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 documents were physically tampered with by client, zeke, when he physically touched the documents and proceeded to write down information obtained from his phone call onto the documents of another client. EC -1.2(D) – Legal assistant, Carl, did not follow the procedures for communicating the price of a “fixed” fee. Instead he acted on his own without directions from a supervised attorney to negotiate the price of a bill. EC- 1.5 (F), ABA/EC-1- 1.5(A)- Legal assistant, Carl, breached the confidentiality of Jane when he allowed the client’s boyfriend Zeke, to sit in on the consultation. Carl then later continued to speak to the client about their case even when the client was outside of the privacy of attorney Howe’s office.
Attorney Howe’s Possible Ethical Violations: (Tuesday)
1.16 (A).1, 5.5(B) - Upon learning that Carl had taken on a case on his own, which is an example of unauthorized practice of law, Attorney Howe should have notified the clients that Carl did not have such authority to take on a case, set discounted fees or conduct an interview without Attorney Howe’s supervision, thus in good consciousness Attorney Howe cannot take on clients under fraudulent circumstances. 5.5 (B)- Attorney Howe left new hire, Carl, to conduct an interview unsupervised. Legal Assistant Carl Jackson’s Possible Ethical Violations: (Tuesday) NFPA1.8(A)- Carl gave unauthorized legal advice to Jane when he stated to Jane that she would be entitled to more alimony if she didn’t report certain incomes. Carl also unlawfully acted when he assumed the role of an attorney and scheduled Jane to meet with him the next day to have documents notarized in his presence without consulting Attorney Howe first. EC-1.5(F), ABA/EC1- 1.5(A)- Legal Assistant, Carl, breached the confidentiality of another client when he picked up the phone in the middle of conducting an interview with a separate client. He continued to discuss the client’s case on the phone openly whereas the client whom was...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document