Ethical Dilemma in Law - Assignment Example

Heading: Ethical dilemma in law Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Question 1 Mr NO-TIME reasoning in this case is actually in line with the law firm policy that no matter ends up in trial. This is further supported by the fact that the firm settles in a manner that is economical to the firm and to the client. In this sense Mr NO-TIME is trying to state that if the matter goes to the court, a lot of time will be wasted as some trials can take a long time to conclude and hence wasting the time of the firm in settling other cases. It will also tie the attorney for hours and days in the court while other cases are pending. In summary the court process is long and hence Mr NO-TIME prefers to settle the case with the client by asking the client to accept the offer given by the company as a result of the toxic inhalation. More so, it is clear that the firm policy is to avoid going to the court by all means and this is the rationale for the adamant reasoning of Mr NO-TIME. The client on the other hand has paid a retainer charges and hence conflicting with Mr NO-TIME stance on the case situation. Question 2 There are ethical duties breached by Mr NO-TIME in his stance. The rationale for this is based on the following reasons. Firstly, the law firm should have the competency and the time to handle the case1. Secondly, the attorney has the responsibility to communicate with the client about the status of the case2. Thirdly, the case has legal merits. Fourthly, there is no conflict of interest between the involved parties3. The four ethical considerations are made prior to accepting the case4. It would therefore be a breach of duty on the part of the firm to decline proceeding with the case because of the client had made an offer to the law firm to handle any future cases and even paid a retainer fee. The client had also offered the attorney the case and it is clear that the firm had accepted the case. Conversely, the policy of the law firm focuses on settling the matter instead of allowing it to go to trial. This policy is however contradicting ethical considerations of effectively communicating with the client and having time and competency to handle the case to its conclusion. This does not eliminate the possibility of a trial if the client requests the same. More The case has legal merits and there is no conflict of interest between the participating parties. so, it is the reasoning of the client that if the court is to determine the outcome of the case, other employees will benefit too. In moral reasoning, this outcome will be in line with utilitarian reasoning of maximizing the happiness of the outcome to the majority. As evident, there is a clear concern in this case; the law firm wants to save time by focusing on settling the case instead of escalating it to trial. The client on the other hand wants clear justice by escalating the issue to the court and following it through the trial stages. It is therefore a breach of duty and responsibility on the part of the law firm by rejecting the case and even advising the client to seek for another law firm if the client insisted that the matter be taken to the court. Question 3 From ethical point of view, it is the requirement of the law firm or SUITS R US in this case to handle the case to its conclusion since it had accepted the client request and even made a prior charges or retainer charges. By accepting the case, the firm had proved that it had the competency and the time to handle the case to its conclusion and effectively communicate with the client regarding the case proceedings. It is naturally the obligation of the firm to handle the case and not to direct the client to another firm if not willing to settle and the firm policy states. From the case, it is clear that the client was claiming damages amounting to$1 million, with this reasoning, since the client was offered $950,000 which is $50,000 less, this could have escalated the client’s desire to take the issue to the court. If the firm was not willing to escalate the matter to the court, there are a number of legal and ethical ways that could have been adapted to ensure that the matter is not escalated to trials. Firstly, the attorney could have taken time to communicate to the client about the charges that would be incurred in settling the case in the court; the cost implication means that even if the company’s offer was less by $50,000, the same would be incurred in the court proceedings. Secondly, the time factor could have been used to convince the client to stop the case from proceeding into trails, the attorney can explain the consequences of a trial by stating the need of evidence on both sides, the need to have the witnesses in court and ensure that the evidence provided is not contradicting5. Thirdly, the stress of attending medical attention as a result of the intoxication and visiting the court in order to participate in the trial process. More so, the attorney can advice the client to talk to the company and offer the client supporting facts in order for the company to raise their claim to $1 million which is what the client was looking for in this case. These are the options available for the law firm and its attorney instead of being adamant by declining the case and even pushing the client to another law firm while the firm has accepted the responsibility in the first place. Question 4 There is a clear ethical dilemma in this case, and there are two options either to risk job loss or to agree with Mr NO-TIME firm’s line in this case. By not agreeing with the company’s policy which clearly states that we always settle, I risk losing my job and if I agree with the law firm’s policy of settling the case or directing the client to another law firm if the client disagrees with the law firm policy, I clearly breach ethical principles inculcated to me while undertaking my law degree. In this case I will clearly state to Mr NO-TIME the reason for my decision not to accept the company’s policy in this case. First the company’s policies contradict with the company’s obligation. In fact, the client can sue the law firm for not following up with the case to the trial stages considering that the client had been charged retainer. In this case, even if I lose my job, the company can also be sued by failing to meet its legal obligation. This can be a major challenge as the company’s license of practice can be held for a period of time of even withdrawn completely by failing to meet its legal obligations. I will stand by the ethical principles even if it leads to my job lose, this is because ethical principles are the foundation of justice in the legal context. Unethical practices will naturally compromise the field and hence not worth the need to retain a job which will potentially ruin my moral and ethical principles. Question 5 In this case, the revelation will alter my reasoning and consequently advice. Despite the fact that the company’s policy of settling always, which had earlier contradicted my ethical stands, the client revelation brings into question another ethical dilemma. The client revelations clearly indicates that even the first claim which had been given by the company was illegal since the client did not suffer as a result of inhaling company’s chemicals but his own from the garden. The medical attention will clearly put the client is a challenging situation since the medical report indicates the kind of chemical which affected the client and hence setting the company free of any wrong doing6. In my advice, I will recommend the client to visit the hospital again and confirm if chemicals from the factory escalated his sickness in any way besides the home chemicals. In this manner, it would be possible to include the intoxication from the factory into the case of eliminate that possibility. I will also advice the client on the consequences of providing false evidence or information into the court of law, the law firm and the client will suffer as a result and hence the need to be clear on the cause of his illness. I will therefore stop the case until clear evidence is provided against the company. I will also issue a warning against providing false evidence against the company and also advice that the company will be unable to process further the matter if it breaches ethical obligations of the company7. Bibliography Goldman, Thomas F. and Hughes Alice Hart, Civil Litigation: Process and Procedures (Prentice Hall PTR, 2012). Kerley Peggy N.Hames Joanne Banker , Sukys Paul A, Civil Litigation, 6th ed. (Cengage Learning, 2011). Pyle Ransford Comstock and Bast, Carol M. Foundations of Law: Cases: Cases, Commentary and Ethics (Cengage Learning, 2010). Read More