Breach of Ethics for Home Department & Anor- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theBreach of Ethics for Home Department Anor. Answer: The relevant Act, regulation, common law principle and case law: Rules of Professional Conduct of the UK are the code of conduct for ethics that has been governing the rules of professional conduct. In B Anor V Secretary Of State For The Home Department Anor [2012] Ewhc 3770[1]it was held by the Court that an advocate is at the authority to carry on various ethical responsibilities in relation to practical law. It is essential on the part of the legal practitioner to divide the concerned ethical responsibilities that he is ought to provide to the Court and to his client. In case of breach of ethical obligations on the part of the advocate the client is at the authority to bring civil proceedings against him. For instance, an action for negligence can be bought against the legal practitioner for breach of ethics. In Orchard v S E Electricity Bd[1987] QB 565, 571[2] it was held that the there has been conflict of interests between the client and the legal practitioner. The legal practitioner is at the obligation to act in good faith by disclosing his interests associated with the matter. Therefore in the present scenario, it can be observed that Mr. Smith was negligent on his part as he did not attend the court proceedings on time and did not produce the relevant documents required for the purpose of the case. Mr. Smith even failed to attend the extensions. Therefore, it is obvious that the order was passed on the favor of Mr. Dan due to negligence on the part of Mr. Smith. Therefore, it can be advised to Mr. Smith that he should present an application to the High Court of FSM for further appeal. However, it can also be seen that there has been conflict of interests between Mr. Smith and his legal practitioner. Therefore, in such cases the legal practitioners are liable for breach of ethics on the part of their client. Therefore, in the present case study it can be stated that due to negligence on the part of Mr. Smith his solicitor Mr. Steele is also equally liable. Contravention of Legal Ethics: A professional code of legal ethics is written and is purely based on the nature of the profession. In this regard it is important on the part of the professionals to adhere of the specific requirements of such written professional code of legal ethics. The code of legal ethics can be breached in different ways however; the most important among them are as a result of conflict of interests, pressure of clients and confidentiality[3]. However, in the given case study it can be observed that a breach of legal ethics has taken place on the ground of conflict of interest. It is evident that a lawyer is bound to provide fiduciary duties to his client along with all the relevant responsibilities[4]. In this regard, the advocate should avoid conflict of interests which may arise between him and his client in the course of business. However, conflicts of interests usually arise when legal and disciplinary actions occur. In breach of ethics, conflict of interests can be resolved when both the client and the advocate works accordingly[5]. It is important on the part of both the client and the advocate to balance two different public interests. In this regard, the client must have confidence upon his lawyer and at the same time the advocate must have the freedom to give instructions to his client regarding the case. Role of the legal practitioner in order to avoid ethical contravention: It can be noted here that legal practitioners are at the responsibility to maintain the license in order to act according to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the UK. Since time immemorial, the Rules of Professional Conduct has been establishing appropriate standards of legal ethics in order to develop professional responsibility of the legal practitioners[6]. According to the Rules of Professional Conduct the solicitors are at the duty to avoid the most common breaches of legal ethics[7]. In this regard, it is worth noting that the legal practitioners should avoid negligence to the highest priority. However, in this regard it is important on the part of the attorneys to involve themselves in effective communication. It is essential that lawyers should bound themselves to reasonable contract and therefore is liable to keep their clients updated and well informed about the case involved by explaining each and every detail of the matter which would prove to be beneficial for the pur pose of their case. Secondly, it is crucial that advocates should maintain trust accounts of their clients in such a way so that they are distinct from their regular personal accounts. In case of violation on this part, the legal practitioners shall be equally liable. Thirdly, it is important that legal practitioners should act keeping in mind the principles of their profession. Solicitors should not mislead their clients and should not act fraudulently. Fourthly, legal practitioners are not acquainted with the power of malpractice. However, in some cases, such claims are often difficult to prove and the legal practitioners are at the risk to get sued on this ground if reasonable care is not taken in this regard. Therefore, it is worth mentioning that the person in dispute has an opportunity to bring a claim against the legal authority if there has been breach of legal ethics on the part of such authority. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that in case of negligence, the immunity is an important exception where the liability is the rule as stated in Aib Group (Uk) Plc (Appellant) V Mark Redler Co Solicitors (Respondent) [2014] Uksc 58 - 05/11/14[8]. Therefore in the present scenario it can be stated that Mr. Steele could have avoided the contravention of legal ethics on his part by maintaining a proper communication with his client. He was at the duty to explain the provisions and the procedures involved in the matter directly to his client however; being a specialist in his field he failed to provide appropriate solution to his client. Duties of a legal practitioner on breach of legal ethics: It can be stated that since time immemorial, the profession of a legal practitioner has been defined as an honorable profession. The conduct of such legal practitioners is regulated by the legal profession by applying a set of binding rules. According to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct UK various rules are depicted in order to safeguard the rights of the legal practitioners in case of breach of legal