One way of communicating with people and keeping them updated with information is through digital communication. Law firms consider this as a possible way to communicate with clients when handling their cases. However, mistakenly sent information can become an ethical issue. This is called “attorney-client privilege”, meaning the attorney has the duty to keep all confidential information of the client private. Although, attorneys deemed digital communication as a great method this information can be misdirected and shared with the opposing party.
In Terraphase Engineering, Inc. v. Arcadis, U.S., Inc., No. C 10-04647 JSW (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2010). plaintiff’s attorney mistakenly sent a strategy email to his clients containing an attachment that contained plaintiff’s privileged recitation of background and comments to and from the legal counsel. However, the email
…show more content…
Yet, Arcadis opposed the motion and argue that the information received was not privileged since it was sent unsolicited to the plaintiff’s email. Arcadis further argue that the plaintiff would suffer no irreparable harm considering that the email would be disclosed during discovery. Arcadis also asserted that the email received was before the parties litigate therefore there was no rule of professional conduct violated. The court denied Arcadis arguments and disqualified the outside counsel and the in-house counsel, who had reviewed the information from the email. The court ordered Arcadis to dismiss its counterclaim and re-filed only without reference to any of the disclose privileged information. Therefore, the court granted the motion for a protective
...d to the appellant , yet the defendant company itself had no appropriate measures or policy for dealing with the sexual harassment.
However in correspondence of 21st March1952 the defendant instigated an alteration to the legal position of both parties, by offering to commence "without prejudice" the delivery instruction covering the balance of bullets, provided that the final delivery would not be made later than 30th September 1952. The plaintiff first repudiated this offer on the 3rd April, but by the 4th of June 1952, a second critical letter was sent out by the plaintiff's solicitor stating its acceptance of the defendant's offer. On 8th July 1952, the defendant propose that it will only purchase 800,000 bullets as opposed to the contracted amount of 1,800,000(less 200,000 which had been delivered and paid) as the contract on the 2nd August had not been accepted by the plaintiff which denied it. And no delivery instructions were given by the defendant on or before the 30th September.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
Wolford General Partnership (WGP) operates plumbing supply business which is also an exclusive supplier for certain stable construction firms. Because of its excellent reputations and services, WGP is able to an extremely profitable entity for the business. WGP uses an accrual method of accounting and has been using June 30 fiscal year for the tax report purpose after its election of §444 since its formation.
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Reasoning: The Court held that Mr. Faretta has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel. However, he may not complain later that he received inadequate assistance of and to legal counsel.
This case was taken to court, to federal court, where it was dismissed. However, Davis was not happy and pursued the Court of Appeals. During the trial, the court had to view the letter as a whole and not just as individual statements she claimed that the letter stated her opinions only. However, if it is
Since the end of World War 2, the technology one sees around them and uses everyday has grown exponentially. In the field of counseling, phones, fax machines, copiers, and computers are all used to run everyday operations and transfer information. Despite how great technology can be, ethical issues can arise because of it. For example, talking on the phone with a client in a crisis situation can create a condition in which confidentiality can be breeched. (McMinn, 1999).
First, it reads that Ms. Jones and Susan have maintained contact over social media and by phone even during times that the Jones case was closed. Though this may seem friendly and beneficial, it can actually harm the client. Through this process, Susan is creating a dual relationship between her and Ms. Jones. This contact and behavior between Susan and her client can be perceived as them becoming friends, not just client and professional.
The Work Product Doctrine provides limited protection on discoverable materials. It protects material prepared by the attorney or those working for the attorney, in anticipate of litigation or for trial. The work product doctrine is different than the attorney-client privilege. The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to encourage clients to make full disclosures to their attorneys. The purpose of the work product doctrine is to establish a zone of privacy for strategic litigation planning and to prevent one party from using the adversary's preparation. The exception and limitations of the Work Product Doctrine is that it does not cover document prepared in the normal operation of the client’s business. In
With regard to the attorney-client privilege, I have in my notes that the privilege protects information obtained solely based on the communication. Is this an accurate statement? I know that the privilege does not apply to the facts contained within the communication but the confidential communication itself. I guess I am a little confused and just want to make sure my notes are correct.
...court, be honest, use current cases (shepardize), and always be honest with the court. Paralegals are not to sign the attorney’s name under any circumstances and are not to misrepresent their selves at any time. When in doubt of the research project, ask questions to further help completing the task, and never be afraid to others for help.
The field of Law is a systematic practice that has not change much since its inception. As we embark upon the 22nd Century so must the field of Law. While many practices are ritualistic in their nature, they must make way for technology in addition to younger lawyers entering the field with a variety of skills sets. Lawyers must now make accommodations for technically savvy clients that have access to a wealth of information. With more demands being placed on time management and the struggle for work life balance and international industry, the field of Law will have to loosen its reigns on tradition and embrace the 22nd Century with an new openness in order to maintain a competitive edge.
When the internet was considered a global information system in 1995 millions of Americans participated in virtual communication. People began to communicate with each other and personal information began to be placed online by the stroke of the fingertips to their own computer. So the question is the privacy of individuals trusted online? Can people snoop around and see personal information? Of course people can if guidelines are not set in place to protect them. Public and private information can be complex when some individual(s) do not expect their communication to be read outside of their online community. What will be discussed are some ethical responsibilities that need to take place in the United States. Respecting the individual privacy and honor confidentiality is a must in this country.
Lawyers Weekly jan. 2005: N.p. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. . Staff, Proquest. At Issue: Technology and Privacy.