Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

Davy Zhou

z5017147

UNSW Law
Electronic Assignment Cover Sheet

Student Declaration of Academic Student name: Davy Zhou


Integrity
https://student.unsw.edu.au/plagiarism
Student ID: z5017147
Course no: LAWS1230
I declare that this assessment item is my
own Course name: Lawyers, Ethics & Justice

work, except where acknowledged, and Lecturer name: Kate Burns


has not Class Days/times: Monday/Thursday
been submitted for academic credit 11-1
elsewhere,
Due date: 9/11/16
and acknowledge that the assessor of this
item No of words: 2887
may, for the purpose of assessing this Topic: Take Home Exam
item:
Reproduce this assessment item
and provide a copy to another
member of the University;
and/or,
Communicate a copy of this
assessment item to a plagiarism
checking service (which may
then retain a copy of the
assessment item on its database
for the purpose of future
plagiarism checking).

I certify that I have read and understood


the
University rules in respect of Student
Academic
Misconduct.
By the act of submitting this assignment
to turnitin you are agreeing to the above
Student Declaration of Academic
Integrity.

1
Davy Zhou
z5017147

2
Davy Zhou
z5017147

PART A

Key Abbreviations
Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 BR
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2015 ASCR
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) LPUL
Professional Misconduct PM
The Office of the Legal Service Commissioner OLSC
Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct UPC

ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY


LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)

WILHELM BRITTLE

Sexual Harassment ASCR: s42.1.2 Bill should not have


complimented Maeli Such behaviour is
on her fabulous breach of
figure and should ASCR/LPUL
not have hugged her UPC/PM.1
without consent. The
result of which was OLSC/Tribunal
to make Maeli could order
distinctly disciplinary measures
uncomfortable requiring
Inadequate ASCR: s7.1, s7.2 Bill did not provide Bill to apologise,
Communication LPUL: s107, s174(2), clear advice to Nick, issue conditions on
s174(3), s174(6), as Nick remained licence or

1
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b)

3
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
s178 oblivious to the compensation.2
potential severity of Bill will be likely
the charges. liable for damages
too.3
Bill did not inform
Nick on the
alternatives and
allowed him to
blindly pleading not
guilty.
Discrimination ASCR: s 4.1.1, 4.1.2, Decided not to call
4.1.3, 42.1.1 Nick to court, as his
current hippie
appearance might
work against him.
Communication ASCR: s23.1 Bill should not have Making false
with Opposition spoken to Mark in statements and
order to discourage. communication with
opposition is breach
Bill speaks with of ASCRUPC.4
Mark, who was not
given the chance for OLSC will order
legal representation. reprimand, require
He has no right to counselling or
give Nick legal condition on
advice. licence.5
False Statements to ASCR: s4.1.2, 5, No point bringing
Other Party s22.1, s22.2, s34.1.1, any actions because False statements and

2
Ibid ss 299, 302.
3
Ibid s 236.
4
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b).
5
Ibid s 299(1).

4
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
s34.1.3 you are an unlicensed opposition access to
ACL: s18 driver is an witness can also
untruthful statement. constitute
misleading/deceptive
conduct under ACL.6
Intimidation ASCR: s34.1.1, Bill should not have Such behaviour is
s34.1.3 threatened Mark in breach of
order to stop him ASCR but unlikely to
from bringing any be serious
actions. It can enough to constitute
constitute as tactics PMUPC.7
that go beyond
legitimate advocacy. As Bill acted
incompetently
and in uncivil and
improper manner,
OLSC likely to order
disciplinary actions.8
Instructions ASCR: s4.1.1, s8.1 Bill directly Such behaviour is
disobeyed Nicks breach of
instructions to protect ASCR/LPULPC/P
his innocence and to M.9
save him money
because Nick can OLSC/Tribunal
afford whatever find could order
he might receive. disciplinary measures
requiring Bill to
apologise, issue

6
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) s 18.
7
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b).
8
Ibid s 299(1).
9
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b).