ethics[9]. According to Rule 1 it is essential on the part of the legal practitioners to represent the cases of the clients with enthusiasm. Rule 2 denotes that lawyers have a social responsibility towards their clients and the court of justice in which the matter is operating. According to Rule 3 lawyers are required to explore their services by ensuring the ideals of justice. In this regard, Rule 4 states that legal practitioners working within firms are at the liability to uphold the integrity of their profession and therefore any misconduct in this regard shall be reported[10 ]. However, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct UK Rule 6 clearly addressed the importance of communication on the part of a legal practitioner regarding his services[11]. In the present case study it can be observed that Mr. Steele from the beginning informed Mr. Smith that he was in expert in dealing with cases regarding negligence. Therefore, it can be stated that Mr. Steele has provided wrong information regarding his services and thereby has committed misconduct on his part. In this regard, it is worth noting that Mr. Steele has violated the conduct of Rule 1 and Rule 7.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct UK. In Harley v McDonald[12] it was held that negligence on the part of the legal practitioner by causing delay can result into professional misconduct. In this case it has held by the Court that negligence and delay can constitute professional misconduct and in some cases the reputation of such profession can be at stake. It was also held that acting with insufficien t knowledge can cause serious disrepute to the profession. According to the Model Code of Professional Conduct, on breach of ethical duties on the part of the legal practitioners it is believed that advocates are adequately knowledgeable and therefore possesses the capability to defend their clients under any circumstances. In this regard, it can be mentioned that the only breach of legal ethics that can occur on the part of the legal practitioners is regarding the overriding duties to the Court. However, such overriding duties have been interpreted by the Courts from time to time in a weak manner and therefore the codes of professional ethics are applied in cases where a legal practitioner acts dishonestly. Penalty imposed by the Courts: The national standards for ethical conduct governing legal practitioners have been first adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908[13]. In this context, Canon banned a number of legal practitioners from practicing law and at the same time cancelled their licenses. However, such provisions updated by the Canons were adopted by the Higher Courts of different states in order to control the professional conduct of legal practitioners. In this regard, it was ruled by the Court in Arthur Hall v Simons [2000] 3 WLR 543 [14] that it is unconstitutional on the part of the States to ban legal practitioners from practicing law and at the same time cancelling their licenses. It was held in this case that the states are not at the authority to impose ban on the advertisement of an advocate. However, few weeks after the decision a new set of rules was adopted by the Model Code of Professional Conduct which was earlier replaced on action of the Canons. It can be emphasized that since time imm emorial, legal practitioners have professionally trained themselves in the art of persuasion in order to provide efficient solution to the clients who need legal assistance[15]. It is worth mentioning that legal practitioners are at the liability to act in the best interests of their clients. The principle of honesty and integrity is followed by the legal professionals of all countries. The MBA Code has been allowing a legal professional to breach the confidentiality of a client for the purpose of collecting required fees[16]. However, in some states such provisions are defined to be illegal and therefore, the national codes states that it is the duty of a lawyer to act honestly and in the best interests of the clients. In the present scenario, it can be observed that Mr. Steel advertised to Mr. Smith that he is expert in his professional field and therefore he can provide him with appropriate solution. In this regard, it can be stated that Mr. Steele has caused misconduct of his profession by wrongly advertising his professional skills to Mr. Smith. Therefore, the Courts of Federal States of Micronesia are at the authority to cancel the license of Mr. Steele however, they cannot impose ban on the advertisement of his professional skills. References: Aib Group (Uk) Plc (Appellant) V Mark Redler Co Solicitors (Respondent) [2014] Uksc 58 - 05/11/14. Arthur Hall v Simons [2000] 3 WLR 543. B Anor V Secretary Of State For The Home Department Anor [2012] Ewhc 3770. Dellinger, Myanna. "Rethinking Force Majeure in Public International Law."Pace L. Rev.37 (2016): 455. Fortney, Susan Saab. "The Role of Ethics Audits in Improving Management Systems and Practices: An Empirical Examination of Management-Based Regulation of Law Firms.". Mary's J. on Legal Malpractice Ethics4 (2014): 112. Harley v McDonald PC 10 APR 2001. Harley V Mcdonald; Glasgow Harley (A Firm) V Mcdonald: Pc 10 Apr 2001. Hazelwood, Kristin J. "Technology and Client Communications: Preparing Law Students and New Lawyers to Make Choices That Comply with the Ethical Duties of Confidentiality, Competence, and Communication."Miss. LJ83 (2014): 245. Hill, Lousie Lark. "The Preclusion of Nonlawyer Ownership of Law Firms: Protecting the Interest of Clients of Protecting the Interest of Lawyers."Cap. UL Rev.42 (2014): 907. Houseman, Alan W. "To Establish Justice for All: The Past and Future of Civil Legal Aid in the United States." (2015): 325. Huang, Peter H. "How improving decision-making and mindfulness can improve legal ethics and professionalism."JL Bus. Ethics21 (2015): 35. Nersessian, David. "Business Lawyers as Worldwide Moral Gatekeepers: Legal Ethics and Human Rights in Global Corporate Practice."Geo. J. Legal Ethics28 (2015): 1135. Orchard v S E Electricity Bd [1987] QB 565, 571. Prentice, Robert A. "Behavioral ethics: Can it help lawyers (and others) be their best selves."Notre Dame JL Ethics Pub. Pol'y29 (2015): 35. Throop, C. Jason. "Moral moods."Ethos42.1 (2014): 65-83. Toohey, Timothy J. "Beyond Technophobia: Lawyers Ethical and Legal Obligations to Monitor Evolving Technology and Security Risks."Richmond Journal of Law Technology21.3 (2015): 9. Tuan, Nien-Tsu, and Corrinne Shaw. "Consideration of ethics in systemic thinking."Systemic Practice and Action Research29.1 (2016): 51-60.