This assignment is problem-based. You are required to provide your answer in the form of an internal memorandum of advice to a partner in a fictitious law firm. Resources relating to the drafting of memoranda of advice are available on Study Desk within the Course Readings link under Useful Links. ASSIGNMENT QUESTION You work as a solicitor in a leading law firm on the Sunshine Coast called Limestone Lawyers. A Senior Partner of the firm, David Brown, has assigned you a case file (LL/2016/51/3) and has requested an opinion on the matter from you. Please draft your opinion in the form of an internal memorandum of advice addressed to the Senior Partner, David Brown. The facts within case file LL/2016/51/3 are as follows: Tina, a long-serving employee, voluntarily made various advances over the years, totalling about $300,000, to her employer, a law firm founded by Ricky. These advances were not made at the request of Ricky. Neither did Tina always inform Ricky beforehand. Although Tina was initially engaged as the firm’s accounts officer, she became its office manager in January 2015. As office manager, Tina promoted the firm to her friends and relatives, by singing praises of Ricky’s legal skills. Due to this, Tina’s good friend Sally, engaged Ricky as her divorce lawyer. Sally was taken in by Ricky and agreed to let him keep $80,000 from her divorce settlement as a personal loan from her to him. Ricky never repaid Sally. The firm was eventually placed in receivership and Ricky was declared a bankrupt. Tina and Sally found themselves being unsecured creditors and did not recover anything. Ricky has recently been lucky in that he has inherited a handsome sum of money from his late grandfather, and has managed to reinvent himself. Tina and Sally wish to sue Ricky for breach of fiduciary duties. They have approached us, Limestone Lawyers for advice. Draft your advice with regards to possible rights accruing to and/or liabilities incurred by the respective parties. Restrict your answer to possible breaches of fiduciary duties, with a discussion of appropriate remedies. INSTRUCTIONS A. Assignment Marking Rubric A marking rubric to this assignment is provided within this document. B. A Cover Sheet is not required for StudyDesk submissions as there will be an electronic record of your details and submission. C. Scope of assessment – Fiduciary duties and remedies. Do not discuss any other areas of law. D. Plagiarism Check You are required to run your assignment through a Turnitin plagiarism check. However, you do not need to attach the Turnitin report to your assignment. Your Turnitin Report serves as constructive notice of the possibility of plagiarism. Therefore, please consult the report, and do the needful before submitting your assignment. Please note that Turnitin may sometimes face delays due to load and is therefore advisable to plan your work well. E. Word Count: 1. Restrict your answer to a discussion of the relevant principles within Module 5 of the LAW2212 Equity course. 2. The maximum word limit is 2800 words. The word count should be conducted in accordance with a Microsoft Word word count (not including footnotes or endnotes). This limit does not include footnote references (to cases, legislative provisions, books, articles and websites). However, the word limit does include text set out in the footnotes i.e. the word limit cannot be circumvented by relocating text from the body of the answer to the footnotes, or by placing text in the footnotes in the first place. 3. You must indicate the word count for the assignment at the end of the assignment. Please only submit a Microsoft Word document file. 4. The word limit is a definite maximum. The marker of the assignment is entitled to stop marking when the nominated assignment word length has been reached. Any material in excess of the assignment word length need not be included in the marking. It is not the case that a 10% variation is allowed for the word limit: i.e. that students can exceed the word limit by 10%, or fall short of the word limit by 10%, without being exposed to a penalty. The word limit is a maximum limit only. There is no minimum word length for the assignment, although students should appreciate that, the less that they write, the greater the likelihood that the assignment question has not been answered as well as it could be. F. Extensions 1. Submissions by due date. Assignments must be submitted by the due date online via StudyDesk or an approved extension date. If an assignment is submitted after the due date or an approved extension date, then the course leader may apply the penalty applicable to late submissions in accordance with the USQ policy on late submissions. 2. Approved extension date. An approved extension date is one given in writing (including email) by the course leader. 3. Applications for extension – on-campus and external students. An on-campus or external student who wishes to apply for an extension must make the application in writing (and may do so by email) to the course leader. 4. Documentation. The application to the course leader must be accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation. In particular, where an extension is sought on the ground of illness, a medical certificate must be supplied with the application. In other circumstances, the course leader may specify the kind of supporting documentation that is required. 5. Conditions for an extension to be granted. An extension will not be granted simply on the basis of normal work commitments or a clash of other commitments. The conditions of assessment (including the due date for submission) are designed to accommodate the normal work commitments of most working students. The assignment is distributed well in advance of the due date and you are expected to plan your activities so that the deadline is met. G. Late submissions If a student submits an assignment after the due date or an approved extension date, then the relevant university policy on late submissions will be applied to the student. H. Assignment Marking Rubric/Criteria: Please consult the marking rubric/criteria on the following page as a guide to what is required:- Criteria HD A (Distinction) B (Credit) Pass Fail Identification of issues (5 marks) Correctly identifies and describes all of the issues related to the question and expresses them with clarity and precision. Correctly identifies and describes all of the issues related to the question with sufficient clarity and precision. Correctly identifies and describes all of the issues related to the question, though, in some instances, lacking clarity and precision. Correctly identifies and describes the main issues though not expressed with optimal clarity and precision. Misses a significant proportion of the main issues. Identification and discussion of relevant principles (10 marks) Correctly identifies and describes all of the principles and rules relevant to the question and names the authority for them, with clear and succinct explanatory observations indicating exceptional insight. Correctly identifies and describes all of the principles and rules relevant to the question and properly names the authority for them, with explanatory observations that illuminate and clarify those principles and rules. Correctly identifies and describes all of the principles and rules relevant to the problem and properly names the authority for them. Correctly identifies a majority of the principles and rules relevant to the question, but with the omission of some relevant cases. Sufficient to ground a reasonably effective practical analysis of the question. Misses a significant proportion of the main principles/rules and quite a few of the relevant cases which are authority for them. Application to case problem and analysis of relevant principles (15 marks) Exceptional analysis of the issues and fact situation and application of the principles to the facts of the problem, enhanced by exceptional critical insight. Excellent and complete analysis of the issues and fact situation displaying some critical insight. Sound and fairly complete analysis of the issues and fact situation but displaying only minimal critical insight. Generally sound analysis of the issues and fact situation although with some omissions. Significantly defective analysis revealing a lack of adequate understanding of the issues and principles and their application to the facts. Reasoned conclusion (5 marks) Format, writing style and referencing (5 marks) As for Distinction level, but exceptionally strong critical insight and appreciation of any areas of uncertainty in the applicable law. Excellent format, writing style and referencing. Correct conclusion displaying excellent critical insight and appreciation of any areas of uncertainty in the applicable law. Very good format, writing style and referencing. Correct conclusion displaying a certain amount of critical insight and some appreciation of any areas of uncertainty in the applicable law. Good format, writing style and referencing. Correct conclusion with little critical insight. Satisfactory format, writing style and referencing. Incorrect conclusion displaying little understanding and no critical insight. Poor format, writing style and referencing.