Bruce And I: Ethical Violations

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

The $15 million wrongful termination lawsuit (Oehler v. The State Bar of California et al., case number BC610699, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles) that hit the State Bar of California echoes allegations made by the bar’s former executive director pointing towards rampant ethical violations. Plaintiff Sonja Oehler’s LinkedIn profile lists her previous title as the bar’s former administrative specialist. Rather than being let go from her position for a lack of ability or dedication to the job or a necessary reduction in staff, Oehler alleges that she was fired from her job because she knew too much about rampant ethical violations: deceit, deception, incompetence and falsification of issues on the part

In the Matter of Parker, 241 A.D.2d 208, 670 N.Y.S.2d 414, the defendant was charged with violating code of professional responsibility by aiding a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law; by sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer; by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him; by intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means; and by failing to promptly pay or deliver to his client properties requested by her. The defendant was not available during the weekend to represent his client in a foreclosure sale and wouldn’t be present during the face to face consultation. He left his services to a non-lawyer to prepare the contract, which was signed that afternoon by his client. He allowed the

Within this scenario, Mark is a pre-service teacher that aspires to make an impact on his students’ lives. On this note, Mark builds a connection with a reclusive student named Laurel. This sparks controversy amongst the school community as Laurel insists that Mark is her ‘friend’ and begins to share inappropriate information with him. With good intentions, Mark does not want to diminish Laurel’s newfound confidence. Conversely, Mark is unsure of his professional responsibilities in this situation.

Both cases show an immense lack of accountability. Everyone is afraid to have their name associated with bad rulings or press. Adam Gershowitz states that the judicial court is unwilling to name the lawyers who commit misconduct. Unfortunately, since there is a silence from the public on the matter the judicial system does not feel like they need to release the prosecutor’s names. Gershowitz thinks that if there is enough reason to overturn a conviction then there should be enough reason to release the name of the prosecutor, so it can bring awareness to misconduct.

Rafael Barba paced his designated room in the courthouse before his closing statements, meticulously studying his notes and outline. He knew that his prosecution was far stronger than the defense’s case, but from years of experience he knew that closing statements were often key aspects of a jury’s reason to consider a defendant guilty. Though, in this instance, he was comfortably certain that he already won the case. Rapidly, a timer marched on to the same beat of his heart, leaving a looming reminder that he still had a jury to win over. A seasoned lawyer such as himself didn’t often feel this way, but this scenario was coupled with Barba’s plans outside of his case.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury since this case is being re opened I am going to give you all of the necessary background information on the trial.

In 2003 misconduct of conflict-of-interest laws shocked the defense industry. Serious violations were committed at The Boeing Company by former top Air Force procurement official Darleen Druyun who admitted to helping The Boeing Company obtain a $23 billion tanker refueling contract in exchange for an executive job at the company. While verbally accepting a position with Lockheed Darlene Druyun did not disclose her job negotiations with a Mike Sears a Chief Financial officer while overseeing aerial tanker negotiations between Boeing and the U.S. Air force. This non-commitment to ethical behavior and compliance gave Boeing a competitive advantage while bidding on the contract.

As a member of the Jury, it is my responsibility to conserve my opinions about the case until deliberation. In the case that the prosecutor trying the case, decides to shared information withheld about the suspect I would not say anything. The guilt of the defendant is evident, Informing the judge about what occurred with the prosecutor will hurt the case and the defendant would be

For this excerise, my partner and I decided to go with option A. The norm we decided to violate was staring at someone's screen. Simar and I went to the IC on Tuesday afternoon and took turns watching over peoples backs. While Simar stood behind our subject and waited for them to notice her, I sat close by to observe the subject's reaction. We decided to minimize the conversation and give one word replies if we were spoken to. We did not initiate conversation and avoided making eye-contact to ensure we dont laugh. Regardless of how the subjects reacted, we stared at each screen for 30 seconds to ensure consistency.

As a member of the Jury, it is my responsibility to conserve my opinions about the case until deliberation. If the prosecutor shared damaging information with me that was withheld during the trail, I would not mention it to the judge. The guilt of the defendant is evident, nothing the prosecutor mentioned changed my opinion. Informing the judge about the prosecutor's actions would only cause the case to be dismissed. The defendant is a pedophile and he deserves to be charged for his actions and I refuse to hinder the progress of the case.

In examining the standards of ethics, or lack thereof, in cases of corporate fraud there are key questions to consider. These questions relate to ethics, the fraud triangle, and the legal ramifications incurred. It is important to examine the elements related to these key questions, in order to gain an understanding of the impacts fraud has upon all parties involved. This handbook provides information to gain an understanding of what ethical violations are at play and the impacts upon all involved parties resulting from those violations. Further provided is information regarding ethical issues when an awareness of the fraud is known, and what the reactions should be by the

I do understand that we have an ethical responsibility to report and consider whether or not the problem can be solved by our actions. If I am in Margaret's shoes, I would pursue to meet with Lee-Ann to discuss the situation first.  I would express my concerns regarding her professional boundaries, remind her of ethical principles and values,

This activity describes the ethical dilemmas regarding a new pair of eyes in the number 1. Mark seemed to make sure that Barb must have stolen the returns, but I would like to explain about my position by using the communal approach.

I would also report both Bob and Catherine’s practices to their supervisors because the Code of Ethics for Engineers says that I should. Section II, article 1 part of the Code of Ethics for Engineers states: “Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.” And part of states that “Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities.” Section III, article 3 states that “engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public,” and Part a of