Penn foster paralegal ethics graded project
Attorney Howe’s possible Ethical Violations: (MONDAY)
Model Rule 5.5(B)- Attorney Howe, left a new hire, Carl, unattended, while also suggesting that he may conduct interviews in his office without specifying particulars regarding his presence or direct supervisory responsibilities. In hindsight, Attorney Howe could be indirectly contributing to the unauthorized practice of law due to his gross negligence to supervise his paralegal.
ABA 5.3 (A)(B)(C). – Attorney Howe did not make reasonable efforts to supervise his paralegal. Mr. Howe knew that Carl was inexperienced in the firm as a “new-hire and should have practiced due diligence in his supervisorial duties. Attorney Howe failed to give clear guidelines and did not take immediate remedial action after Carl informed Howe that a new case was taken without his supervision.
ABA 1.6 (C ) - Attorney Howe was negligent in his duty to maintain client confidentiality by leaving his office with visibly exposed client work products.
Legal Assistant, Carl Jackson’s possible Ethical Violations: (Monday)
NFPA-1.8(A) -Legal assistant, Carl, may have engaged in unauthorized practice of law by taking on a case without a supervising attorney’s knowledge and by giving legal advice to an inquiring client(s) regarding whether or not to pursue alimony. Furthermore, Carl negotiated the price of a fixed rate service without supervision, something only an attorney has the authority to do, which could also constitute as another act of unauthorized practice of law.
EC1.7 (A)- Legal assistant, Carl ,did not identify himself as a “legal assistant” when he admitted the inquiring clients into Attorney Howe’s office, even though the inquiring client(s) were specifically asking for a licensed attorney.
EC-1.5(a), ABA 1.5(A) - Legal assistant ,Carl, did not protect the confidentiality of the work products laying on attorney Howe’s desk when he allowed Zeke to come behind attorney Howe’s desk to make a personal phone call. The
Model Rule 5.5(B)- Attorney Howe, left a new hire, Carl, unattended, while also suggesting that he may conduct interviews in his office without specifying particulars regarding his presence or direct supervisory responsibilities. In hindsight, Attorney Howe could be indirectly contributing to the unauthorized practice of law due to his gross negligence to supervise his paralegal.
ABA 5.3 (A)(B)(C). – Attorney Howe did not make reasonable efforts to supervise his paralegal. Mr. Howe knew that Carl was inexperienced in the firm as a “new-hire and should have practiced due diligence in his supervisorial duties. Attorney Howe failed to give clear guidelines and did not take immediate remedial action after Carl informed Howe that a new case was taken without his supervision.
ABA 1.6 (C ) - Attorney Howe was negligent in his duty to maintain client confidentiality by leaving his office with visibly exposed client work products.
Legal Assistant, Carl Jackson’s possible Ethical Violations: (Monday)
NFPA-1.8(A) -Legal assistant, Carl, may have engaged in unauthorized practice of law by taking on a case without a supervising attorney’s knowledge and by giving legal advice to an inquiring client(s) regarding whether or not to pursue alimony. Furthermore, Carl negotiated the price of a fixed rate service without supervision, something only an attorney has the authority to do, which could also constitute as another act of unauthorized practice of law.
EC1.7 (A)- Legal assistant, Carl ,did not identify himself as a “legal assistant” when he admitted the inquiring clients into Attorney Howe’s office, even though the inquiring client(s) were specifically asking for a licensed attorney.
EC-1.5(a), ABA 1.5(A) - Legal assistant ,Carl, did not protect the confidentiality of the work products laying on attorney Howe’s desk when he allowed Zeke to come behind attorney Howe’s desk to make a personal phone call. The