This withdrawal must happen without violating relevant ethical rules. Rule number 3 of the relevant ethical rules states that a lawyer cannot engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation (Rule 8.4( C )). The fact that some lawyers are abandoning some clients in disagreement with the settlement can be seen as deceit and misrepresentation. They originally took on the client with the intentions of fighting the case to the end and not settling for a standard settlement. The client now needs to find another lawyer to represent them and this can be time consuming when starting a case completely from scratch.
It is important in the legal system to allow lawyers to offer their clients a contingency fee because it affords people who do not have the financial means to pay for court cost and attorney fees to have their case to go to court. •Explain the inherent danger(s) and disadvantage(s) of contingency fees. The biggest inherent danger and disadvantage of the contingency fee is that the attorney could lose the case and the client may be liable for all the attorney’s costs. Also in some
It would be irresponsible for a lawyer to take on a case involving cyber-crime when the majority of the cases they have represented have been about estate planning. It is also irresponsible to take on a case solely because of the monetary gain. Ultimately lawyers are to serve their client and they have the responsibility to not take on cases they are unable to properly represent. Rule 2.1 explores the role of an attorney as an advisor. The rule states that a lawyer must use their knowledge to give advice to their client (“Rule 2.1: Advisor | The Center for Professional Responsibility”, 2012).
My reaction would be: I will do nothing for the moment but first things first, I have to ask my boss if he believes the crap. The one who is complaining (second supplier) should have the burden of proof, which means he must substantiate his allegations with convincing evidences. The accused on the other hand, which is myself, will only have to wait then refute every detail of the accusation (or complaint). The given case scenario is silent yet tries to insinuate that, there could have been connivance between me and the first supplier which enabled the supplier to win the recent contract and my winning of the raffle could only be a sideshow. But knowing myself, this is not the case that I will allow to happen.
Courtroom processing’s include but not limited to a commencement of actions including a trial, all of which are administrated by detailed and formal rules of civil procedure. One important risk that business and other organizations take when using the traditional litigation system is the outcome. They do not know the outcome until a judge or jury decides, this can be costly, time consuming and very unpredictable. Another risk that a company can take is the attorney they hire. By this I mean, they may only be able to afford an attorney that may not be qualified or under qualified for the job.
Also, the movie focuses on the ethical dilemma, whether the company should (or not) sacrifice long-term goals for short-term profits. According to the GTX’ executives, sharply cutting expenditures - by downsizing and redundancies - was necessary in order to push up the stock price and avoid upcoming aggressive acquisition by the competitors. But the question is how in real life investors perceive large layoffs? According to Gunther Capelle-Blancard and Delia Tatu – there is no distinct correlation and investors are likely to do the opposite of the board’s expectations: “Layoff decision can be associated with both positive and negative stock market reaction. The perception of investors is determined by the information incorporated in the announcement itself and in firm specific characteristic, but also by economic conjuncture” The next reason of the board’s decisions lays in the fact that the GTX was prioritizing the relationships with stockholders, neglecting the other stakeholders at the same time.
For me, this issue hits a spot. I am not in any way a drug user, but I have found myself requiring the assistance of welfare. I know how easy it is for someone to receive cash assistance and use it as they please, but I also know what it’s like to have a job and pay taxes. I believe that this law will enforce personal responsibility and make people be held accountable for their actions. Most jobs require drug testing, whether it’s annual or random, so why shouldn’t someone who is not working for their income also be drug tested?
If a patient needs treatment but they are not covered, that may motivate a counselor to place an incorrect billing code on an invoice to get paid for an non-covered service. While the counselor may believe this to be the best thing for the client, it is not ethically or legally allowed. This behavior actually hurts the industry as more regulation will be placed upon the counselor who will have to take more time to prove their compliance. That time they are using to prove compliance is time they are not seeing clients or generating revenue. One aspect of counseling that is very helpful is the licensure that is granted to counselors by the state.
However, if one declines to bluff when conducting business from one deal to another, then he is putting his business transactions at a disadvantage and discounting the opportunities permitted under the business bluffing rules (Carr, 1968, p. 137). On the other hand, if you’re making a statement to deliberately deceive the audience then that is not ethical. Telling the truth and exposing the weakness can make one feel vulnerable and out of control. As a result people lie because they are trying to gain acceptance and control. In general, lying suggests that there’s a degree of inequality taking place, but inequality is a fundamental part of business.
An obstructive company does not make social responsibility an effort, instead making profits the most important aspect of its business. Some people view obstructive businesses as immoral since they may exploit their employees, pollute natural lands or deceive customers. Joseph Smith Student ID 61755 Defensive In most cases, companies that take a defensive stance towards social responsibility are not particularly responsible. These companies may consider themselves neutral, and they make profits a more important motive than performing actions in a socially responsible way. These companies make a point of following the law to ensure that others cannot take legal action against them.