5
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
conditions on
practicing licence or
compensation to be
paid.10
Duties as Managing ASCR: s37.1 Overlooking the Under LPUL
Partner LPUL: s34 duties of other principal is
lawyers such as vicariously liable for
checking billing and employees and
billable hours. billing.11 It is a
breach of
ASCR/LPUL
likely to amount to
UPC/PM.12

Bill will be cautioned


and conditions
imposed on licence.13
OLSC may also
order costs
assessment for
Sarats bill.14

MAELI TAN

Conflict of interest - ASCR: s12.3 Receiving a loan Taking a conflict of


self own interests from Eddie, places interest without client

10
Ibid ss 299, 302.
11
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 ss 34, 35, 188.
12
Ibid s 298(b).
13
Ibid ss 299, 302.
14
Ibid s 284.

6
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
Maeli in a position consent is breach of
where she has a ASCRUPC/PM.15
conflict of interest.
Conflict of interest
Should not have jeopardises
spoken to the radio quality of work so
host because of her OLSC/Tribunal
anguish and sense of could order
guilt. disciplinary measures
Conflict of interest ASCR: s11.1, s11.2, Maeli should not require
current client s11.3, s11.4, s11.5 have accepted to Maeli to apologise,
LPUL: s423(2)(c) represent Ferdinand issue conditions on
on the workplace practicing licence
Clark Boyce17 injury matter without or compensation to
the express written be paid.16
consent of Bill and
Teena.
Bringing Firm into ASCR: s4.1.2, 4.1.4, Suggesting to clients Such behaviour is
Disrepute 5.1 that BSS is accepting breach of ASCR but
cash can compromise unlikely to be serious
Foreman18 the integrity of the enough alone to
firm. Furthermore, constitute PM
assisting with tax therefore UPC.19
avoidance
demonstrates that However, potentially

15
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b).
16
Ibid ss 299, 302.
17
Clark Boyce v Mouat [1993] 3 NZLR 641.
18
Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408, 43940, 470
19
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b).

7
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
Maeli is not a fit and PM from
proper person to consistent failure to
practise law. reach competence
Embezzlement ASCR: s4.1.2, s4.1.4, Embezzled company standard.20
s5.1 funds by asking
Crimes Act: s157 clients to pay her in OLSC/Tribunal
LPUL: s180, s174 cash directly for a likely to order
20% discount and disciplinary actions
manipulating the such as a fine or
office billing reprimand.21
software.
Improper Client ASCR: s13.1.3 Maeli should not
Termination have withdrawn her
representation for
Ferdinand without
providing him with
just cause and
reasonable notice
Disclosure of ASCR s9.1, s9.2, Maeli should not
Confidential s4.1.4 have publically
Information disclosed
Prince Jefri22 confidential
information in
regards to Sarats
business to Ray
Jones without
authorisation for the
disclosure.

20
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 297(1)(a).
21
Ibid ss 299(1), 302(1).
22
Prince Jeffri Bolkia v KPMG [1999] AC 222.

8
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
Communication ASCR: s7.1, s4.1.1, Ignoring texts and
Untimely Advice s4.1.3 emails from Eddie,
while could be of a
personal nature,
could also be of a
professional nature
Incompetence ASCR: s4.1.3, s4.1.4 Made assumption
that Sarats factory
was broken for the
radio news segment.
Borrowing Money ASCR: s12.2, s12.3.1 Maeli borrowed
from Client $20,000 from Eddie,
a current client.
Note: as Eddie is a
Loan Shark, which is
not an authorised
deposit-taking
institution, exception
12.3.2(i) does not
apply.

Further, Maeli used


her position as
Eddies lawyer to
exercise undue
influence and attain a
loan without
security.

