Legal Method Case Comment Assessment

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 states that “an act done, or decision made, under this Act, for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests’. The Deprivation of liberty safeguards are a legal framework introduced into the mental capacity act 2005 (MCA) by the mental health act 2007 (MHA). This legislation protects the rights of people in care homes or hospitals, where the care is imputable to the state, who lack capacity or have a mental dysfunction to make decisions regarding their care and treatment (Jones, 2008 p 383). DOLS ensures against arbitrary deprivation of liberty (dol) which was identified in the Bournewood Case ( HL v UK 45508/99 (2004) ECHR 471). The judgement in this case determined that in order to adhere to the ECtHR, lawful detention needed to meet Article 5 (1) that requires a ‘procedure prescribed by law’ and Article 5 (4) which requires a means to apply to a court to see if deprivation of liberty was unlawful (dols code of practice 2008). As such, the DOLs are designed to protect the rights of people who fall within the scope of the act.

In Texas, a man with schizophrenia was executed (Kelsey Patterson) even after the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended clemency after learning of his time spent in mental hospitals and his unintelligible rambling.

Tim has a long history of mental illness and was admitted to the ward following a deterioration in his mental illness after he lost contact with his son. His mood was elevated and he felt very restless and agitated. Prior to admission, he was found police in a very distressed state. Tim was placed on a section 2 of the mental health act (DH, 2007) and was originally observed generally where a member of staff would have to see him face to face on a hourly basis (NICE, 2005). Under section 2 of the mental health act Tim has lost the right to leave hospital at will and his responsible clinician has not granted him section 17 leave. A person can be detained for up to 28 days and treat against their will (DH, 2007). As Tim was detained it was important for staff to keep him on the ward.

The second rationale behind the cab rank rule is that is protects barristers from adverse consequences that could arise from accepting a contentious brief. A barrister may be subjected to public scrutiny or criticism from those who believe the barrister is sympathizing with a repugnant criminal. Yet, with the existence of the cab rank rule, the obligation to accept the brief provides the barrister with a justification. In theory, this is an essential strength of the cab rank rule, however, in practice in may be redundant. This rationale is on the premise that the layperson is aware of the cab rank rule, a proposition that is far from the truth. In 2010, Brian Walters, a QC, was running for the Greens and his Labor opponent attacked him for once taking a brief for a brown coal company. The fact that a politician is not aware of the cab rank rule suggests that members of the general public would also be unaware of the rule, thereby denying barristers the protection the rule purports to give.

A few months ago, client FH refused his medication. His mood had deteriorated over the past few days and there were signs of him beginning to self-harm. A few grazes on his arm and he had shaved the sides of his hair off. From his Behaviour Support Plan these were a few of the key signs of him having a relapse. One day FH appeared to have lost all mental capacity, his language was obscene, verbally aggressive to everyone and about everyone and he totally refused all medication. I telephoned his previous placement, a hospital, and spoke with a Mental Health Nurse who knew him very well. The Nurse agreed with me that FH was in a downward spiral of no return and it was imperative that he take his medication or he will need hospitalisation again. The plan was that if FH did not take medication by the following morning that the assessment team from the hospital would visit and try to speak with him.

You have asked me to summarize the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, SCR 395 and analyze whether the Law society is likely to sanction Evan Frank. Although the Rules of Professional Conduct place limitations on certain conduct to ensure professionalism, the expressive rights of lawyers must be given due respect and the likelihood of Mr. Frank’s sanction will depend on a fair balance of “expressive value” of the content in the letter, with the public’s expectation of professionalism.

A typical appeal in a criminal case is from a conviction following a trial. The defendant will allege to the

In Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Amsden (“the decision”), the Tribunal made findings of professional misconduct against Ms Amsden. Subsequently, they determined that the appropriate disciplinary consequence of was a public reprimand, an order to pay a fine of $5,000, and an order to pay the full costs of the Committee. This paper will outline the legislative and theoretical foundations of legal practitioners’ professional ethics in Western Australia in conjunction with an exploration of the justifications for disciplining legal practitioners. Subsequently, there will be analysis of the Tribunal’s reasons for their findings of professional misconduct against Ms Amsden and the effectiveness of the penalties imposed in achieving the underlying purposes of the system of legal ethics in WA. Particular emphasis will be placed upon Ms Amsden’s conduct in relation to ‘bringing the legal profession into disrepute’; this will necessitate an examination of the concept of law as a profession and its wider role in society.

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 only allowed qualified and regulated Solicitors and Barristers the rights of audience before a Court in proceedings to which the individual was not a party to. The Access t Justice Act 1999 made it possible for other professional groups beyond Solicitors and Barristers to grant rights to their members. A number of bodies took advantage of this including the Association of Law Costs Draftsman.

Attorney Client Privilege, which originated in Roman and canon law, has evolved into a recognized judicial doctrine and is necessary in order to provide clients with access to effective, well informed counsel. In Upjohn Co. v US the Supreme Court the Court

V. CURRENT MENTAL STATUS EXAM: 5/15/18 the inmate refused to come out of his cell. MHP observation: This inmate appearance was dressed appropriately with fair hygiene, and fair eye contact. His affect was Congruent. Inmate was receptive & cooperative. He was alert & oriented X4. Psychomotor activity, fair immediate, fair recent memory, concentration was all fair, fair ability to think abstractly, denies auditory/visual hallucination and delusions thinking, fair speech, euthymic mood with congruent affect. He denied any suicidal and homicidal ideation with no intent or plan,fair insight, fair judgment. The inmate is eating 3/3 meals & achieving 7-8 hours of sleep according to

This essay discusses the various duties that a barrister owes and the ethical dilemma that arises when such duties are at opposing ends. A barrister owes a duty to the client to act in the way that his client’s best interest are protected and the purpose of his representation in the eyes of the client is achieved but will that justify that incurring harm to the society at large or to the court remains a question to be considered. A barrister must act in the best of interest of his client but such a strict approach will render it difficult for the barrister to fulfill his duties which are owed to the court and to the administration of justice and duty to act with honesty and integrity . If such duties at some point are in conflict what should a barrister do in such

The attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the evidentiary privileges with a history that can be traced to Roman and canon law. Official references to the rule first appear in English decisions as early as the late Sixteenth Century. In accordance with the justification for professional privileges in general, the attorney-client privilege was thought to be essential to the establishment and preservation of a relationship based on trust between attorney and client. This justification, however, fell out of favor by the last quarter of the 18th century. The need to ascertain the truth for the ends of justice was more urgent than the pledge of secrecy.

Institution claims that the medical and psychology staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical and mental health care needs and failed to provide adequate treatment. However, his complaint names the Warden of the prison as the sole and therefore must be dismissed.

Legal practitioners are subject to among the highest standards of professional ethics seen in any career due to the often sensitive work they are involved in and also on a more principled and perhaps idealistic level as lawyers are the individuals who hold the responsibility of representing the law to society. Both solicitors and barristers must adhere to their own set of professional conduct rules for otherwise the prospect of legal, professional, or perhaps even personal ramifications exists. The individuals and boards who enforce these rules do so with the upmost gravity in order to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, however despite this lawyers have become regarded as one of the most distrusted groups in society and have become synonymous with unscrupulousness and greed even though they are subject to such stringent regulations. Such distrust could be described as irrational fear mongering but as numerous sets of studies and statistics have shown, lawyers indeed violate their professional conduct rules far more often than other professions subject to similar terms of employment.