I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO REVIEW A SCENARIO INVOLVING A PARALEGAL WORKING IN A LAW FIRM, AND IDENTIFY THE ETHICAL RULES THE PARALEGAL AND/OR THE ATTORNEY VIOLATED.
I WILL DESCRIBE ALL POSSIBLE ETHICAL VIOLATIONS THAT OCURRED IN ANY PARTICULAR DAY OF THE WEEK TO BE EXAMINED, CITING :
A) ABA MODEL RULES THAT APPLY AND
B) NFPA ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT APPLY
MONDAY
1.CARL FAILED TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS A PARALEGAL. ABA MR 5.5 (b); NFPA EC 1.7 (a).
2.CARL ASSITED AN INDIVIDUAL PROVIDING ADVICE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF MODEL RULES. NFPA EC 1.3 (e).
3.CARL DID NOT EXPLAIN ATTORNEY HOWE ABOUT THE CASE AND WHAT HE HAD DONE IN THE INTERVIEW. NFPA EC 1.5 (a).
4. CARL DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE AUTHORITY GOVERNING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW ( UPL). HE ACTED AS A LAWYER AND NOT AS A PARALEGAL. NFPA EC 1.8 (a).
5. CARL FAILED IN NOTIFYING PROPERLY HIS KNOWLEDGE OF JANE INTENTION TO COMMIT AN ACT WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. NFPA EC 1.2 (f).
6. ATTORNEY HOWE DID NOT COMPLY WITH HIS RESPONSIBILITY WITH THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION BECAUSE OF THE MISLEADING REPRESENTATION PERFORMED BYCARL, ACTING AS A LAWYER, AND HE DID NOT INFORM TO ANY HIGH AUTHORITY WITHIN THE LAW FIRM. ABA MR 1.13 (b).
7. ATTORNEY HOWE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY ADVICE TO THE CLIENT. HE LEFT EVERYTHING IN THE HANDS OF CARL. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT CARL INFORMED HIM OF EVERYTHING HE GOT FROM THE CONVERSATION WITH THE CLIENT. ABA MR 2.1; ABA MR 4.1 (b).
8. BY NOT BEING INVOLVE IN THE CIRCUNSTANCES OF THE CASE ATT. HOWE VIOLATED ABA MR 8.4 (a) and (c).