Mischarging LPUL: S172(1) Partook in online Mischarging more

9
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
ASCR: s5.1.1, s5.1.2, gambling while than reasonable
s4.1.2, s172(1), charging the time as amount to incorrect
s172(2)(c) research to clients. client is serious
breach of
Veghelvi23 LPULPM.25
Foreman24
Tribunal could order
disciplinary measures
and require costs.26
Could also refer
matter for costs
assessment.27

TEENA TEMAKI

Civility ASCR: s4.1.2, Constantly plays Such behaviour is


s34.1.1, s34.1.3 tough in negotiations, breach of ASCR but
rarely settling out of unlikely to be serious
court. enough alone to
constitute
PMUPC.28

OLSC/Tribunal
likely to order
disciplinary actions.29
Inadequate LPUL: s34, s35, Failure to exercise Under LPUL

23
Veghelyi v Law Society of New South Wales [1991] NSWCA
24
Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408, 43940, 470
25
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(d).
26
Ibid ss 302, 303.
27
Ibid s 284.
28
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b).
29
Ibid ss 299(1), 302(1).

10
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
Supervision s111, s188 reasonable principal is
ASCR: s3, s4.1.2, supervision over staff vicariously liable for
s4.1.3, s4.1.4.5, s19.2 as she is a partner employees.30 Failing
too. Potentially to adequately
contributed to supervise
conflict. UPC/PM.31

Likely for
disciplinary action32
Incompetence ASCR: s4.1.3, s4.1.4 Assuring Sarat
Such behaviour is
Poor Advice nothing will occur.
breach of ASCR but
Advising outside area
unlikely to be serious
of expertise.
enough alone to
constitute
Advice provided by
PMUPC.33
Teena may be
considered negligent.
However, potentially
Abuse of Process ASCR: s3.1, s4.1.2, Recommended Sarat
PM from
s4.1.3, s4.1.4, s4.1.5, to bury the safety
consistent failure to
s5.1.1, s5.1.2, s19.1 reports.
reach competence
Crimes Act: s317
standard.34

BAT36
OLSC/Tribunal
Intimidation Tactics ASCR: s34, s42.1.3 Sends Teena a sharp
likely to order
- Workplace email, telling her she
disciplinary actions.35
Bullying is out of order and

30
Ibid ss 34, 35, 188.
31
Ibid s 298(b).
32
Ibid ss 299, 302.
33
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b).
34
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 297(1)(a).
35
Ibid ss 299(1), 302(1).
36
McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Service Ltd [2002] VSC 73.

11
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
must immediately
withdraw
Confidentiality ASCR: s4.1.1 Locks away all the Such behaviour is
Chinese Wall necessary files in a breach of
Prince Jefri37 security room, with ASCR/LPULPC/P
Optus38 limited access to M.39
employees
OLSC/Tribunal
could order
disciplinary
measures.
Conflict of interest - ASCR: s12.1 Non-professional Such behaviour is
self own interests relationship with a breach of
love affair with Sarat ASCR/LPULUPC/
PM.40

OLSC/Tribunal
could order
disciplinary
measures.
Communication to ASCR: s3.1, s4.1.2, Asserts that no Such behaviour is
Opponent s4.1.4, s22.1 documents exist. She breach of
also states that such ASCR/LPULUPC/
Esso41 documents would PM.42
nevertheless be
privileged. OLSC will order

37
Prince Jeffri Bolkia v KPMG (a firm) [1999] AC 222.
38
Asia Pacific Telecommunications Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 350.
39
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b).
40
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b).
41
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 201
CLR
42
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(b).

12
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
Documents fail reprimand, require
Essos dominant counselling or
purpose test. condition on
Failure to Provide ASCR: s34.1.1, Teena fails to licence.43
Documents s34.1.3 produce report she
previously read False statements and
Evidence Act: s11846 highlighting the high- hiding documents
WHS Act: s17147 risk nature of factory. can also constitute
misleading/deceptive
Cole48 conduct under
Propend49 ACL.44
McCabe50
Misleading ASCR: s4.1.4, s5, Misleading by Also likely to be
Statements s22.1, s22.2, s34.1.1, declaring that Sarat is liable for damages.45
s34.1.3 not responsible for
ACL: s18 the fatality and also
has no knowledge of
problems at the
factory.
Billing LPUL: s107(2)(a), Bills for hours Billing more than
s174 advising on golf reasonable amount to
course, for things she incorrect client is
Veghelvi51 has no proper serious breach of
knowledge of billing LPULPM.52

43
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 299(1).
44
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) s 18.
45
Ibid s 236.
46
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 188.
47
Work Health and Safety Act NSW 2011 s171.
48
AWB Limited v Cole (No 5) (2006) 155 FCR 30.
49
Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501.
50
McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd [2003] VSC 73.
51
Veghelyi v Law Society of New South Wales [1991] NSWCA
52
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s 298(d).

