Questions On Academic Integrity Seminar

It's difficult not to be cynical about how “big business” treats the subject of ethics in today's world. In many corporations, where the

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

A business organization left to monitor its adherence to legal, ethical or safety standards on its own, runs the risk of unmonitored and unfettered damage to the economy. The Gilded Age in America was a time in history marked by ruthless competition and zero business ethics that saw only a few rise to the top. John D. Rockefeller of the Standard Oil Company became a so-called “Captain of the Industry” and a household name. He served as the poster child for Capitalism and in the nature of a true capitalist, he amassed tremendous wealth. However, along with his incredible success, Rockefeller also became known as the “Robber Baron” due to his unethical business practices of monopoly. Rockefeller wanted to

We learned in class that courts try to be consistent and that is what happened is this specific case. Lemon v. Kurtzman created the test that kept rearing its ugly

Appellant’s attorney, Brad Manson stated that the judge in the divorce trial, Honorable David W. Hauber demonstrated prejudice against Darol Rodrock and violated the Kansas Code of Ethics. He believes that the judge was being sarcastic to the attorneys, was high handed with the orders to the Special Masters and strong armed Darol Rodrock to liquidate his estate to force a settlement which violated the Kansas Code of Ethics. The panel asked what Manson wanted them to do in relief of the Ethics violation and his response was that he wasn’t asking them to do anything. Chief Judge Arnold-Burger laughed and said well you said he violated the Judicial Ethic Code and that’s pretty serious. Manson again listed the reasons why he believes Judge Hauber was unethical. The panel again asks, what relief

The meeting began with the chairman recounting the claims against the psychologist, the rules for identifying the complainant, and that the focus of this meeting was to determine if the potential that legal or ethical violations had occurred. All board members were in possession of copies of the information that was available at the time. The complainant was referred to by the initials R. G. for the purpose of maintaining confidentiality during the open meeting. All R. G.’s interactions were conducted by conference call with the board members.

As many things in life, ethics has evolved through the history of our society. As anyone who has ever has read the news can attest, there are certain behaviors and tradition typical in societies around the world that may seem unethical and, sometimes, inhuman when seen through our ethical point of view. However, we often forget that many of those behaviors and tradition were, not only accepted, but expected in our society at one time. As our society changes over time, our moral code and compass shifts changing our outlook and tolerance for certain behaviors. And, as in other aspects of our society, the way we conduct business is no different.

I think that this case received strong opinions from both sides of the bench. I don’t think that it would have been appropriate to drop the case, as was initially attempted. However, based on the dissenting

Issue: Did Landrigan’s counsel provide adequate representation even though the defendant refused admission of evidence?

Collins, 68 Cal. 2d 319 the Federal rulesWere not applied. The rul 401 test of relevant evidence Was not applied to the case at all. The rule of evidence that they applied was California rule 211 which does not equal under the rule 401 of federal law. The rule 211Ca is based on The rule of mathematics EvidenceWhich was an unfair advantage to the defense team. The rule of 402 of General assembly of relevant evidence To provide Subsequential Standing of what the evidence Picture should be was not Presented In this case. Instead The court applied CA rule 211(a) Which also is based on mathematical deduction Which gives unfair advantage of due process to the defendant And subsequently establishing links to the evidence. The rule 403 Excluding Relevant for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or other reasonsUsher is where the judge May exclude Evidence Projecte most unfair evidence and prejudicial and prejudicial evidence of the sequential prohibits value streamline and waste of time that should not be entered into the court directed so that the defendant may have a fair trial.Applebee's Rule of evidence 403 has been applied To the court records. The trial can proceed in a very timely manner Based on the evidence picture To the jury To make a decision on the persons in the scent of guilt based on persuasion argument That both attorneys will provide at trial And a fair Even playing field. Where in these case Evidence of which presented

Through the trial the accused LPC denied showing passive aggressive or aggressive behaviors. Through the behaviors I observed, the LPC did seem aggressive and attacking to both complainants in different ways. In relation to both complainants I saw attacking behaviors in how the counselor described termination. The LPC showed frustration and agitation through the trial that I viewed from the idea that he has done no wrong. These behaviors could also stem from the complaints placed on him, but in my opinion, I viewed the LPC as seeing himself being precise in his counseling progress and interactions. The LPC did not seem to value education in a way to effectively communicate his degree and expertise. What I did see the LPC to value was emotional connections to others as well as the idea of dual relationships with his actual clients to an extent. The LPC appeared to not really realize how his actions affected both complainants, but this is where I believe he could grow in self-awareness through individual and maybe some form of group counseling for other LPC who have experienced suspension or probation. The LPC did have witness testimonies from a colleague and former clients that entailed his professionalism and contribution. For me personally, I still view two complaints of unethical behavior so closely related as overpowering these

1. On the news there was a licentious attorney that had broken the law during the process of defending one of his cases.

Cosans, Christopher. 2008 “Does Milton Friedman Support a Vigorous Business Ethics?”, Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 87:391–399

Friedman argues that the only responsibility a business has to society is to act in its own self-interest to create revenue and remain successful in the economic system (158).Created to make a profit by providing a task or service, a business must “use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (Friedman 164). A business could use any tactic to gain a profit as long as they remained “within the rules of the game” (Friedman 164). The rules implied that no deception or fraud could take place while the corporation obtained their profit.

For the second case Lewis v. Avery (1971) compare with our case, both are also have the unilateral mistake. But the case Lewis v. Avery cannot be voided as it cannot show the importance