervising attorney present, also suggests Carl is engaging in unauthorized practice of law. ABA MR 1; NFPA EC 1.5(a)(f) - The confidentiality of Jane was breached when Carl allowed Zeke to sit in on her consultation. When Carl spoke openly and loudly in a public area to Jane
about her case, it was outside the privacy of Attorney Howe’s office, and as a result, he was
breaching her confidentiality once again. TUESDAY
Possible Ethical Violations made by Attorney Howe
:
ABA MR 1.16(a).1 - Attorney Howe should have turned down Jane’s case after discovering Carl had taken on her case without his supervision because it automatically was an unauthorized practice of law. He should have informed the potential clients that Carl had no authority to take on a case, conduct an interview without a supervising attorney present, or negotiate fixed rate fees, so he could not take on these clients under fraudulent circumstances. ABA MR 5.5(b) - Attorney Howe let Carl conduct an interview unsupervised. Possible Ethical Violations made by Carl: ABA MR 1; NFPA EC 1.5(a)(f) - Carl actively breached the confidentiality of another client when he picked up the phone while in the middle of conducting an interview with a separate client and proceeded to discuss the details of the client’s case in earshot of the separate client being interviewed. ABA MR 1.5(a); NFPA EC 1.7(a) - Carl conducted the interview with Jane without properly identifying himself as a legal assistant, which could have given the false impression that he was a licensed attorney. NFPA EC 1.8(a) - By stating that Jane would be entitled to more alimony if she didn’t report certain incomes, Carl gave unauthorized legal advice. When Carl did not consult Attorney Howe first before assuming the role of an attorney and scheduling Jane to meet with him and
have documents notarized in his presence, he was acting unlawfully.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
ABA MR 3.4(d); NFPA EC 1.3(b)(e) - Carl assisted in fraud when Jane suggested that he document her monthly living expenses as a much larger amount so she could receive more alimony, and he recorded the amount as fact, knowing that it was false information. NFPA EC 1.2(d) - Carl engaged in fraudulent billing practices when he recorded the length of the interview taking two hours, when the length of the interview was only one hour and twenty minutes long. ABA MR 1.5(c), 6.1 - Carl included questions in Jane’s husband’s interrogatories that are irrelevant and potentially embarrassing to his reputation.
WEDNESDAY
Possible Ethical Violations made by Attorney Howe:
ABA MR 1.1, 1.3 - Attorney Howe violated his duties as supervising attorney by refusing to review a rough draft of the motion, as well as not demonstrating competency by refusing to review it knowing that Carl has no experience in preparing a motion. Possible Ethical Violations made by Carl:
ABA MR 1.5(b)(c); NFPA EC 1.2(b), 1.5(a)(f), 1.6(d)(f), 1.7(a), 1.8(a) - Carl giving legal advice to Zeke instead of referring him to a licensed attorney for advice and by not stating that he was not an attorney, was an unauthorized practice of law. Carl not only created a conflict of interest by representing the interest of Jane while also choosing to serve the interests of Zeke, but he also breached the confidentiality of Jane by discussing details of her case with Zeke, a non-client. Carl unintentionally worked against the interest of Jane by engaging in an
ex-parte conversation with Zeke. ABA MR 7.1, 7.3 - Carl attempted to solicit services from a pedestrian while on the scene of an accident. He also provided false information by stating he could win her “big money”.
NFPA EC 1.1, 1.2(f), 1.3(e) - Carl displayed unprofessional behavior by showing up late to his appointment with Jane, and as a result, the legal secretary unlawfully allowed Jane to sign a document that was not witnessed by Carl, a notary. Not only did Carl make the decision not to inform Attorney Howe of the secretary’s misconduct, but he further contributed to fraud by notarizing a signature that he did not witness personally. THURSDAY
Possible Ethical Violations made by Attorney Howe
:
ABA MR 1.7 - Attorney Howe agreeing to handle Jane’s pending divorce as well as the prenuptial agreement between her and her future husband, did not serve the interests of Jane as his client. ABA MR 1.2(d) - Jane hasn't concluded the process of finalizing her divorce yet and is now requesting assistance with an antenuptial agreement for a marriage she’s getting into, which is a crime and is referred to as Bigamy. Attorney Howe did not notify Jane of this but instead is proceeding with assisting her. Possible Ethical Violations made by Carl:
NFPA EC 1.8(a) - By assuring Jane that he would instruct Attorney Howe to reject an offer from Zeke to not sue her, Carl taking control and calling shots in the situation is an unauthorized practice of law. NFPA EC 1.6(d) - Carl neglected to keep and maintain a recordkeeping system that identifies clients, matters, and parties with which he has worked and as a result, he created a conflict of interest when he gave the impression that Attorney Howe could handle Jane’s divorce process as well as taking on the prenuptial agreement with her potential new spouse. NFPA EC 1.8(a) - Carl, without the supervision or knowledge of Attorney Howe, carried out an
initial consultation with Sally and her sister. During the consultation, Carl gave legal advice about the possible outcome of their case and gave the assumption that he would take a case he was not knowledgeable about. NFPA EC 1.3(b) - Carl suggested to Sally and her sister that they should say they saw the accident take place, even after they stated that they did not, it was dishonest of Carl, and it was an act of committing fraud.
ABA MR 1.5(c); NFPA EC 1.2(d) - Carl failed to communicate fees through Attorney Howe to the client therefore, he did not follow proper procedures for communicating fees. FRIDAY Possible Ethical Violations made by Attorney Howe:
ABA MR 1.3 - Attorney Howe failed to be present with his client at the scheduled hearing time and he neglected to notify the courts of his tardiness. ABA MR 1.15(a), 8.4(a)(b)(c) - To pay Carl his salary for the work week, Attorney Howe attempted to use collected client fees. Attempting to do so is fraudulent, unethical and criminal. Possible Ethical Violations made by Carl:
ABA MR 1.3(a)(b); NFPA EC 1.8(a) - Carl taking it upon himself to act in Attorney Howe’s absence in the presence of a judge is an unauthorized practice of law. NFPA EC 1.8(a) - Carl should not have consulted with Raymond without a supervising attorney present. NFPA EC 1.6(b) - Discussing a prenuptial agreement with Jane’s potential future husband when Carl knows she is currently involved in a pending divorce case would be a conflict of interest.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
NFPA EC 1.1(a), 1.7(a), 1.8(a) - Carl failed to specify his legal position before assisting Raymond with his antenuptial agreement as well as failing to mention that he had no experience or prior knowledge about antenuptial contracts. When Raymond asked Carl for his opinion about his decisions, Carl giving the “ok” could be seen as legal advice and Carl is
not authorized to give legal advice. ABA MR 8.3(a); NFPA EC 1.2(e)(f), 1.3(e) - Carl neglected to notify the proper authorities of the fraudulent acts Attorney Howe engaged in when withdrawing client funds to receive payment and chose to willingly go along with the unlawful act. Review
When reviewing my comments for the five days, one ethical violation I want to use as an example is the failure to disclose the individual’s status to avoid misunderstandings and misconceptions about the paralegal’s role and responsibilities. To avoid violating any ethical considerations, I would have handled the situation by fully disclosing my title as a paralegal to any potential clients so that they are aware of the jurisdiction in which I (a paralegal) practice. Carl could have avoided multiple violations over the five days where he failed to disclose his title as a paralegal.