13
Davy Zhou
z5017147
ETHICAL ISSUE LAW OF APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY
LAWYERING FACTS (DISCIPLINE &
LIABILITY)
wrong item.
Mischarging ASCR: s5 Rounds up the Tribunal could order
LPUL: ss172(1)(a), invoice from more disciplinary measures
172(2)(c) than $20,000 to and require costs.53
$30,000. Could also refer
Meakes55 matter for costs
Keddie56 assessment.54
Cost Agreement LPUL: s107(2), s172, Teena is required to
s174(1)(a), s178 use a cost agreement.
She failed to disclose
costs to Sarat.

53
Ibid ss 302, 303.
54
Ibid s 284.
55
Association v Meakes [2006] NSWCA 340
56
Legal Services Commissioner v Keddie [2012] NSWADT 106

14
Davy Zhou
z5017147

PART B

Once complaints are made about BSS and its lawyers,57 the OLSC begins a preliminary
assessment to determine whether to dismiss or investigate the matter.58 If the alleged conduct
is deemed to be serious and consistent, it is likely that the OLSC will investigate and may
also recommend for their practicing certificate to be suspended immediately for the sake of
public interest.59 BSS and its lawyers will be notified and advised of their right to lodge a
submission.60 Each complaint is assessed individually on its own merit.61 However, previous
sanctions are considered when determining a penalty for future misconduct. The decisions of
the Tribunal may be subject of an appeal.62

Bill
For Bills actions, the OLSC will make consideration for matters relating to UPC but will
refer PM matters to the Tribunal.63 For UPC and consumer matters, the OLSC will most
likely make determinations to order to caution Bill,64 require an apology,65 pay compensation
and/or pay a fine.66 Regarding PM, most of Bills actions are considered to be severe
however, some of his actions may not constitute to PM alone. The effect of them together
will however amount to a substantial and consistent failure to reach a standard of competence
and diligence.67 Thus, the Tribunal is likely to reach a decision to strike Bill off the roll or to
suspend his practicing licence.68 Bill may also be ordered to pay costs for the proceedings.69
Maeli
Maelis PM of incompetence, fraud and deceit70 may assist the Tribunal in establishing her
as not being a fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner.71 In addition, any
serious violation of ASCR is capable of amounting to UPC or PM. Accordingly, the Tribunal

57
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 ss 266, 267.
58
Ibid ss 276, 277, 282.
59
Ibid s 278.
60
Ibid ss 279, 280.
61
Steve Mark, Disciplining Frequent Flyers (2007) Without Prejudice June 2007.
62 Ibid s312.
63
Ibid ss 299(1), s 300(1).
64
Ibid ss 290(2)(a), s 299(1)(a).
65
Ibid ss 290(2)(b), s 299(1)(c).
66
Ibid ss 290(2)(e), s 306, s 307, 309, s 299(1)(f).
67
Ibid s 297.
68
Ibid ss 302(1)(f), s 302(1)(h).
69
Ibid s 303(2).
70
Morrissey v New South Wales Bar Association (2006) NSWSC 323.
71
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2015 s297.

