Lawyer John has committed a series of ethical violations in his attempt to resolve the marriage dispute between client Joe and his wife Jane, and the case involving Joe and the pedestrian he hit by a car under the influence of alcohol. Based on the guidelines of American Bar Association authorities, specifically, rule 4-1 (7b), the first ethical violation that Lawyer John has committed is engaging in unethical behavior of conflict of interest. It is quite imperative to note that Lawyer John is trying to represent two clients on opposite sides but in the same case (Maerowitz & Mauet, 2019). It is evident from the case study that Lawyer John had already engaged Joe as a client to assist him resolves the accident that involved hitting a pedestrian. Consequently, upon learning that Joe's wife was filing a divorce, Lawyer John agreed to assist Joe in resolving his marriage dispute. Hence, it was unethical for Lawyer John to reach out to Jane under a sheer pretense that he would represent Jane in her attempt to divorce her husband, Joe. Additionally, lawyer John out to have conducted a conflict search in his first engagement with a prospective client. There exist several and affordable software’s that aid in the assessment of the level of conflicts, especially in cases that involve family law. The decision for Lawyer John to ignore the steps of assessing the level of conflict that arose from Joe and Jane's case was unethical.
The second ethical issue arising from Lawyer John's behavior is incompetence. Given the context of the case, it is critical to note that Lawyer John was quite incompetent in handling issues regarding family law. He did not have enough experience and a conclusive background in marriage issues. However, the Lawyer went proceeded with the case by engaging both Joe and Jane on the basis of confidence. It is a professional duty of a lawyer to have the requisite knowledge and experience to handle all sorts of cases they are obligated to perform (Mosten & Traum, 2018). Besides, the Lawyer did not show any sign of thorough preparation with regards to taking the stand to resolve Joe's and Jane's cases. The behavior denoted a high level of incompetence on the side of the Lawyer. Lawyer John did not show signs of diligence through his initiative of representing prospective clients on the same case, but in opposite sides and this denoted a question of incompetence. Hence, it was unethical for Lawyer John to take the stand to represent Joe and his wife Jane in spite of the fact that he was very conversant with the reality that he was unfit to handle issues concerning family law
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The third ethical violation that arises from Lawyer John's behavior is the inability to maintain clients' confidentiality. Given the context of the case between Joe and his wife Jane, it is evident that Lawyer John had earlier engaged Joe and agreed to assist him in resolving the divorce issue filed by his wife, Jane. However, it was quite unethical for Lawyer John to reveal the conversation between him and Jane's husband Joe pertaining to the drinking incident that caused the accident. Rule 4-1 6(b), as it appertains to American Bar Association authorities, outlines the obligation of a lawyer to keep and protect his or her clients' confidential information or conversation unless the client's consent is sought (Wendling, 2017). Ultimately, it is evident from the facts of the case that Lawyer John did not reasonably believe that disclosing Joe’s conversation with him was necessary. Hence, the decision to disclose his conversation with client Joe even if the client was a wife to the former client was unethical.
References
Maerowitz, M. P., & Mauet, T. A. (2019). Fundamentals of Litigation for Paralegals . Aspen Publishers.
Mosten, F. S., & Traum, L. (2018). Interdisciplinary Teamwork in Family Law Practice. Family Court Review , 56 (3), 437-460.
Wendling, L. A. (2017). Ethics for Paralegals . Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
