Penn Foster Paralegal Ethics Graded Project

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

During this time, the defendant did not review bank records and statements that were sent to him. Even when the defendant had realized that his clients had not received their settlement funds or the discovery of inconsistency in his account, he did not remove Taradash access to the account or retrieved the signature stamp from him. The Appellate Court found the defendant to be guilty of professional misconduct in aiding a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law and ordered the defendant to be suspended from the practice of law for three years. In the case of our client, Attorney James Johnson, he did not give authorization to his paralegal to access his bank accounts to misappropriate client’s funds. The client never reported missing funds from the closing, and Mr. Johnson did not allow his paralegal, Susan, to perform interviews without his permission. Susan did not conduct the interview using her signature, instead, all the closing documents were sent to Mr. Johnson, which he signed himself. Susan only made sure all the documents were signed, and all the accounts were

The Sixth Amendment’s clause on counsel assistance has also been challenged in regards to the right to an effective performance on the count of the attorney. This concept demonstrates that the fulfillment of the right extends further than just the mere appointment of legal defense.

Avoiding the pitfalls of the unauthorized practice of law, also known as UPL, is one of the most important duties that all legal professionals or aspiring law students should learn and integrate into their law career, in order to maintain impeccable ethics and conduct at all times. Clear rules and regulations must be followed in regards to the unauthorized practice of law. Thus, in order to avoid the unauthorized practice of law, one must first know what it is by definition and how it pertains to their best practices and due diligence. Furthermore, the violations of one’s failure to comply with the rules and regulations for UPL, may be costly in more ways than one.

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.

2. There was no absence of legal advice since the respondent is a senior lawyer with specific expertise in contract and employment law. As a result, the respondent did not desire or require legal advice

Now the reasoning behind prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law is not to hurt lawyers and anyone legally practicing law. These were put into place to help from personally damaging cases and individuals alike. What if you were given advice and used it to help with your case. Then come to find out that this advice or information was not at all correct and cost you your case. You would be very adamant to return to the individual to find out what had happened. Then you also find out that this person was not legally able to practice law in any manner. You would be furious and would want this person to pay for his/her actions. This is an example of why it is very important why someone that is not authorized

MLC v Evatt likewise for this situation Tom does not owe Bob an obligation of consideration in careless error. The guidance given by Tom was nonsensical for Bob on the grounds that he gave free exhortation on a train (Mohr v Cleaver or Tepko v Water Board). Besides, Bob did not demand to Tom for legitimate counsel (San Sebastian v Minister for EPA). What's more, Tom and Bob are outsiders them meet first time in the train in this way, the relationship's length is not long and Bob as of now have their own legal counselor. At last, for this situation Tom expresses that he an affair legal advisor however it is not clear that he had involvement in family law (Hedley Byrne and Co v Heller and Partners).

Prior to a corporation or its employees taking action, it usually requires an informed legal advice. Legal direction may be either taken or dismissed; the point is that in order to provide an informed decision counsel and its direct reports are provided with confidential information. Counsel reviews the confidential information and provides an opinion on the issue. This opinion may or may not support the legality of a matter and the company may or may not act because of the information provided, however, the confidentiality of the initial information provided, the attorney’s thought process, as well as all reasoning associated with this process needed to be retained as confidential.

Carl did not properly identify himself as a paralegal to Sally Brown and sister. Carl told Sally that their conversation was confidential when it was not because her sister was there. Carl is engaging in UPL by giving legal advice. Carl told Sally and her sister to say they witnessed the accident when they did not. Carl is in violation of UPL for setting fees and accepting the case. Howe did not properly supervise Carl to ensure his paralegal does not engage in UPL.

Furthermore, although disbarments under moral turpitude cover wide latitude of grounds which might include avenues of a lawyer’s personal and professional capacity, the Court in In re Lontoc shows that this ground is intended to relate to a lawyer’s professional capacity. The disbarment case here involved a lawyer convicted of bigamy but was subsequently granted a pardon. The Court in dismissing the case, held that:

The Violation committed by the attorney on that day was ABA Model Rule 1.3 Diligence and Promptness for lawyers--this occurred in the manner that the lawyer did not act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, as the lawyer was not even present or aware of the case in that matter.

Furthermore, legal responsibility is willing to accept fault, knowing when to ask questions of a supervisor to more clearly meet the needs of the client. Kaslow, Grus, Campbell, & Fouad, et al., 2009). Moreover, this insightful implementation is the ability to

ABA model rule 5.4 establishes that lawyers independence of professional judgment and actions must be supported by the way in which management and financial decisions are controlled within the practice. Partners are responsible for the operation of professional practice according to ABA model rule 5.1. Large firms cannot afford to have their partners and senior lawyers engaged in full time administrative management of practice so, they delegate some administrative duties to senior nonlawyers. Nevertheless, lawyer still have the responsibility for the practice according to ABA model rule 5.3. Comes to records of the firm, a secure place must be decided to store information and that information must be kept for some time to the regulation, professional accountability requirements, or firm policy.

3. Was the employee aware, or could reasonable be expected to be aware of the rule or standard