15
Davy Zhou
z5017147
may make orders to reprimand Maeli, remove her from the registered roll of lawyers,
suspend her local practising certificate for a specified period, and/or order fine of a specified
amount.72

Alternatively, the OLSC may summarily judge the case if Maelis unethical conduct only be
constituted as UPC but not PM,73 and is satisfied that she is generally competent and
diligent.74 The Commissioner may order cautioning and/or reprimanding Maeli, a
compensation or impose a condition on Maelis practising certificate.75

Teena
As Sarats complaint will involve Teena in a cost dispute,76 in the pursuit for efficiency and
expediency,77 the OLSC will determine the consumer matter first by discussing resolutions
through arbitration and assigning orders where it is clear that the parties have attempted
negotiation.78
After the initial investigation, the OLSC will likely find Lisas conduct to be constituted as
PM through her contraventions of the ASCR79 as being misleading and deceptive;80 and
conflicting interests.81 There is a reasonable likelihood82 that she will be found guilty by the
Disciplinary Tribunal and the following orders will likely be made: 83 periodic inspections of
BSS84, ordered a fine of a specified amount 85, payment of the expenses of the order86 and
removal from the registered roll of lawyers.87

72
Ibid s 295.
73
Ibid s 282.
74
Ibid s 296.
75
Ibid s 299.
76
Ibid s 268.
77
Ibid s 317.
78
Ibid s 271, s 286, s 287, s 288, s 290(2).
79
Law Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2015 ss 3-4.
80
Ibid s 4.
81
Ibid s 10-12.
82
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, Disciplinary Action (10 August 2015) OLSC
<http://www.olsc.nsw.gov.au/Pages/lsc_complaint/lsc_disciplinaryaction.aspx>
83
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) r 301.
84
Ibid s 302(1)(d).
85
Ibid s 302(1)(l).
86
Ibid s 302(2)(a).
87
Ibid s 302(10(f).

16
Davy Zhou
z5017147

PART C

i) Bill Litigation

Behavioural Ethics Framework


Bill tailored the organisation towards the traditional adversarial advocacy approach given that
he built the firm based on its motto: fighting fearlessly for fairness. Recently, as a result of
preserving his longstanding client relationship with Nick, he has departed his original
lawyering method for the ethics of care approach which is concerned more with relational
lawyering and harm minimisation.88
Biases, Rationalisations & Ulterior Purpose
His communication with another solicitors client and ignorance of alternative solutions
clearly misalign with the professional values codified in ASCR.89 This slippery slope90 of
unethical behaviour led to dishonesty to Nick which directly contravenes the professional
values of honest and fidelity to the law.91 Bill may have possibly rationalised his unethical
conduct by persuading himself through appealing to higher loyalties with client-serving
explanations. It is clear that Bill is prioritising client interests by exhibiting an abuse of
process for Bill to bring proceedings for an ulterior purpose, in this case, focussed on his
own [Nick] innocence and saving money.92 Bills interpretation of these rationalisations and
notions are examples of confirmation bias that artificially validated his unethical conduct to
be justified.93 Further, cultural bias was shown when Bill decided not to call Nick whose
current hippie appearance might work against him. These rationalisations and biases would
have created an illusion in his mind that his actions were justified and possibly ethical.
Alternative Approaches & Implementation
As a founding partner and the only remaining, original partner, Bill had a position of power
and consequently believed he had the autonomy and capacity to make decisions without the

88
Christine Parker and Adrian Evans, Inside Lawyers Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed, 2014) 43.
89
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2015 S23.1, s7.1, s7.2.
90
Jean R Sternlight and Jennifer K Robbennolt, Behavioural Legal Ethics (2013) 45 Arizona State Law
Journal 1107, 1118.
91
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2015 r 4.1.2.
92
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509.
93
Scott Sonenshien, The Role of Construction, Intuition, and Justification in Responding to Ethical Issues at
Work: The Sensemaking-Intuition Model (2007) 32(4) Academy of Management Review 1022, 1029-1030,
cited in Jean R Sternlight and Jennifer K Robbennolt, Behavioural Legal Ethics (2013) 45 Arizona State Law
Journal 1107, 1129-1130.

