Ethics Violations By Carl: A Discussion Based On ABA And NFPA Model Rules

Violation of Ethical Considerations on Day One

Discuss about the Paralegal Studies for American Bar Association Model Rules.

There are various ethical considerations which have been violated by carl while working as a paralegal for the firm during the week. These violations have been made with respect to the rules provided by the American bar association model rules and the NFPA ethical considerations. This ethical and professional violation would be discussed in the paper on a day by day basis. The rules provided by the above discussed models would be applied to determine the ethical violations.

It has been provided through the scenario that Jane and Zeke who have come to the firm seeking professional help have been called by Carl into the professional chamber belonging to the Attorney and Carl sat behind the desk of the attorney without disclosing to the clients that he is actually not an attorney but paralegal where the clients were actually looking for an attorney.  In the given situation he has violated the rules as laid down by the NFPA ethical considerations. According to ethical consideration 1.7 where it is required that the title of a paralegal in relation to its roles and responsibilities have to be totally disclosed to the clients. In the given situation there has been a failure on the part of Carl to disclose that he is a paralegal to Jane and Zeke. He has just introduced himself with his name without stating that he is a paralegal and by sitting behind the test of the Attorney he has misrepresentation is roles and responsibilities to the clients.

It has been for the provided by the scenario that Carl is also allowed Zeke to sit beside the table of the journey where some open files were present. This is a breach in relation to leak of confidential information. Both the ABA model rules through rule 1.6 and the NFPA through ethical consideration 1.5 prohibit such form of conduct.

It has also been stated that Carl at advised and influenced Jane to get alimony from her husband which is against the rules of professional standards integrity as per rule 1.3 as he loudly shouted before Luther client and also leaked confidential information while doing so.

There are various ethical considerations which have been reached by Carl on Tuesday as well while working with the firm as a paralegal. It has been provided that Carl has been asked by the Attorney to respond to the interrogatory forms. While doing so it was the ethical responsibility of Carl to ensure that he does not put wrong information into the form which is against ethical principles. it has been provided in ethical consideration 1.3that a paralegal should not engage in any action which opens the decorum and the dignity of proceedings before a court and be respectful of all rules and procedures. under this section it is also provided that a paralegal is not allowed to provide assistance to any person to commit and action which directly violets the model rules for the rules of law. It was also the duty of Carl under the ABA model 1.4 to ensure that he lets the client know about the fact that he cannot pursue any action which the client expects which is prohibited by law and explain search matter to the client. He is unnecessarily adding the question related to prostitutes which is not relevant in the situation.

Violation of Ethical Considerations on Day Two

it has also been given through the scenario that Carl has recorded the time of the meeting with Jane as 2 hours which was actually 1 hour 20 minutes. This action committed By Carl is also a breach of ethical considerations as set out by the NFPA. It has been set out via ethical consideration 1.2 that a paralegal has to make sure that all billing records and time keeping are prepared in an complete honest, accurate and manner. 

On Wednesday also various ethical considerations have been violated by Carl in the role of in paralegal while working for the firm.

According to the NFPA model it is the duty of a paralegal to show level of competency while doing their work. Here Carl has been ask to file the divorce by the Attorney. However there has been a failure on the part of Carl to file the motion in a diligent and Competent manner. By not detecting proper competency in relation to his work Carl  has violated ethical consideration 1.1 of the NFPA model and rule 1.1 of the ABA model as well.

After coming out of the courtroom, Carl has witnessed an accident. Without showing any compassion towards the relative of the victim, he has directly asked her whether she needs an attorney or not. The father of the victim goes to refer the Attorney with an intention to settle big claims. In doing so also Carl has failed to comply with the considerations and rules of the ABA and the NFPA model. He has also indulged into the sale of law practice which is prohibited through rule 1.17 of the ABA.

He has also not acted in an ethical manner and in accordance to the rules provided by the ABA and the NFPA model as he was a notary and it was his duty to ensure that the document is signed by the client in front of him. Such provision has been discussed under E.C- 1.3 of the ABA and NFPA model. Under this provision, it has been observed that all paralegals are required to maintain a high standard while performing their professional acts. However in this case he believes that the receptionist was true and the document has been signed by Jane.

He has also violated the provisions of confidentiality as he has revealed confidential information about Jane to her boyfriend Zeke thereby violating both the ABA and the NFPA model.

Violation of Ethical Considerations on Day Three

On Thursday the first Breeze which has been committed by Carl is in relation to the notion of confidentiality provided in the ABA and the NFPA model. This has been done because he has informed Jane that he has been contacted by Zeke for the big screen television. In addition he has informed Jane about the full conversation he had with Zeke which is prominently a breach of confidentiality.

It was the ethical responsibility of Carl to ensure that he does not put wrong information into the form which is against ethical principles. It has been provided in ethical consideration 1.3 that a paralegal should not engage in any action which opens the decorum and the dignity of proceedings before a court and be respectful of all rules and procedures. Under this section it is also provided that a paralegal is not allowed to provide assistance to any person to commit and action which directly violets the model rules for the rules of law. In the given situation he has influenced Mrs Brown towards providing a wrong testimony so that a big claim can be made for the accident. This is a clear breach of the ethical considerations that provided under EC-1.3 (e) of the model. According to this, it is the responsibility of the paralegal to work with proper information and secure the dignity of the proceedings. .

One of the primary breaches which has been made by Carl in the given situation is related to not reporting that that only has taken on the money from the trust account of a client to pay him. It was the duty of Carl under rule 8.3 of the ABA to report any kind of professional misconduct to the relevant authority.

He has also violated rule 1.8 of the NFPA and understand to unauthorised practice of law which he is not allowed to do. According to this rule, a paralegal should have to maintain all the legal authorities and must not involve in any practices that is known as unauthorised under the law.

Conclusion

Thus Carl has made the above discussed Ethical breaches. According to the ABA and NFPA model, every paralegal should have to follow certain rules and guidelines so that sustainability can be made and justice can be provided to the clients. According to the rules mentioned in the EC- 1.5 of the model, the paralegals are required to keep all the confidential information of the clients and prevented to disclose this to others. Even the sources of that information are required to be concealed by them. It is illegal if the paralegals are trying to gain illegal profit by blackmailing the clients with that information. Under rule 1.6, the paralegals should have to act for securing the interest of the clients and in this case, they have to avoid all the conflicts of interest among them and take certain prospective action regarding the same. Certain exemptions have been made under rule 1.6 (e), where the paralegals are allowed to disclose certain information of the clients if there is reasonable grounds that such information could solve the conflict of interest to certain grounds. Further, in the above mentioned statement, it has been observed that Carl has failed to serve the public interest and act for the development of legal system. However, such rules have been mentioned under rule 1.4. Under this, a paralegal is required to deliver pro bono publico. It is the principle to secure the public interest. From the aspect of ethical consideration, it is the duty of every paralegal to act for protecting the public interest. Considering the facts of the cases, it can be said that Carl has failed to perform all the professional conducts mentioned in EC 1.3. If I were the appointed paralegal in this case, I shall maintain all such provisions and act for the interest of the clients and public as well.

References

ABA Model rules

NFPA ethical considerations