Ethical Conduct In Law

Summary

Sandras supervisor may have violated ABA Model Rules 1.4 and 1.16 by not formally communicating the firms decision to Mr. Smith. Californias Rule 5.1 emphasizes proper supervision, which may have been neglected. Rule 5.2 addresses subordinate lawyer responsibilities, and Sandra might be in violation if she knowingly followed unethical advice. Counterarguments include lack of awareness and interpretation of the supervisors advice as a business decision.

Full Conversation

Later that day Sandra spoke with her supervisor about Mr. Smith’ potential case. Sandra’s supervisor told her they weren’t interested in taking the case. “I’m not going to waste my time. Mr. Smith should accept whatever plea deal the DA is offering.” Sandra told her supervisor that she had indicated to Mr. Smith that she was interested in the matter and asked her supervisor if she should send a formal denial of representation to Mr. Smith indicating that the firm would not be taking the case. Sandra’s supervisor told her it was not necessary, stating, “If he doesn’t hear back from us, he will get the picture.” Sandra followed her supervisor’s instructions and never got back in contact with Mr. Smith.
Based on the information provided, there may be a potential violation of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rule *.*: Communication
- Rule *.*: Declining or Terminating Representation
Both rules emphasize clear communication and formal termination of representation. However, ABA rules do not govern California legal ethics. Instead, California has its own set of rules.
what about rule *.*?
California has its own version of Rule *.*, which relates to responsibilities of law firm partners or supervisory lawyers. It emphasizes proper supervision of lawyers in a firm, ensuring they conform to legal and ethical rules. In this scenario, Sandra's supervisor might have violated this rule.
what about rule *.*?
California's Rule *.* relates to the responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer. If Sandra knew her supervisor's advice was violative and followed it nonetheless, she may be in violation of this rule. However, it's ultimately a matter of interpretation and context.
how could Sandra's supervisor not be in violation of *.*?
To ensure Sandra's supervisor is not in violation of Rule *.*, he/she should have:
- Provided clear guidance
- Ensured Sandra understood the importance of formal communication
- Encouraged Sandra to inform the client formally about not taking the case.
These actions would align with Rule *.*'s emphasis on proper supervision and ethical conduct.
can you tell me any type of counterarguments for not being violation of rule *.*
Possible counterarguments for not being in violation of Rule *.* can include:
- Sandra was not aware that her actions were against the rules.
- Sandra's supervisor did not explicitly instruct her to act unethically.
- The supervisor's advice can be interpreted as a business decision, not an ethical violation.
Remember, these points are subjective and depend on the specific context and interpretation.