17
Davy Zhou
z5017147
need to have ethics conversations with anyone. Moreover, Bill had become increasingly
focused on relational lawyering over the past years and because of this, she believed she was
doing the right thing by strategically using litigation and thus felt no need to discuss ethics.
However, Bill should have had a conversation with other lawyers in BSS in order to be
informed of the situation and to obtain a professional second opinion of the most efficient and
ethical course of action available for Nick. Additionally, Bill would more capable to deliver
more effective alternatives and to ensure that they make well-informed decisions using the
hyper-norm of relational lawyering as a communication platform to facilitate discussions.
Gentiles Giving Voice to Values (GVV) approach to values-driven leadership development
is valuable for instigating an ethics discussion.94 Pluralistic ignorance95 was an inhibitor
toward initiating an effective moral discussion in BSS. By using GVV, Bill is able to fulfil
her ethical duties as lawyer without upsetting and potentially losing a major client. Although
Bills behaviour could potentially be justified by his old age which possibly caused him to be
mentally unstable and to act irrationally, Bill should have sought professional help to
overcome such difficulties and thus, his behaviour was inexcusable and unjustifiable.
These strategies can be implemented through putting in place internal controls or
management programmes that seek to make sure that the whole organisation meets its legal
and ethical responsibilities, and guard against those responsibilities being forgotten or
trampled on. This would create a conscience throughout the law firm.

ii) Building Ethics into Law Firms

The absence of ethical discussion among Bill, Maeli and Teena reflections the lack of general
moral awareness in the firms legal culture. In an industry where commercial lines are not
clearly defined, lawyers are considered to be as problem-solvers rather than facilitators of
ethical discussion. Due to this, client autonomy is pursued with a compromise to the fidelity
to the law. Organisational factors which may promote this facilitation of an ethical
infrastructure are identified below.
Sexual Harassment Control
Having a new manager partner who lives out the values of integrity and fidelity and provides
the ethical leadership which ensures that all other systems are not only in place but practised.

94
Mary C Gentile, Values-Driven Leadership Development: Where We Have Been and Where We Could Go
(2012) 9 Organization Management Journal 188.
95
Sternlight and Robbennolt, above n 60, 1155.

18
Davy Zhou
z5017147
It might include the appointment of an ethics pattern or ethics committee to start a process of
organisational cultural change that culminated in the implementation of a state of the art
workplace ethics policy, including a sexual harassment grievance handling process. 96
Education, Training & Discussion
Furthermore, ethics education, training and discussion can be applied in the firm. The
misconceptions held by Maeli displays the significance for values of ethical lawyering to be
cultivated during tertiary study. Having a prolonged exposure and experience to different
approaches of professionalism, graduates would be allowed to enter the industry with a more
informed and pre-determined perspective of the values related with the various legal
frameworks. Through this, they may not be so vulnerable to the pressures and impact of other
senior employees and clients.97
Bureaucratic Management Practices
BSS may incorporate commercial pressure into legal practice by, for example, requiring
lawyers to meet certain billable hour targets, having client relations partners with the explicit
job of ensuring that other lawyers are making clients happy, and implementing performance
criteria and in-firm professional development all aimed at making sure lawyers meet client
needs.98
Other Strategies
The incorporation of written policies on ethical conduct in general, and in specific areas such
as conflict of interest, billing and litigation tactics would have prevented the unethical actions
displayed by lawyers in BSS. Additionally, specified procedures can be facilitated to ensure
ethical policies are not breached and encourage the raising of ethical problems with
colleagues and management. These procedures are to be maintained through constant
surveillance and monitoring of lawyer compliance. BSS can also facilitate internal
responsibility and other management/ethics systems within law firms for explaining fees and
communicating about problems with bills and costs, and avoiding and managing conflict of
interest.99
Conclusion
If these strategies are not led by managing partners with transparent and moral footprints and
do not incorporate controls explicitly aimed at promoting ethical behaviour, they may in fact

96
Christine Parker and Adrian Evans, Inside Lawyers Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed, 2014) 349.
97
Ibid 350.
98
Ibid 351.
99
Ibid 350.

19
Davy Zhou
z5017147
undermine ethical behaviour by putting pressure on lawyers to cut corners or do too much
for clients, and thereby undermine the value of the firms organisational capital.

20

S-ar putea să vă placă și